支持函之研究

Study on Letter of Comfort

本文以支持函為研究主題，首先介紹支持函的發展歷史、使用誘因與時機，再透過蒐集國內、外常見的支持函，將其予以歸納類型化，進而將其分為強、弱支持函之類型而展開討論。
關於強支持函，本文透過分析給付義務之內涵，以及比較其與傳統人保間之異同，將其定性成純粹的無名契約。至於當事人之權利義務關係，收受人之契約履行請求權，清償期應與主債務一致，若出具人未盡其補充義務，其應負債務不履行之違約賠償責任。另，面對收受人之權利主張，出具人不僅可以提出源於強支持函契約本身之抗辯（權），基於強支持函之從屬性格，其尚能提出與主債務相關之抗辯（權），以資防禦。
至於弱支持函，因其種類繁多，故本文按內容將其分為：確認一定事實之支持函、承諾不為一定行為之支持函，以及承諾應為一定行為之支持函。就後兩類之支持函，由於該應為或不為一定行為之承諾，已具有法律上之拘束力而得評價為契約，故若出具人有義務違反情事，其可能因此須負違約賠償責任。另就確認一定事實之支持函，其雖然無法被評價為契約，但在誠信原則的要求下，出具人有義務確保其所提供之資訊的正確與完整，如有違反，其應對於信賴該資訊而為交易之收受人，負信賴利益之賠償責任。

This research focuses on the letter of comfort. After introducing the development history, use incentives and timing of letters of comfort, this essay then summarizes and types them by collecting the content of common letters of comfort at home and abroad. The essay then refers to the classification of foreign literature to classify letters of comfort into‘hard letter of comfort (harte Patronatserklärung)’and‘soft letter of comfort (weiche Patronatserklärung)’with related discussions.
Regarding the hard letters of comfort, this essay characterizes it as a pure Innominate Contract by analyzing the connotation of its payment obligation, comparing its similarities and differences with traditional non-life insurance and insurance of the person. As for the rights and duties of the parties, the repayment period of the recipient of the letters of comfort for the request for performance of the contract shall be the same as that of the primary liability. In the face of the recipient’s claim, the issuer can not only raise defenses (rights) originating from the hard letter of comfort itself, but also based on the subordinate character of the hard letter of comfort, it can also raise several defenses (rights) related to the primary liability for defense.
As for soft letters of comfort, because of the variety, this article divides them into: support letters that confirm certain factual information, support letters that promise not to do certain behaviours, and support letters that promise to do certain behaviours. With regard to the latter two types of soft letters of comfort, since the promises that should or should not be certain actions are already legally binding, they can be evaluated as contracts. Therefore, if the issuer violates its obligations, it may be liable for breach of contract. As for the letters of comfort confirming certain factual information, although it cannot be evaluated as a contract, under the requirement of the principle of good faith, the issuer shall have the obligation to ensure the correctness and completeness of the provided information. The recipient of the transaction relying on the information shall be liable for damages due to the reliance interest.