論電子支付的基礎法律關係──以PChome線上支付與PayPal支付服務為例

The Legal Relationship in E-Payment: A Case Study of PChome and PayPal Online Payment Service

隨著電子商務的發展，關於電子支付制度的討論也愈發熱烈，特別是所謂的第三方支付。二○一五年更通過電子支付機構管理條例的立法，但此支付機制的運作，仍需透過銀行帳戶，只是在消費者與金融體系之間，再建立一道非金融機構控管資金移轉的機制。而對於金融支付系統中各參與者間的法律關係，過去的研究已有部分著作基於債權法的理論進行分析，此有助於法院從事具體個案的審判時，能以法律的觀點跨越金融業務的專業藩籬。對於未來各種推陳出新的新支付型態，要釐清其中更複雜的法律關係，勢必先深化金融支付系統中法律關係的探討。傳統金融機構的主要支付方式，包括銀行匯款、委託銀行付款／金融卡扣帳（debi tcard）、信用卡與支票等各種支付工具。過去在釋義法學（Rechtsdogmatik）上的相關研究中，所探討的問題可分為兩層次：在債篇總論上，探討銀行支付交易產生客戶間金錢債務清償效果的法律理論，以及在各論上，探討銀行與客戶間基於委任契約產生的法律關係。但此涉及到金錢／貨幣以及金錢債權的法律概念，以及銀行存款的法律性質，及其如何清償金錢債務的法律問題，有更進一步深入探討的必要。關於上述支付機制相關法釋義學上的探討，德國累積了豐富的研究資料，可資參考。而歐盟為建立歐元區統一支付領域（SEPA），於一九九九年至二○○七年頒布相關指令，德國將之轉換為內國法律，大幅修訂民法相關規定（§§675c－676c BGB），制定支付服務法制（Zahlungsdiensterecht），並對非金融機構經營支付業務者，訂定相關監理法規（Zahlungsdiensteaufsichtsgesetz, ZAG），其法制的發展，頗足為借鏡。

With the development of electronic commerce, the discussions on the electronic payment systems are increasing more and more, especially on the so-called ''Third Party Payment''. In reponse to such current, the Congress of Taiwan established the ''Act Governing Electronic Payment Institutions'' (hereinafter the ''Act'') in 2015. But the payment of the payment institutions stipulated in this Act should still be operated via the bank accounts, and thus, the Act only provided an approach to control the fund transfer between consumers and financial systems through non-financial institutions. Some studies based on the general theories of obligation law to analyze the legal relationship among the various participants in the financial payment systems, and help the trial court in specific cases to overcome the professional obstacles between legal and financial services. However, in order to resolve the legal issues arising from the innovative payment instruments, it is necessary to thoroughly analyze the relevant legal relationship within the financial payment systems themselves. The traditional payment instruments of the financial institutions are including credit transfers, debit transfers, credit and debit cards, and checks etc. Two issues were discusse in the past dogmatic studies; how the fund transfer via banks causes the legally paying-off effect between their clients, and what ist he legal relationship arising from the entrust contracts between banks and their clients. But since such two issues are further related to the legal concept of money/currency and monetary claims, legal nature of bank deposit, and, how the paying-off effect to the monetary debts occurs, they need to be more thoroughly discussed. In Germany, there are substantial amount of legal studies discussing the above-mentioned issues. And furthermore, transform the ''Single Euro Payment Area'' of the EU into its domestic laws required the EU orders issued in 1997 to 2007, Germany amended its Civil Law to regulated the payment services, and set up the relevant laws (ZAG) to supervise the non-financial payment institutions. Therefore, the legal development of Germany is worthy to make referrance to.