【摘要】： 加害給付又稱(chēng)積極侵害債權(quán),源于德國(guó),在臺(tái)灣地區(qū)稱(chēng)為不完全給付。其提出的初衷就在于彌補(bǔ)德國(guó)法上的漏洞,加強(qiáng)對(duì)債權(quán)人的保護(hù)。日本、臺(tái)灣等國(guó)家或地區(qū)也受此理論的影響。本文力圖就此問(wèn)題作廣泛的介紹,并試探性的對(duì)此予以分析和研究。 本文除引言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,分為四個(gè)部分: 第一部分回顧加害給付制度的歷史沿革,以德國(guó)民法和我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的民法為主線,比較研究德國(guó)法上的積極侵害債權(quán)與臺(tái)灣民法上的不完全給付制度,探討其規(guī)范目的及功能。積極侵害債權(quán)在傳統(tǒng)的《德國(guó)民法典》上并未規(guī)定,之后《德國(guó)債法現(xiàn)代化法》頒布的新履行障礙法,將傳統(tǒng)的“履行不能”與“履行遲延”與“積極侵害債權(quán)”相結(jié)合,彌補(bǔ)法律上的漏洞。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的不完全給付制度是與物之瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任并存的債的不履行情形,也在客觀上調(diào)整了加害給付問(wèn)題。 第二部分研究加害給付的構(gòu)成要件,通過(guò)分析德國(guó)以及臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的相關(guān)制度界定加害給付制度的概念和類(lèi)型。筆者認(rèn)為加害給付需要如下幾項(xiàng)構(gòu)成要件:(1)當(dāng)事人之間存在一個(gè)合法有效的合同關(guān)系;(2)債務(wù)人已經(jīng)履行了債務(wù);(3)債務(wù)人履行債務(wù)不適當(dāng);(4)債務(wù)人的不適當(dāng)履行造成了債權(quán)人履行利益以外的其他利益的損害;(5)債務(wù)人具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。 第三部分主要探討加害給付制度中的責(zé)任競(jìng)合理論,主要包括法條競(jìng)合說(shuō)、請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合說(shuō)、請(qǐng)求權(quán)規(guī)范競(jìng)合說(shuō)。以上的三種學(xué)說(shuō)分別從不同角度解決責(zé)任競(jìng)合情形下雙重給付的弊端,有各自的優(yōu)勢(shì),但也有自身存在的缺點(diǎn)。 第四部分研究加害給付制度中的精神損害賠償?shù)葐?wèn)題。傳統(tǒng)民法理論認(rèn)為精神損害賠償不能精確計(jì)算,不能通過(guò)合同之訴來(lái)給與補(bǔ)償,但在一些特定的合同中承認(rèn)精神損害賠償已經(jīng)得到大多數(shù)立法者的認(rèn)可與贊同。所以在加害給付造成受害人精神損害時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)允許其在選擇違約責(zé)任時(shí)一并主張,對(duì)受害人給予完全的保護(hù)。 最后,本文對(duì)整篇文章的重點(diǎn)部分做了歸納總結(jié),作為結(jié)論。 理論和司法實(shí)踐的發(fā)展為加害給付的合理解決提供了契機(jī),筆者深信,隨著法律的發(fā)展與理論界研究的不斷深入,加害給付問(wèn)題將會(huì)有更加完善的解決方法。
[Abstract]:Injurious payment, also known as aggressive infringement of creditor's rights, originated in Germany and is called incomplete payment in Taiwan. Its original intention is to close the loopholes in German law and strengthen the protection of creditors. Japan, Taiwan and other countries or regions are also affected by this theory. This paper tries to make a broad introduction to this issue, and tentatively analyzes and studies it. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts: the first part reviews the historical evolution of the injurious pay system, taking the German civil law and the civil law of Taiwan as the main line. This paper makes a comparative study of the positive infringement of claims in German law and the incomplete payment system in Taiwan's civil law, and discusses its normative purpose and function. Positive infringement of creditor's rights is not stipulated in the traditional German Civil Code. The new law on obstacles to performance promulgated by the German Law of Modernization of the German debt Law combines the traditional "impossibility of performance" with "delay in performance" and "positive infringement of creditor's rights". Fill a loophole in the law. The incomplete payment system in Taiwan is the non-performance of the debt which coexists with the imperfection guarantee liability, and it also adjusts the problem of injurious payment objectively. The second part studies the constitutive elements of injurious pay, and defines the concept and type of injurious payment system by analyzing the relevant systems in Germany and Taiwan. The author believes that the following elements are necessary: (1) there is a legal and effective contractual relationship between the parties; (2) the debtor has fulfilled the debt; (3) the debtor has not performed the debt properly; (4) the debtor has not properly performed the debt; (4) the debtor has made improper performance. It is the damage of other interests other than the creditor's performance; (5) the debtor is at fault. The third part mainly discusses the theory of liability concurrence in the system of injurious compensation, mainly including the theory of competing articles of law and the theory of normative concurrence of claim rights. The above three theories have their own advantages, but also have their own shortcomings. The fourth part studies the compensation for mental damage in the system of injurious compensation. The traditional civil law theory holds that moral damage compensation cannot be calculated accurately and can not be compensated through contract action. However, in some specific contracts, the recognition of moral damage compensation has been approved and approved by most legislators. Therefore, the victim should be allowed to claim the full protection of the victim when choosing the liability for breach of contract. Finally, this paper summarizes the key part of the whole article, as a conclusion. The development of theory and judicial practice provides an opportunity for the reasonable solution of injurious payment. The author is convinced that with the development of law and the deepening of theoretical research, there will be more perfect solutions to the problem of injurious payment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D913

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 牛登峰;加害給付請(qǐng)求權(quán)類(lèi)型化的研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2226482