為了處理定型化契約所發生之問題，各國均制定相關法律，以管制企業經營者的定型化契約，並保護消費者的利益。在使用定型化契約之實際情況下，如何保護消費者，如何防止企業經營者的權利濫用的問題，成為了不能依私法自治可處理的問題。在韓國，繼受西方大陸法系的基礎下，過去曾對於是否制訂定型化約款之必要性之討論，一九八四年起，政府開始調查及研究國內定型化約款之狀況，於一九八七年制定定型化約款規制法。本文將針對定型化約款是否屬於契約內容，定型化約款如何解釋，以及定型化約款內容如何規範，以相關法條以及判例敘述審查定型化約款之運用，並對於有待改善的部分表示意見。

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(法学) / 乙第13080号 / 論法博第194号 / 新制||法||159(附属図書館) / (主査)教授 佐久間 毅, 教授 山本 敬三, 教授 潮見 佳男 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

於承攬人履行工程承攬契約之過程中，有許多無定作人加以配合協力，即難以甚至無法進行之情形，常被提出討論之定作人協力義務包括「提供正確圖說」、「適時提供指示」、「按時提供合於施作之工地」、「關連廠商之協調」、「材料或借用設備之適時提供」、「遵期驗收」等。本文將依前揭脈絡，於簡述工程契約之基本權利義務關係，次介紹定作人協力行為於我國及日本承攬法制之狀況，再則比較我國公共工程契約範本、日本公共工事標準承攬契約約款9及FIDIC範本對定作人協力義務之規定，並分析我國公共工程契約範本與工程實務處理相關爭議面臨之問題，冀希提供未來爭議解決上一個可供參考之明確方案。

在現代社會中，信用交易普遍存在於每一個角落。急需現金之人，向銀行申辦貸款以應付生活所需；商品或服務提供人為增進消費者購買能力，同意以分期方式收取價金。利用不同形式的信用交易，可使個人之財務規劃有更佳之配置，對於企業經營者及金融機構而言，信用交易更是促進業績及繼續經營不可或缺之手法。然而，無論是消費者過度依賴信用交易、企業經營者或金融機構在定型化契約中設計不合理之約款，或為業績考量過度促銷信用交易，皆有可能對於整體經濟與社會造成傷害。我國在民國九十三年年底發生雙卡風暴後，社會各界對於信用交易多有檢討，本文則從定型化契約及現行法之規定，探討目前信用交易（以金錢借貸契約與分期付款交易為主）之法律問題。

特約條款於我保險法之體例中始終為一灰色地帶，不僅立法原意付之闕如，學術探究與實務應用亦呈二極化，學說上之論述多謂與英美法中之warranty相當，惟深入以視，英美法中之warranty可大致區分為海上保險之warranty與非海上保險之warranty，細分之又有數種迥異之類型，相較於我國之特約條款，於意義上並無法完全契合；於效力上亦有所扞格；加以實務界所應用之特約條款林林而群，種種而生，與我保險法之規定亦有矛盾，接踵而至的疑問，激盪出筆者澎湃之思緒，是以筆者乃自我期許能自不同之角度切入以觀，由比較中知其所異，由質疑中求其真意，不為任何權威所左右，所有之論述皆立於制度之原創性，希能抽絲剝繭，以明特約條款於我國法上之立意、內涵、功能，亦希冀實務界能藉本論文，掙脫出文字之泥淖與制式之束縛，俾能導正其觀念上之繆誤，以杜爭議，筆者擬分為六章論述: 首章述明本論文之研究動機、目的、方法及其範圍。第二章則以特約條款之立法沿革與立法目的為主軸，求諸立法文獻與學者意見，初探其核心，再輔以各國之立法例，並以對價平衡、特約條款之內容、warranty之立意等不同角度，切入其核心。第三章乃深入探究特約條款之法律性質與法律定位，相較英美法上warranty之分類與學者立論，相互其間是否全然契合無缺，並提出管見以測其圓融性，加以與其他相關法律概念如除外、不包括條款、據實說明義 務、基本條款、定型化契約條款等之比較，以明其相互間之差異與關係，使特約條款之真意與缺陷得以完全現形。第四章為效力層面之探究，首觀英美法上warranty之效力，次以我保險法上之架構，分為積極效力與消極效力，於積極效力之架構下探求主體義務人、違反特約條款之效力與解約後之相關問題；於消極效力之架構下，則論及例外事由與情事變更原則之應用，併論特約條款效力上之嚴厲性與矛盾性。第五章係就實務運作之情形以為研析，是否實務上應用之特約條款皆符我保險法上之意義？其效力是否與我保險法有所扞格？是否亦合其立法原意？是以筆者擬將其予以類型化，以明實務曲解特約條款之處。第六章，筆者綜合前述五章之相關爭點提出結論並給予建議，以竟全功。

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.

仲介契約在不動產買賣上應用十分廣泛，惟並非我國民法規範之典型契約，應如何適用民法典型契約之相關規定產生許多爭議。首要問題是仲介契約之性質與類型為何，本文將比較仲介契約與居間契約之特點後，認為仲介契約原則上核心範圍係屬居間契約。 其次，仲介人處於買賣交易雙方間將產生利益衝突，而仲介契約中有兩種類型的利益衝突：其一是仲介人處於賣方、買方間，買賣雙方因為契約角色的對立所產生的利益衝突，連帶影響仲介人對於買賣雙方所應負之行為義務，此點在仲介人同時為買賣雙方委託、代理時更顯嚴重；其二是仲介人如以企業經營者之角色，為確保報酬請求權的實現，預先擬定仲介契約條款，因企業經營者與消費者間地位不對等而產生之利益衝突。在仲介人處於賣方、買方間而面對之利益衝突部分，本文以忠實義務角度切入，確認仲介人之行為準則，並希望透過仲介人所負之調查及報告義務，減少仲介人立於交易間面對雙方而生之利益衝突。而民法本於誠信原則即可推導出附隨義務的存在，忠實義務與附隨義務雖是二種不同法系所衍生，內涵卻非截然不同。忠實義務在我國民法上雖未明文規定，但可透過我國民法第148條關於誠信原則之規範而具體實現於契約之附隨義務中，而在我國民法上覓得適用依據。 而在仲介人以企業經營者之身分，預先擬定仲介契約條款時，首先須仲介契約是否適用消保法。其次則須注意與仲介人之報酬請求權直接相關之直接交易禁止約款、違約視為完成交易約款以及朋分解約定金約款之效力為何。除此之外，斡旋金制度即屬為因應仲介人為確保報酬請求權之需求而衍生出之制度。但斡旋金之性質與效力在實務與學說上皆有爭議，且其與要約書制度之比較，亦值討論。 除此之外，賣方與買方因為不動產買賣契約發生糾紛，且仲介人就此糾紛亦有涉入時，賣方與仲介人之責任牽涉到不動產經紀業管理條例與民法之關係。又於賣方與仲介人均需對買方負擔損害賠償責任之情況下，二人所負是否為連帶債務，實有討論之空間。

本篇論文企圖探討史蒂芬‧佛瑞爾斯 ( Stephen Frears ) 的電影《美麗壞東西》( Dirty Pretty Things ) 中的公民權與人權之議題。片中描述從奈及利亞非法入境的奧奎 (Okwe) 與來自土耳其申請政治庇護的桑娜 (Senay) 因其游移的身分，遭逢英國政府監控與資本主義社會剝削，並揭露倫敦城市中非法難民販賣器官以求生存的黑暗面。本篇論文著重分析政治庇護者的矛盾身分如何擾亂民族國家的監視、暴露僅以公民權利保障境內人民的缺失，並主張唯有透過跨種族、階級，與性別的聯合 ( solidarity ) 才能對抗國家機制裡的矛盾與全球資本主義的剝削。論文第二章以德希達 ( Jacques Derrida ) 的制約款待 ( conditional hospitality )，與傅柯 ( Michel Foucault ) 的監視 ( Panopticon ) 概念，探討片中監控 ( surveillance ) 機制的形成。第三章引進布斯克與夏弗 (Alison Brysk and Gershon Shafir ) 提出公民權 (citizenship) 與人權 ( human rights ) 的差距，來揭發片中政治庇護者與外籍勞工在地主國 ( host countries ) 因為缺乏公民權而導致人權被忽視的困境。第四章從傅柯 ( Michel Foucault ) 的反抗 ( resistance ) 與拉克勞 ( Ernesto Laclau ) 與穆芙 ( Chantal Mouffe ) 的激進多元民主 ( radical plural democracy ) 的概念，探討以跨種族、階級，與性別的聯合 ( solidarity ) 來對抗國家制度本身的裂縫與經濟全球化的無情剝削。最後總結在全球化時代，唯有檢視國家制度的缺失，並揚棄封閉排他的意識形態，才能體現種族與文化的差異與多元性，並促進跨界聯合之實現。 / This thesis aims to explore the issue of citizenship and human rights in Stephen Frears’s Dirty Pretty Things. Dirty Pretty Things describes the British government’s surveillance on asylum seekers, such as Okwe, an illegal refugee from Nigeria, and Senay, the Turkish asylum applicant, and unveils illegal refugees’ organ trade in exchange for passports in London. The thesis attempts to decipher how the ambivalent status of asylum seekers disturbs the surveillance of nation-states, exposes the defect of the citizenship gap and argues only through solidarity among different ethnicity, class and gender, could the subordinated fight against deficiencies in the mechanism of nation-states and exploitation of global capitalism. Through the perspectives of Derrida’s conditional hospitality and Foucault’s Panopticon, Chapter Two examines the surveillance of nation-states on asylum seekers in Dirty Pretty Things. In Chapter Three, I adopt Brysk and Shafir’s analysis to explore the citizenship gap between citizenship and human rights in the film, which reflects the difficulty in handling the cases of legal and illegal asylum seekers in nation-states on the basis of citizenship in the era of globalization. In Chapter Four, I will utilize the perceptive of Foucault’s resistance and Laclau and Mouffe’s radical plural democracy to suggest how counter strategies and solidarity could rebel against fissures in nation-states’ apparatuses and reveal a new possibility of alliance beyond borders in the era of globalization. The last chapter concludes by summing up the gaps in the system of nation-states and rejecting any enclosed ideology so as to articulate multiplicities and differences beyond limitations of ethnicity, class and gender across borders in the era of globalization.