抵銷制度所具有之簡易清償機能與公平維持機能已廣受我國學說與實務承認，惟抵銷制度是否具有擔保機能一事，則尚未受到充分之關注與討論而仍存有疑義。 所謂抵銷之擔保機能者，係指在互有相對立債權債務的主被動債權人間，若被動債權人資力不足且同時對多數債權人負有債務時，身為多數債權人之一的主動債權人，可藉由抵銷權之行使，使其與被動債權人間相對立之債務立即消滅，產生主動債權人藉由抵銷權之行使，令自身債權獲得較其他債權人優先受償、主動債權如同受被動債權擔保般的效果。 此一抵銷權之擔保機能反映在法律規定上，與之關連最密切者，乃民法第340條。蓋民法第340條乃規範多數債權人（扣押債權人與主動債權人）於競爭何人得自被動債權人財產受償時，抵銷權行使應否受限制的問題。因此，若承認擔保機能為抵銷制度之本質機能，則在民法第340條之解釋適用上，即應擴大允許被動債權受扣押後抵銷權之行使範圍，使此一抵銷制度之本質機能得以充分發揮。 然觀察我國法將發現，目前我國學說對於抵銷制度本質上是否具有擔保機能，討論仍極為有限，此種討論不足的情況延伸至審判實務上，使各級法院在解釋適用民法第340條時，因欠缺理論基礎，導致對系爭條文之解釋適用存在有見解分歧、法律適用不安定的問題，凸顯了對於抵銷之擔保機能進行深入研究，並統一民法第340條解釋適用之必要性。 對上述問題，因日本民法第511條與我國民法第340條規範幾近相同，且該國判例學說長期以來已累積豐富之討論成果，可為我國法解釋適用之參考。在整理該國判例學說與修法動態後，可得出下列三點啟發：第一、「擔保機能」僅是多種「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的可能選項之一，其存在對於抵銷制度並非絕對。第二、日本法上對於民法第511條之所以存在多種解釋方法，此亦係肇因於其背後對於「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的選擇不同所致。第三、在決定是否以「抵銷制度本質具擔保機能」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」後，尚須注意此一結論是否能與扣押命令效力範圍、民法第511條之體系定位、期限利益喪失約款之對第三人效力等周邊問題建立邏輯一貫而無矛盾的解釋。 將對日本法之研究成果運用在我國法的解釋適用上，可自民法第299條第2項之規範方式推知我國立法者有意採取「對抵銷期待利益之保護」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」。考量民法第340條與民法第299條第2項同為抵銷制度下「抵銷對第三人效力」規範，故兩規範在解釋適用上應採取相同之理論基礎。換言之，民法第340條所規範的「抵銷與扣押」關係中，主動債權人之所以可藉由主張抵銷而獲得較扣押債權人優先受償的類似擔保效果，實為保障主動債權人對抵銷之期待利益所產生的事實上反射效果，並非抵銷制度本質上有何擔保機能存在。而在否定抵銷制度本質上具有擔保機能後，則可以此結論作為解決相關問題之起點，逐一推論出民法第340條應如何解釋適用，以及其他周邊問題的解答。 / Expediency in satisfying debts and keeping fair treatment among creditors are two major functions well acknowledged by academics and the judiciary in Taiwan. However, a possible third function - securing unpaid loans through claiming an offset (hereinafter referred to as securing function) - has not yet been fully discussed. The purpose of this thesis is to fill this gap in the understanding of the issue. Securing function of offset means that in the situation that two people are each others’ creditors and one of them is insolvent, the solvent creditor can assert their right of offset. To claim an offset allows a creditor/debtor to have his/her unpaid loans preferentially satisfied before other creditors’ claims. Allowing a creditor to claim offset results in the same effect as the creditors’ loan having been secured. In the civil code of the R.O.C, Article 340 is most relevant to the question of whether the right of offset includes the securing function. Article 340 stipulates that, “When an obligation has been attached by an order of the court, the third debtor of such obligation shall not take a claim which he has acquired from the creditor after the attachment to offset the obligation attached.” The question in point is: • whether the limitation on the garnishee’s right of offset is only limited to his counter claim against his creditor generated after the issuance of an attachment order, or • should it be expanded to all of his counter claims, including those generated before the issuance of an attachment order. The key to answer the abovementioned question lies in whether securing function is within the intention of the legislator in enacting Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. After scrutinizing essays related to the right of offset in the Civil Code of the R.O.C., it is clear that scholars in Taiwan have not discussed the questions enough yet. The lack of academic research results in considerable confusion in judicial practices when applying Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. Japanese scholars and legal precedents of the Japanese Supreme Court have been exploring the securing function issue of the right of offset for more than half a century. There is the same question regarding Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code, and the article is almost identical to Article 340 of the R.O.C Civil Code. We consider it to be helpful to review their research and take it as our reference. The gist of Japanese academic research and legal precedents regarding the above-mentioned issue, can be summarized as follows. First, acknowledging securing function of the offset right is not necessary in constructing the theory of the right of offset; second, explanations for Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code in Japan have not yet been unified. There are still controversies in Japanese scholars' research and legal precedents regarding the issue, as Japanese scholars and Japan's Supreme Court continue to offer various theories regarding the legislative intent of Article 511. Third, whether securing function can be considered as within the legislative intent of Article 511 further relates to the solutions to the following three questions: the scope of attachment orders, the role of the right of offset within the whole of the Japanese civil law system, and the influence of acceleration clauses. The above-mentioned research on Japanese law concludes that the legislative intent of the Japanese Civil Code is not to confer securing function to the right of offset, but to protect legitimate expectations of the debtors to have the chance of claiming offset. The same conclusion can be derived from observing the design of paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C., which regulates the influence of the right of offset on the third party creditors (hereinafter the “third party effect”). Paragraph 2 of Article 299 stipulates that, “At the time of the debtor being notified, if the debtor had the claim against the transferor [sic], and if such claim matures before or at the same time as the claim transferred does, he/she may claim for offset against the transferee.” To clarify, when a debt is transferred from the original creditor to a new creditor (hereinafter transferee), the debtor can only claim an offset against the transferee with a counter claim that matures before or at the same time as the transferred claim does. The same design in the Japanese law leads to the conclusion that the legislative intent in designing the third party effect of the right of offset is based on protecting the legitimate expectation of the debtor in having the chance to claim the right of offset. We propose that it is helpful to construe Taiwan’s system in the same way. To clarify the conclusion further, Paragraph 2 of Article 299 and Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. both regulate the third party effect of the right of offset. The same theory of interpretation should be adopted in order to keep the Taiwanese civil law system coherent. Article 340 provides that a garnishee can only claim the right of offset when his/her counter claim against the creditors originated before the date of issuance of the attachment order. We should construe that the legislative intent is to protect debtors’ expectation of a chance to claim an offset identical to the construction of the paragraph 2 of Article 299. Although the operation of Article 340 allows the debtor/creditor to satisfy his/her claim preferentially before other creditors under some circumstances, the so-called “securing function” of right of offset can only be considered as a collateral effect and is not within the legislative intent of the regulation. After denying the legislative intent of securing function of the right of offset, the thesis further clarifies the answers to three questions relating to the third party effect of the right of offset: (1) the limitation on the right of offset stipulated in Article 340 shall be construed as an exception in the civil law system of Taiwan; (2) the scope of an attachment order shall not reach the right of offset of the third party (garnishee) in principle; and (3) the acceleration clause shall not influence the rights of third parties.

No description available.

本論文於第二章討論信用卡法律關係及其交易流程，發卡機構與持卡人間之法律關係性質是消費借貸契約或委任契約？與循環利息、滯納金、違約金及手續費等問題相關。 第三章以發卡人與持卡人之契約相關規範及契約條款為研究範圍。如信用卡定型化契約範本、仍在研擬之信用卡應記載及不得記載事項、消保法等。信用卡定型化契約條款未規定審閱期間及猶豫期間條款，前者對於持卡人之契約內容資訊有重大意義，後者對持卡人之契約權益提供保障；信用額度，持卡人超過信用額度之應付帳款仍應負清償責任；帳單寄送乃發卡機構之義務，持卡人不得因遲延寄送而生給付遲延。關於信用卡紅利優惠，發卡機構可否任意終止相關紅利優惠；持卡人已取得之紅利優惠請求權，發卡機構可否任意縮減兌換期限，須從紅利優惠之契約性質認定為贈與契約或委任契約。信用卡之冒用於我國常發生，發卡銀行對此風險以定型化契約條款分配，依時間先後可分為：銀行概括免責條款、二十四小時風險分配條款、自負額條款。以此為基準，輔以各銀行之契約條款與法院判決進行分析檢討。亦將在之前討論持卡人與發卡銀行、發卡銀行與特約商店法律關係之性質基礎下進行討論。 第四章討論持卡人之債務履行及保證問題。循環利息：發生卡債問題，多數認為目前契約條款之循環利息利率過高，但論述理由與對於民法第205條之解釋適用有歧異。遲延繳款之違約金：發卡銀行可否於收取循環利息外，再以違約金向持卡人請求費用或損害賠償？應界定違約金性質，且考慮金錢債務之懲罰性違約金約定是否違反消保法之精神。逾期滯納金、手續費條款：性質究竟是懲罰性違約金或遲延利息，是否應與一般循環信用利息合計後受民法第205條限制。持卡人於發卡銀行有債權時，發卡銀行以定型化契約條款使自己取得抵銷權利對持卡人及持卡人之其他債權人是否合理。消費關係之討論，影響連帶保證及正附卡人之連帶責任，涉及保證行為可否適用消保法之爭議。正附卡人持卡人連帶清償責任之基礎為何，且附卡人與發卡銀行是否成立契約關係亦有疑義。

我國學者關於民法上抗辯權之著述，偏重於個別類型中重點問題的探討；本論文則係從總論的角度檢視抗辯權制度的共通問題。由於在抗辯權理論下，係以其法律效力—「排除請求權之實現性」，與強調效力的發生以抗辯權人之主張為必要—「主張之必要性」，作為該制度之兩大特徵；而質疑抗辯權制度之獨立性與正當性的學說，亦以撼動此兩大支柱為要務。是故，本論文即以抗辯權之「法律效力」及「主張之必要性」為兩大主軸，對民法上各個抗辯權進行分析整理，首先澄清何謂「排除請求權之實現性」，此等抗辯權效力所造成之法律狀態，與請求權消滅乃至於權利本身之消滅有何不同，是否仍不變動原有的法律關係，因而與形成權有別；其次探求強調「主張之必要性」的理由何在、能否貫徹，各該抗辯權以此特徵在訴訟法上與權利障礙抗辯及權利消滅抗辯區隔，是否均切合制度設計的意旨，並檢討目前學說實務對於訴訟上抗辯權主張之處理方式，是否能落實立法原意，或者有背道而馳的疑慮。 抗辯權制度起源於羅馬法時代程式訴訟中的exceptio，本屬訴訟法領域之概念，發展至今日卻成為實體法上權利，惟仍不脫濃厚的訴訟法色彩。因此，在抗辯權制度之研究上，諸多重要問題若未能兼顧實體法及訴訟法層面從事討論，往往失之偏廢而欠缺全面性的考量。有鑑於此，本論文整合了實體法及訴訟法之觀點，對於涉及此二領域交錯之問題，重新予以檢討，尤其，時值近期我國與德國民事訴訟法就相關規定均有重大修正之際，關於抗辯權之闡明與當事人及法院應盡之訴訟促進義務，更是著力的重心之一。 第一章緒論，提出研究動機及所欲探討的問題，並說明研究主軸、研究方法及論文架構。第二章介紹抗辯權制度之發展及其基本理論。第三章民法上個別抗辯權之學說與實務分析，針對第二章所列舉出之民法上抗辯權，以「法律效力」及「主張之必要性」為兩大主軸，個別討論其對請求權實現性之影響，以及抗辯權效力之發生，是否均以抗辯權人之主張為必要。第四章抗辯權之效力及其實現，首先整合第三章之內容，重新組織抗辯權之效力，以呈現「排除請求權之實現性」的具體內容；其次討論兩大爭議問題：已行使之抗辯權之「拋棄」，以及抗辯權排除債務人給付遲延責任之效力；最後檢討抗辯權與形成權之界線，思考抗辯權在實體法上之定位，是否能與形成權截然劃分。第五章抗辯權在訴訟上之處理，首先討論抗辯權之行使是否限於訴訟上主張，始生效力，被告在訴訟外主張抗辯權者，法院得否斟酌；又，訴訟上如何認定被告有無抗辯權之主張；其次討論法院就抗辯權之闡明權與闡明義務，指出向來通說實務關於得否闡明抗辯權之標準的問題所在，並呼應新法精神予以再檢討；最後，當事人及法院之訴訟促進義務亦屬不可忽略之一環，認為被告應於適當時期為抗辯權之主張，並在賦予當事人充分程序保障、防止發生突襲的前提下，透過爭點整理程序解決拋棄或撤回抗辯權主張之問題，同時確立兩造應受拘束之規範；而在法院善用現行民事訴訟法進行計畫性審理、集中審理下，採用一造辯論判決是否會不當剝奪被告主張抗辯權之機會的疑慮，應能降到最低。第六章結論，分為「從法制史中獲得之啟示」、「關於現行法制下之解釋及適用」、「關於立法論上之建議」三部分，總結本論文對抗辯權之過去、現在、未來的看法。