物之瑕疵擔保責任與侵權行為損害賠償責任在凶宅問題之適用──臺灣臺北地方法院一○四年度訴字第二四六四號民事判決與臺灣臺北地方法院一○四年度重訴字第三二○號民事判決

Research on the “Warranty for Defective Goods” and “Tort Liability” Apply to the Problem of “Inauspicious House” －Established in the Judgment Su No. 2464 (Taiwan Taipei District Court, 2015) and Judgment Zhong-Su No. 320 (Taiwan Taipei District Court, 2015)

「凶宅」一詞本不應成為法律用語，因為此一名詞與民間鬼神傳說有關，在過去社會中僅是鄰里間私下議論的話題，加之此類事件與當年講求科學辯證、破除迷信的社會氛圍相違背，因此不成為法律所必須處理的事件。近年由於房地產價格飆升，房地之購入成為一項龐大負擔，房屋內若有人因自殺或他殺而死亡，即難以再出租或出售，大部分人也不願居住其中，其使用，收益與處分之權能因此受到影響。此一問題在法律上之探討可區分為契約與侵權行為兩部分，契約法問題將從物之瑕疵擔保責任切入，而侵權行為之探討則須透過對侵權行為部分要件之解釋作為出發點。實務上關於所有權是否受侵害之點，傾向否定說，並認為該房屋或建物之「物理上」功能並未受損，房屋仍能繼續提供使用收益之功能。受影響者僅是該屋之交換價值，即「純粹經濟利益之損失」，屬於民法第一八四條第一項後段侵權行為之問題，但仍須自殺者具有故意與責任能力方能成立侵權行為。此一論述是否適當，本文將嘗試剖析侵權行為之要件，藉此使兇宅問題在法律上之解決方式更貼近人民之期待。

Due to this term related to the folk supernatural legend, the word “Inauspicious House” should not be regarded as a legal term. In the past society, C is only a private rhetoric of private discussion. In addition, such an event is not a case should dealt with by the law because it does not conform to the social atmosphere “emphasizing scientific dialectics and denial of superstition” at that time. In recent years, real estate purchasing has become a huge burden because of the rising of the real estate prices. Therefore, if someone in the house died because of suicide or homicide, the house is almost impossible to rent or sell, and most people do not want to live in the house of that kind of situation. The result is that the right (disposition, usages, and profits) on the house is seriously damaged. The discussion of this issue can be divided into two parts: the contract liability and the tort liability. In the contract law, the question of the study will be cut from the warranty for defective goods. In the tort law, the discussion must be through the interpretation of the tort liability as a starting point. The court took a negative attitude towards whether the murder or suicide is a violation of the ownership of the house. The court believes that the house can still provide the function of usages and profits, because those acts did not damage the physical function of the house and land. Since the house can still provide the function of usages and profits, the only value be affected is the “consequential loss”, which can only be protected by the second sentence of article 184, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code while suicider has “intentional” and “responsibility”. In order to make the legal interpretation of the Inauspicious House consistent with the expectations of the community, this article will examine the appropriateness of this legal opinion by analyzing the elements of “tort liability”.