|
|
| 篇名 | 凶宅與賠償（下）──一個法院裁判近20年來發展的現狀結算 |
|---|---|
| 並列篇名 | Haunted Houses and Compensation |
| 作者 | 吳從周 |
| 中文摘要 | 本文回顧法院近20年之裁判，梳理及結算迄今為止法院之基本見解。認為「凶宅」一詞，應該從民間風水學的一般用語轉化成為「法律用語」，或可描述為以下三者主要特徵：一、「建物內」（「專有部分之建物」）＋二、「非自然死亡」（「凶殺、自殺或意外死亡等非自然死亡事故」）＋三、「致生對於冤魂復仇侵擾之畏懼」者。 拍賣取得凶宅，法院如未公告「建物內有非自然死亡或其他足以影響交易之特殊情事」，其行為違反程序法上之誠信原則，應可主張民法第88條錯誤之規定聲請撤銷拍賣程序。 在凶宅自殺使租賃房屋成為凶宅之賠償爭議上，最高法院在系爭托嬰中心案中明確採取適用或類推適用民法第432條的否定見解，結論值得贊同。 在爭議最多的自殺使他人房屋成為凶宅，出租人能否依據侵權行為主張房屋跌價損失之問題上。本文期待另闢蹊徑，提出自殺行為是一種「法外空間」的行為，吾人應該放棄對自殺行為之評價，其應屬於「違法性模式」與「合法性模式」之二分法以外，各讓一步的「第三條路：既不禁止的也不允許的」模式。準此，凶宅應不具有侵權行為構成要件中關鍵的違法性，因此自然不構成侵權行為。 |
| 英文摘要 | This article reviews the court’s judgments in the past 20 years, sorting out and summarizing the court’s central opinions so far. It is believed that the term“haunted house”should be transformed from a general term in folk Feng Shui into a“legal term”. It can be described as the following three main characteristics: 1.“Inside the building”(“exclusive part of the building”) , 2.“Unnatural death" (“unnatural death accidents such as homicide, suicide or accidental death”) and 3. Those who“create the fear of revenge and intrusion by the souls of wronged persons”. If a haunted house is acquired at auction and the court fails to bulletin that“there is an unnatural death in the building or other special circumstances that may affect the transaction,”its behavior violates the principle of good faith in procedural law. It should be possible to claim according to Article 88 of the Taiwan Civil Code and apply to cancel the auction contract. . Regarding the dispute over compensation for suicide in a haunted house, which makes the rented house a haunted house, the Supreme Court clearly adopted the negative view of applying or analogy applying Article 432 of the Taiwan Civil Code in the beginning case, and the conclusion is worthy of agreement. In the most controversial issue of suicide that turns someone else’s house into a haunted house, whether the lessor can claim losses from the decrease in the price of the house based on tortious acts. This article hopes to show a new approach and proposes that suicide is an“legal-free space”behavior. We should give up the evaluation of suicide behavior. It should fall outside the dichotomy of“illegality model”and“legitimacy model”, and each should give in. The“Third Way: Neither Forbidden nor Permissible”model. According to this, the haunted house should not have the key illegality among the elements of infringement, so it naturally does not constitute an infringement. |
| 起訖頁 | 60-79 |
| 關鍵詞 | 凶宅、損害賠償、租賃物、毀損滅失、侵權行為、法外空間、Haunted House、Damages、Rental Property、Damage and Loss、Tort、Legal-free Space |
| 刊名 | 月旦法學雜誌 |
| 出版單位 | 元照出版公司 |
| 期數 | 202406 (349期) |
| DOI | 10.53106/1025593134904 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode | |
|
