遺產管理人是否負有主張時效抗辯之義務──兼評最高法院106年度台上字第2106號判決及其歷審法院見解

Whether the Administrator of the Estate is Obliged to declare the Extinctive Prescription Defense - Focusing on Supreme Court Judgment Case No.106, against Legal Transition

本件判決爭執之核心問題為，在不影響其他債權人公平受償的情形下，遺產管理人於清償債務時，是否應為了保護承認繼承人之利益而主張時效抗辯？本文透過無人承認繼承制度之存在理由切入，認為於遺產管理人為清償時，就債權人、國庫、承認繼承人三方之利益，應以承認繼承人之利益為優先。惟應如何保護承認繼承人之利益，涉及無人承認繼承程序中，究竟期待遺產管理人扮演的角色是暫時代替承認繼承人之普通繼承人，或是一位專業嚴謹的遺產處理者？如為前者，於遺產管理人未主張時效抗辯時，得透過無權代理或無權處分制度，將是否放棄時效利益之選擇權交還承認繼承人，但有程序拖沓、交易安全不穩定之缺點；如為後者，遺產管理人對承認繼承人應負有主張時效抗辯之義務，如遺產管理人未主張時效抗辯，應由承認繼承人依照內部關係向遺產管理人求償，但將出現於一般繼承程序中，繼承人本應自行承擔未主張時效抗辯之風險，於無人承認繼承中，卻可以將此風險完全的轉嫁給遺產管理人，形成無人承認繼承程序中，承認繼承人特別受到優待的缺點。最終本文認為應以後者為妥，且可透過本文反思，於一般繼承程序中，是否透過欠缺專業人士介入，讓繼承人不必承擔自行處理遺產之風險，同時亦更能保護其他利害關係人。

The core issue of this judgment dispute is whether, under the circumstances of not affecting the fair repayment of other creditors, when the estate administrator pays off the debts, should he declare the extinctive prescription defense for the benefit of the heirs? This article cuts through the existence of the unclaimed inheritance system, and believes that when the estate manager is to pay off, the interests of the creditor, the treasury, and the heir should be the priority of the heir. However, the protection of heirs' interests is depend on whether the administrator of the estate is a temporary ordinary heir or a professional and rigorous processor in the unclaimed inheritance process. If it is the former, when the estate manager does not declare the extinctive prescription defense, he may return the right to choose whether to give up the limitation benefit to the heir through the unauthorized agency or unlawful disposition system, but it has the disadvantages of procedural delays and unstable transaction security. If it is the latter, the estate manager shall be obliged to declare the extinctive prescription defense against the heir. If the estate manager does not declare the extinctive prescription defense, the heir shall seek compensation from the estate manager in accordance with internal relations. However, in the general inheritance process the heir should have assumed the risk of not claiming the extinctive prescription defense. On the other hand, in the unclaimed inheritance process, the heir can pass this risk on to the estate manager completely. Therefore, in the unclaimed inheritance process, the heir is given preferential treatment. In the end, this article believes that the latter should be appropriate, and through this article, we can reflect on whether there is a lack of professional intervention in the general inheritance process, so that the heir does not have to bear the risk of handling the inheritance on his own, and it can also protect other stakeholders.