類型思維下“具有人身意義的特定物”之認定——以《民法典》第1183條第2款爲中心

Identification of “Specific Thing of Personal Significance” under Type Thinking —Centered on Paragraph 2 of Article 1183 of the Civil Code

針對《民法典》第1183條第2款下“具有人身意義的特定物”之認定問題，司法實踐狀况不容樂觀，總體而言裁判上缺少科學的認定方法。既有研究對特殊類型財産進行了概念化的初步嘗試具有一定啓發性，但却存在嚴重邏輯問題，有動搖外在體系之嫌。在“具有人身意義的特定物”的確立過程中存在著窮盡特徵的困難，立法上呈現出概念空洞化之危險傾向，而在司法裁判中則存在著以“歸屬”替代“涵攝”的現象。本文認爲應將“具有人身意義的特定物”作爲類型予以考察。作爲“規範性的現實類型”，“具有人身意義的特定物”系立法者對準外觀的描述，包含了“具有人身意義”“特定性”“有體物”三項特徵。在標準外觀背後，立法者的評價觀點在於對安全與自由之平衡。認定案涉客體能否歸入該類型實際上是基於評價觀點從整體上把握其與標準外觀的相似性。首先，司法者應考察特定事實，獲得案涉客體之整體圖像。其次，可利用既有實踐中的三類典型案型及其規則網絡進行判斷。最後，就超越典型案型的疑難案件而言，認定工作有賴於司法者的價值判斷。對於最終餘留的裁判空間，在排除明顯不屬“具有人身意義的特定物”客體後宜做肯定性評價，防止出現有違實質正義的裁判結果。

Regarding the identification of “specific thing of personal significance” under Article 1183(2) of the Civil Code, the situation of judicial practice is not optimistic. In general, there is a lack of scientific identification methods in refereeing. Preliminary attempts to conceptualize special types of property in existing research are instructive. However, such an attempt has serious logical problems and is suspected of shaking the external system. There is the difficulty of exhaustiveness in the establishment of “specific thing of personal significance”. On this issue, legislation presents a dangerous tendency of conceptual hollowing out, and there is a phenomenon in which “attribution” is used instead of “containment” in judicial adjudication. Therefore, this paper thinks that “the specific thing with personal meaning” should be considered as a type. As a “normative reality type”, “specific thing of personal significance” is the description of the appearance by the legislator, which includes three characteristics of “personal significance”, “specificity” and “physical object”. Behind the standard appearance, the legislators evaluation point of view is the balance of security and freedom. Different from the traditional abstract conceptual thinking which emphasizes the inclusion of features one by one, determining whether the object involved in the case can be classified into this type is actually to grasp the similarity with the standard appearance as a whole. Judges should first obtain an overall picture of the object involved in the case on the basis of examining specific facts. Secondly, with regard to the more common objects, judges can make judgments by using three types of typical case types and their rule networks in existing practice. Finally, for difficult cases beyond the typical case type, the determination result depends on the judges value judgment. Regarding the final judgment space left for the judge, an affirmative evaluation should be made after excluding the object that obviously does not belong to the “specific thing of personal significance”, so as to prevent the judgment result that violates the substantive justice.