「對待給付不履行」與「給付目的不達」──最高法院110年度台上字第104號民事判決評釋

“Non-performance”and“Condictio ob rem”: Comment on Supreme Court Civil Judgment 110 Tai-Shang-Tzu No. 104

最高法院110年度台上字第104號民事判決：「按民法第179條所謂無法律上原因而受利益，係指給付之目的欠缺而言。為將來實現之目的而為給付，嗣因障礙而目的不達者，固亦屬之，惟如係基於契約關係而為給付，於契約仍有效存在，僅因負對待給付義務之受領人不依約履行，致給付目的不達時，因給付而受損害之人自應依債務不履行之相關規定行使權利，尚難因此逕謂受領人保有該給付，係無法律上之原因而受利益，得請求其返還。」
大致而言，此項見解，正確區辨「負擔行為」與「給付行為」。在此見解之下，有助於「給付型不當得利」及「債務不履行」二項制度，各得其所而各安其分，殊值贊同！

According to Supreme Court Civil Judgment 110 Tai-Shang-Tzu No. 104, the term“acquireing interests without any legal ground”in Article 179 of the Civil Code refers to the lack of the purpose of the performing. Even if a performance is made for a purpose to be realized in the future, it is considered to lack purpose if that purpose is not achieved. However, if the performance is based on a contractual relationship, the creditor may exercise their right under the provisions of non-performance, while the contract is still valid, when the counter-prestation ist not performed, and therefore, the purpose of the performing is not achieved. The creditor is not entitled to claim reimbursement under the provisions concerning unjust enrichment because this is not a case of“acquireing interests without any legal ground”.
Overall, this opinion correctly distinguishes between“purpose of contract”and“purpose of performing”. The insight has made a clear distinction between“performance-based restitution (Leistungskondiktion)”and“non-performance”, which is praiseworthy!