從日本債編修正談危險負擔之現代化

Modernization of the Law of Risk-assuming: A Lesson from the Japan's Revision of the Law of Obligation

我國民法關於雙務契約債務人根本不給付或不依契約本旨給付，對待給付義務存續的規定，可分為：第一、貫徹雙務契約存續上牽連的危險負擔一般規定（第266條）；第二、第267條因可歸責於債權人危險移轉之規定；第三、買賣及承攬危險移轉之規定；及第四、繼續性契約關係危險負擔之規定。第一及第二部分之規定，兼採1900年德國民法及1896年日本民法之精華，第三及第四，則為前者之繼受。因契約解除亦使未為之對待給付義務消滅，若法定契約解除權不再以歸責事由為必要，以不可歸責於雙方當事人給付不能對待給付義務當然消滅之危險負擔一般制度，並無存在的必要。德國及日本債編修正過程，在以契約解除歸責事由不必要論之基礎上，危險負擔一般規定之存廢，議論盈庭。我國如火如荼進行中的債編修正，若也踏襲不以歸責事由為要件，則危險負擔一般規定不再有存在的必要。若必欲保留危險負擔一般規定，則仍應以不可歸責於雙方當事人而給付不能為要件。

The provisions of our civil law on the existence of the obligation to perform if the debtor does not perform at all or does not perform in accordance with the original purpose of the contract can be divided into four parts: first, the general provisions of risk-assuming regarding the reciprocal contract (Article 266); second, Article 267 provides for the passing of risks when the impossibility of performance is attributable to the creditor; third, the provisions on the passing of risks on contract of sales and works; and fourth, the provisions on the assuming of risks on continuous contract. The provisions of Parts 1 and 2 draw on the essence of the German Civil Code of 1900 and Japanese Civil Code of 1896, and the third and fourth parts are the successors of the former. If non-fault on both sides of parties of a contract is no longer necessary for the effect of the statutory rights to terminate, owing to the fact that the termination of contract can lead to the absolve of the duty to perform, the general provisions of the risk-assuming are dispensable. During the revision process of the German and Japanese law of obligation, based on the theory that the attribution is unnecessary for the termination of contract, the existence and abolition of the general provisions on dangerous burdens has been thoroughly evaluated. In Taiwan, the reform of the law on breach of contract is in full swing. If the requirement of fault on the default party is going to abolish de lege ferenda, the general rules on the risk-assuming will be unnecessary. If we are going to retain this kind of rule anyway, it should be applied only when that impossibility of performance cannot be attributed to the parties.