| 關 鍵 詞： |
連帶債務；不真正連帶債務；讓與請求權；侵權行為；債務不履行；同一階層；求償；內部分擔；人格權；過失相抵 |
| 中文摘要： |
我國目前學說實務將數債務人基於各自原因，對於債權人負同一給付義務情形，限於當事人有明示之意思或法律規定為連帶債務者，始認為符合民法第 272 條規定而構成連帶債務，其餘情形均構成不真正連帶債務。而連帶債務人之間求償關係，應適用民法第 280 條、第 281 條之規定，通說並認為民法第 218 條之 1 規定應適用於不真正連帶債務。則不真正連帶債務如符合有物或權利喪失或損害致生賠償義務，且被害人對第三人有請求權之情形，當應有民法第 218 條之 1 規定之適用。惟實際上實務適用民法第 218 條之 1 規定情形甚少，國內學者討論者稀。故本文嘗試以與我國民法第 218 條之 1 立法形式相近之德國民法第 255 條規定於德國實務學說上適用討論，比較我國民法第 218 條之 1 適用是否有應予調整之處，而認為依我國民法體系解釋，本條所謂權利應包括人格權在內，且得援用強制汽車責任保險代位法理，目的性限縮民法第 195 條第 2 項規定於本條適用情形。而被害人對於部分賠償義務人之損害賠償請求權如有構成契約與侵權行為競合者，形式上多數賠償義務人可能不構成連帶債務，但將造成因被害人偶然適用契約請求權而為相異處理結果，故應擴大使該多數賠償義務人仍適用連帶債務人間求償之規定，果屬不同階層者，方有民法第 218 條之 1 之適用，且無論連帶債務人間或適用民法第 218 條之 1 之多數賠償義務人間，均應得類推適用民法第 217 條與有過失規定，以調整其責任分擔關係。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Joint-Obligation；Quasi-Joint-Obligation；Entitlement to Transfer of Claims；Torts；Breach of Contract；Same Level of Liability；Reimbursement；Respective Shares in the Prestation；Right of Personality；Contributory Negligence |
| 英文摘要： |
According to our judicial practice and related literatures, several persons undertaking the obligation to compensate the same damage under respective liabilities but not the joint-obligation of Article 272 of the Civil Code will be regarded as quasi-joint-obligation. The claim between the joint-obligation obligors shall be applied to Articles 280 and 281 of the Civil Code. It is said that Article 218-1 of the Civil Code shall apply to quasi-joint-obligation debts. If the quasi-joint-obligation debts is in compliance with the requirements of Article 218-1, and the injured person has the claim to a third party, Article 218-1 of the Civil Code shall apply in the case. However, in practice, Article 218-1 is hardly applicable except in very limited circumstances.
Therefore, this article attempts to observe the practical and doctrine discussion on Article 255 of the German Civil Code, and considerate whether there is any need for the adjustment to the application of Article 218-1. It is believed that according to the interpretation of our civil law system, the so-called rights in Article 218-1 should include right of personality, and the theory of subrogation of compulsory liability insurance to restrict the application of Article 195, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, shall apply in the case. On the other hand, if the injured person’s claim for the part of obligors constitutes infringement and contractual liability, it should be expanded so that the indemnity relationship of obligors still applies the provisions for joint-obligation. And only if those debts belongs to different classes, Article 218-1 shall be applied. Also, the compensation obligations of the joint obligors or the dobligors in Article 218-1 shall apply to Article 217 of the Civil Code by analogy to adjust their relationship in responsibility sharing.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、規範目的
參、讓與請求權發生之要件
肆、讓與請求權之行使
伍、關於讓與請求權之若干疑問
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|