論定作人不履行協助義務時承攬人的損害賠償請求權——兼論《民法典》第778條的解釋

On the Right of the Contractor to Claim Damages when the Order Party Fails to Perform the Duty of Assistance —Also on the Interpretation of Article 778 of the Civil Code

《民法典》第778條規定，定作人不履行承攬人履行合同所必要的協助義務且經承攬人催告無果時，承攬人可解除合同。然而與承攬合同一章中的定作人任意解除並列比較，本條的問題在於未規定解除後對承攬人的賠償問題。通過對《民法典》第778條和第787條在實務中的關係進行統合分析，並參考德國、日本等域外民法學說和司法實務，基於我國的《民法典》框架，可對第778條和第584條進行解釋論作業，保障承攬人的合同利益。具體而言，定作人拒絕履行必要的協助義務，使得承攬人不得不解除合同時，對於承攬人已經完成的承攬工作，其享有的報酬請求權不受影響；對於尚未完成的工作，承攬人同樣有權依照合同約定向定作人請求，但應扣除承攬人因合同解除而獲得的利益。

Article 778 of the Civil Code stipulates that when the ordering party fails to perform the obligation of assistance necessary for the contractor to perform the contract and the appeal fails, the contractor may rescind the contract. Compared with the case of rights, the problem with this article is that it does not stipulate the issue of compensation by the order party to the contractor at this time. Through an integrated analysis of the relationship between Articles 778 and 787 of the Civil Code in practice, and with reference to foreign civil law doctrines and judicial practices such as Germany and Japan, it is possible to adopt a comprehensive analysis of Articles 778 and 787 under the current framework of the Civil Code. The interpretation of Article 584 ensures that the contractor’s performance interests are protected. Specifically, when the contractor has to rescind the contract due to the refusal of the order party to perform the necessary assistance obligations, the contractor’s right to claim remuneration for the work that has been completed by the contractor will not be affected; for the work that has not been completed, the contractor will also have the right to request from the order party in accordance with the contract, but the benefits obtained by the contractor due to the rescission of the contract shall be deducted.