談法院針對債務人必要生活費用之認定情形！──消費者債務清理條例

On The Court’s Determination of the Debtor’s Necessary Living Expenses

2018年11月30日增訂消費者債務清理條例第64條之2規定：「債務人必要生活費用，以最近一年衛生福利部或直轄市政府所公告當地區每人每月最低生活費一點二倍定之。」、「受扶養者之必要生活費用，準用第一項規定計算基準數額，並依債務人依法應負擔扶養義務之比例認定之。」
本條增訂為更生與清算程序中重大突破，明定債務人必要生活費支出計算標準，且債務人無須列舉支出明細及提供消費單據。查我國大部分法院認定債務人及受扶養者必要生活費用，依上開規定即每人每月最低生活費1.2倍計算，惟仍有少數法院法官違反上開規定，受扶養者即未成年子女及父母必要生活費用以最低生活費8成或7成計算或以最生活費1.2倍8成、7成、6成計算。
臺灣高等法院111年度消債抗字第4號民事裁定認定法院不應自行裁量受扶養者之最低生活基準低於消債條例第64條之2第2項規定，此觀其立法理由即明。換言之，債務人、受扶養者即未成年子女及父母必要生活費1.2倍係法律明定，法官無自行裁量權。
再者，於債務人及受扶養者即未成年子女及父母無租金支出之案例中，少數法院法官認其必要生活費用須扣除房租支出所占比例約為24.36%，此亦違反消債條例第64條之2規定。有關債務人及受扶養者生活必要費用之操作，我國司法實務有待改進及檢討，故提出若干個人淺見作結。

The newly added Article 64-2 of the Consumer Debt Clearance Act, as amended on November 30, 2018, stipulates: “The necessary living expenses required by the debtor shall be determined to be 1.2 times the minimum living expense per month per person as publicly announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare or the municipal government for that area in the latest year,” and “The amount of necessary living expenses for any supported person shall be calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the calculation standards under paragraph 1, and shall be determined according to the proportion of the support obligations legally assumed by the debtor.”
This amendment marks a significant breakthrough in both the rehabilitation and liquidation process, clearly defining the calculation standard for the debtor’s necessary living expenses, without requiring the debtor to itemize expenses or provide receipts. In practice, most courts in our country have determined that the necessary living expenses for debtors and their dependents should be calculated at 1.2 times the minimum living expenses per person per month as per the aforementioned amendment. However, a minority of judges have violated this regulation by calculating the necessary living expenses for dependents, including minor children and parents, at 80% or 70% of the necessary living expenses, or at 80%, 70%, or 60% of 1.2 times the minimum living expenses.
The Taiwan High Court, in its Civil Ruling （111年消債抗字第4號民事裁定）, stated that the court should not arbitrarily set the minimum living standard for dependents below the stipulated 1.2 times the minimum living expenses as per the second paragraph of Article 64-2 of the Consumer Debt Clearance Act. This is evident from the legislative intent. In other words, the necessary living expenses of the debtor and their dependents, including minor children and parents, at 1.2 times the minimum living expenses is a statutory provision, and judges do not have the discretion to alter it.
Additionally, in cases where the debtor and their dependents, including minor children and parents, do not have rental expenses, some judges have reduced the necessary living expenses by approximately 24.36%, accounting for the proportion of rent expenditure, which also violates the provisions of Article 64-2 of the Consumer Debt Clearance Act.
The practical application of necessary living expenses for debtors and their dependents in our judiciary still requires improvement and review. Therefore, I conclude with some personal insights.