法人與代表人「執行職務」有關責任之探討──以詐領保險公司佣金案為例

Discussion on the Responsibilities Related to the Execution of Duties by Legal Persons and Representatives: A Case of Fraudulent Insurance Company Commissions

向來司法實務援引民法第188條「執行職務」之標準解釋民法第28條「執行職務」，認為「外觀上」或「具有牽連關係」之行為均屬執行職務範圍，惟排除代表人個人犯罪行為，自【詐領保險公司佣金案】之法院判決均得見此標準。然而，最高法院108年度台上字第2035號民事判決作成法人侵權責任統一見解，將影響法人責任體系，民法第28條若維持法人「自己行為責任」之定性，不僅無法與民法第184條區隔，亦使法人侵權責任過度連結自然人侵權責任，在晚近社會發展中難以論斷法人責任。本文以為民法第28條應重新定位為「他人行為責任」，方合於條文之責任要件與法律效果。因代表關係之特殊性對於交易安全產生衝擊，故法人於規範上應監控代表人行為，並為代表權人之侵權責任負擔他人行為責任。基此，民法第28條「執行職務」之標準，本文認為應考量被害人是否具備正當信賴作為執行職務之認定，相較於「外觀」或「牽連關係」之判斷，更貼合理論基礎，且不當然排除代表人個人犯罪行為。

In judicial practice, Article 28 of the Civil Code has been interpreted by the standard of Article 188 of the Civil Code as“performing duties”, and it is considered that acts“in appearance”or“in connection with”are within the scope of performing duties, but the personal criminal acts of the representative are excluded, and this standard can be seen from the court's decision of the“Fraudulent Insurance Company Commissions”.
However, in the Supreme Court's judgment Tai-Sheng No. 108-2035, which established a unified interpretation of corporate liability for tortious acts, the existing system of corporate responsibility will be affected. If Article 28 of the Civil Code maintains the characterization of“liability for one's own acts”of legal persons, it will not only be impossible to distinguish from Article 184 of the Civil Code, but also make the liability of legal persons for infringement of rights too much linked to the liability of natural persons for infringement of rights, which makes it difficult to determine the liability of legal persons in the recent development of society. In this paper, we believe that Article 28 of the Civil Code should be repositioned as“liability for the acts of others”in order to be consistent with the elements of liability and legal effects of the provision.
Given the special nature of the representative relationship and its impact on transaction security, corporations should monitor the actions of their agents and assume third-party liability for the tortious acts of their representatives. Therefore, in determining whether an act falls within the scope of the performance of official duties under Article 28 of the Civil Code, this article suggests that consideration should be given to whether the victim had legitimate trust in the agent's actions. This approach is more in line with theoretical foundations and does not necessarily exclude personal criminal acts of the agent in the determination of the performance of official duties.