論暴利行為：兼評最高法院103年度台上字第2445號判決

The Study of Judicial Act of Profiteering

民法有兩個內容完全空洞而待評價加以補充的概括條款，除了誠信原則以外，另一個則為「公序良俗」（民法第72條），均有待具體化與案例類型化，作為民事法院詮釋性展現的對象。誠信原則探討之文獻甚多，不勝枚舉，但相較而言，公序良俗文獻則甚少。其中特別更被忽略者，則是民法第74條之暴利行為。暴利行為在德國，是屬於公序良俗之特殊型態，本質上雖也是一種公序良俗的違反型態，但已經具體化有其完整的構成要件與效果，因此對於「暴利行為」內涵之釐清，也是屬於公序良俗條款具體化研究之一環。法律規定禁止暴利行為制度，主要目的本是要保護處於經濟上弱勢之人免於經濟上受到剝削，參考刑法上重利罪規定而增訂，原為處理有償對待給付行為中典型的消費借貸牟取高額利息暴利（借貸暴利型）及利用承租人住宅租賃之弱勢而牟取高額租金（租賃暴利型）之法律行為。然而，對照我國實務上出現之三種主要類型的歸納結果，包括「撤銷和解契約型」、「撤銷工程協議型」及「撤銷離婚協議型」，卻多為德國法所無，而發展出概括條款具體化之本土性案例類型特色。

Civil Code there are two main significant general provisions which need to be specialized through case-types by civil courts. In addition to the principle of good faith, the other general provision namely is ''public order and good morals'' (Article 72 of the Civil Code). However, in comparison to the former one which owns so many literatures relating to the principle of good faith, the latter apparently lacks researching. What amongst particularly overlooked is the Civil Code Article 74 regarding the Judicial Act of Profiteering. In Germany, Profiteering is a special form against public order and good morals. Although in essence it is subtype of violation of public order, but it already has its own composition of the elements and effects. Therefore, the study of profiteering belongs to the study of specification of the public order. The main purpose of the provision of the profiteering system which refers mainly to the criminal law on the provisions of the increased heavy interest is to protect the economically disadvantaged consumers from the economic exploitation. The original idea is to deal with the typical judicial acts of payment of the consumer loans to obtain high interest Profiteering (borrowing and profiteering type) and the judicial acts of taking advantage of the weak statute of lessee by rental lease to seek high rent (leased profits type). Nevertheless, the three main types of practice summarized by Taiwan's decisions of Supreme Court in this article, including ''revocation of reconciliation contract type'', ''revocation of construction contract type'' as well as ''withdrawal of divorce agreement type'' could not found in German literature and has developed our own case type with domestic characteristics. In conclusion, according to the result of this research, it is found that the basic elements of the interpretation and understanding of profiteering for our courts while applying the law is still inadequate. Through the analysis of No. 2445 of year 2014 of the judgment of the Supreme Court (case revocation of divorce agreement), it is to indicate its misunderstandings of the interpretation.