法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 債務清理程序之撤銷權制度與撤銷訴訟(Avoidance Proceedings in the Insolvency Law)
編著譯者: 沈冠伶
出版日期: 2011.09
刊登出處: 台灣/國立臺灣大學法學論叢第 40 卷 第 3 期 /1175-1254 頁
頁  數: 79 點閱次數: 3530
下載點數: 316 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 國立臺灣大學法律學院
關 鍵 詞: 破產法消費者債務清理債務清理法債權人撤銷權撤銷訴訟詐害債權偏頗行為債權人平等對待原則國際債務清理程序
中文摘要: 本文以現行破產法、消費者債務清理條例及債務清理法(原破產法)草案中有關撤銷權及撤銷訴訟之規定為研究對象,探討其與民法上債權人撤銷權及撤銷訴訟之異同,並比較分析我國規定與德國法之同異及優劣,進而處理國際債務清理程序中所生之相關爭議問題。
債務清理程序之撤銷權與民法 244 條撤銷權制度皆有使債務人逸脫之財產予以回復之機能,增加債權人獲得滿足之可能,但二者仍有所差異。後者由個別債權人為自己債權之實現而行使;前者則依「債權人平等對待原則」,由債務清理管理人為全體債權人之滿足而行使,但基於法安定性及撤銷相對人(受益人)信賴保護之要求,亦宜有所限制,以兼顧撤銷相對人之利益。
消費者債務清理條例及債務清理法(原破產法)草案就撤銷權制度有相當程度之修正,更能有助於管理人行使撤銷權與遂行訴訟。在構成要件上,以「有害及債權人」作為一般性之要件,並在類型上,進一步區分為詐害債權之撤銷與偏頗行為之撤銷,較之於現行法更為完整,有助於保障債務清理債權人之權益,但仍較德國法簡略。此外,由於立法例上各國就撤銷權行使之期間、對象及要件有若干差異,故在國際債務清理事件中之國際審判管轄權及撤銷權準據法之決定成為重要問題。

英文關鍵詞: Bankruptcy LawConsumer Insolvency LawInsolvency Lawavoidance proceedingscreditor’s right to revokeavoidable transactionsfraudulent transactionspreferential transactionsprinciple of equal treatment of creditorsinternational insolvency
英文摘要: This article examines the avoidance right in insolvency proceedings as compared to the creditors’ right to revoke fraudulent transfers in Taiwan’s Civil Code, while also undertaking a pro and con comparision with German Law. In additional, avoidance of transactions in international Insolvency is also treated by discussing a concrete case. Because avoidance criteria and the suspect period for avoidable transaction differ country by country, the international jurisdiction and choice of law are important issues in international insolvency cases. The purpose of the avoidance actions in insolvency law and creditor’s revoking right (Article 244 of civil code) are both to preserve assets of the estate for creditors, however there are some differences between the former and the latter. The latter is conducted by a specific creditor to make sure his own claims can be satisfied, the former is conducted by the insolvency administrator to satisfy all creditors. But the implementation of “the principle of equal treatment of creditors” combined with “the principle of legal protection on basis of good faith” and “the principle of legal certainty”, protect the interests of the opponent of the avoidance.
There are some amendments for the avoidance rules in Consumer Insolvency Law and the draft of Insolvency Law, in which are both more complete than current Bankruptcy Law, but still more concise than German Law.
There is no need to sue the debtor as a dependant, which makes the insolvency administrator’s work progress more smoothly. In the structure, “prejudice toward the rights of the creditor” is taken as a general constitutive element, and then distinguished into two types: voidable fraudulent transfers and voidable preference.

目  次: 壹、前言
貳、債務清理撤銷訴訟與債權人撤銷訴訟之同異
一、撤銷權行使方式及撤銷權之定性
二、撤銷權之實體歸屬主體與撤銷訴訟之當事人適格
參、債務清理事件之撤銷原因
一、比較法之觀察:以德國法為中心
二、我國法之特色及評析
肆、國際債務清理之撤銷權訟爭事件
一、國際債務清理撤銷權之準據法
二、外國管理人於我國提起訴訟
伍、結論

相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列