民法違約金酌減規定之若干問題

Some Basic Issues of the Power of the Court to Reduce the Penalties and Liquidated Damages

10.6199/NTULJ.2011.40.04.04

楊芳賢(Fang-Hsien Yang)

懲罰性違約金 ； 損害賠償總額預定違約金 ； 違約金過高 ； 酌減 ； 誠信原則 ； 辯論原則 ； 職權酌減違約金 ； penalties liquidated damages ； excessively high ； power of reduction ； the principle of good faith ； principle of the party presentation ； ex officio to exercise the power to reduce the sum of penalties or liquidated damages

臺大法學論叢

40卷4期（2011 / 12 / 01）

2127 - 2184

繁體中文

本文分析檢討民法第252條違約金酌減規定之適用對象、規定根據、性質、適用型態及酌減之考慮因素等。本條規定得適用於懲罰性違約金及損害賠償總額預定之違約金。本文認為，此一規定亦得類推適用至依契約約定逕行沒收債務人既已給付之情形；其次，民法第252條規定屬於誠信原則下不被允許之權利行使類型，而且性質上是實體法上之狹義抗辯，即法院得依職權斟酌事實而酌減違約金。但是法院得依職權斟酌事實有別於法院依職權調查事實，即法院得依職權斟酌事實而酌減違約金仍須遵守民事訴訟程序之辯論原則與主張及舉證責任原則。亦即在民事訴訟程序之辯論原則下，所謂實體法上之狹義抗辯，有別於德國民法第343條第1項第1句明定須債務人聲請法院酌減違約金，僅不須債務人在訴訟程序上表示行使權利之意思，因此即使是原告債權人本身之事實陳述得以認定違約金過高，法院亦得依職權斟酌事實而酌減違約金；此一情形，並未違反民事訴訟程序之辯論原則。最高法院大多數判決對本條規定採取法院得職權（斟酌事實）酌減違約金，值得贊同。反之，原告債權人陳述之事實並未能使法院確信違約金過高，債務人訴訟程序上負有主張及舉證責任；債務人應主張或舉證卻不為主張或舉證，或未能使法院獲得違約金過高之確信，應自行承擔不利判決之結果。此外，若干最高法院判決認為酌減違約金須達顯相懸殊或顯失公平之程度始得酌減，亦應予以肯定。最後，為貫徹保護債務人之意旨，判斷違約金是否相當或過高之時點，宜以事實審最後言詞辯論終結時為準。

This paper analyzes some basic issues on the application of Article 252 of the Civil Code which provides that where the ”penalty” agreed is excessively high, the court may reduce it to an appropriate amount. My focus is mainly on the objects, legal foundation, nature and the types of applications, and the factors that should be taken into consideration when a court applies this Article to reduce the agreed penalties or liquidated damages. Most Supreme Court decisions hold that Article 252 of the Civil Code is applicable to both the agreed penalties and liquidated damages. To be more precisely, I suggest that it is an analogue application of Article 252 when it applies to cases where an oblige forfeiture money paid by an obligor before he/she breaches the contract. Further, most Supreme Court decisions take the view that so long as there is a litigation between the obligee and the obligor, the court may ex officio reduce the agreed penalties or liquidated damages and there is no need for the defendant/obligor to request so and it does not matter whether the claimant or the defendant has provided the facts to the court that the agreed penalties or liquidated damages is excessively high. But if there is no fact for the court to take the view that the agreed penalties or liquidated damages are excessively high, the defendant has to present such facts, and if necessary, he must prove them. I take the view that the legal foundation of Article 252 of the Civil Code is the principle of good faith. My point is that even if Article 252 does not in existence, the obligee's right of claim to the agreed penalties or liquidated damages is still subject to the principle of good faith when the agreed penalties or liquidated damages is excessively high in comparison with all possible reasonable interests of the obligee. It is also worth noting that a few Supreme Court decisions also indicate that the agreed penalties or liquidated damages must be excessively high or remarkable unfair in comparison with all possible reasonable interests received by the obligee in case where the obligor had performed his/her obligation. Finally, the court's power to reduce the agreed penalties or liquidated damages should base on all the facts presented by the parties to the litigation before the second instance of the court concludes the proceedings where the parties make their final debate with arguments.

1. Beale, H. G.(1980).Remedies for breach of contract.London:Sweet & Maxwell.
2. Beale, H. G.(ed.)(2004).Chitty on contracts, volume I: General principles.London:Sweet & Maxwell.
3. Bucher, E.(1988).Schweizerisches Obligationenrecht, Allgemeiner Teil ohne Deliktsrecht.Zürich:Schulthess.
4. Cooter, R.,Thomas, U.(2003).Law and Economics.Harlow:Pearson Addison-Wesley.
5. Epstein, R. A.(1975).Unconscionability: A critical reappraisal.Journal of Law & Economics,18,293-315.
6. Farnsworth, E. A.(1999).Contracts.New York:Aspen Publishers.
7. Flume, W(1992).Allgemeiner Teil des bürgerlichen Rechts: Das Rechtsgeschäft.Berlin:Springer.
8. Gernhuber, J.(1983).§ 242 BGB - Funktionen und Tatbestände.JuS,1983,764-769.
9. Goetz, C. J.,Scott, R. E.(1977).Liquidated damages, penalties and the just compensation principle: Some notes on an enforcement model and a theory of efficient breach.Columbia Law Review,77,554-594.
10. Honsell, H.(Hrsg),Vogt, N. P.(Hrsg),Wiegand, W.(Hrsg)(2002).Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht - Zivilgesetzbuch I: Art.Basel:Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
11. Honsell, H.(Hrsg.),Vogt, N. P.(Hrsg.),Wiegand, W.(Hrsg.)(2003).Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht - Obligationenrecht I: Art.Basel:Helbing Lichtenhahn.
12. Kostkievicz, J. K.(Hrsg.),Bertschinger, U.(Hrsg.),Schwander, I(Hrsg.),Breitschmid, P.(Hrsg.)(2002).OR Handkommentar zum - Schweizerischen Obligationenrecht.Zürich:Orell Fuessli.
13. Kronman, A. T.(1983).Paternalism and the law of contracts.Yale Law Journal,92,763-798.
14. Larenz, K.(1988).Allgemeiner Teil des deutschen Buergerlichen Rechts.München:C. H. Beck.
15. Larenz, K.(1987).Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts: Allgemeiner Teil.München:C. H. Beck.
16. Leible, S.(2000).Die richterliche Herabsetzung von Vertragsstrafen im spanischen Recht.ZeuP,2/2000,322-341.
17. Lüke, v. G.(Hrsg.),Wax, P.(Hrsg.)(2000).Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: §§ 1-354.München::C. H. Beck.
18. Medicus, D.(2002).Schuldrecht I: Allgemeiner Teil.München:C. H. Beck.
19. Medicus, D.(1994).Allgemeiner Teil des BGB.Heidelberg:C. F. Muller.
20. Musielak, H.-J.(2005).Grundkurs ZPO.München:C. H. Beck.
21. Palandt, O.(Hrsg.)(2008).Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.München:C. H. Beck.
22. Posner, E. A.(1995).Contract law in the welfare state: A defense of the unconscionability doctrine, usury laws, and related limitations on the freedom to contract.Journal of Legal Studies,24,283-319.
23. Posner, R. A.(2003).Economic analysis of law.New York:Aspen Publishers.
24. Rawls, J.(1999).A theory of justice.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
25. Raz, J.(1982).Book review: Promises in morality and law.Harvard Law Review,95,916-938.
26. Rebmann, K.(Hrsg.),Säcker, F. J.(Hrsg.),Rixecker, R.(Hrsg.)(2003).Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch - Schuldrecht Allgemeiner Teil: §§ 241-432.München:C. H. Beck.
27. Riddall, J. G.(2005).Jurisprudence.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
28. Rosenberg, L.,Schwab, K. H.,Gottwald, P(2004).Zivilprozessrecht.München:C. H. Beck.
29. Sandel, M. J.(1998).Liberalism and the limits of justice.New York:Cambridge University Press.
30. Sandel, M. J.(ed.)(1987).Liberalism and its critics.New York:New York University Press.
31. Schelhaas, H.(2004).The judicial power to reduce a contractual penalty.ZEuP,2/2004,386-398.
32. Shiffrin, S. V.(2000).Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation.Philosophy and Public Affairs,29,205-250.
33. Smith, S. A.(1996).In defence of substantive fairness.Law Quarterly Review,112,138-158.
34. Soergel, Hs. Th.(Hrsg.)(1990).Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.
35. Stein, F.(Hrsg.),Jonas, M.(Hrsg.)(2005).ZPO - Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: §§128-252.Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck.
36. Stein, F.(Hrsg.),Jonas, M.(Hrsg.)(2008).ZPO - Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung: §§253-327.Tübingen:Mohr Siebeck.
37. Stürner, R.(2010).Privatautonomie und Wettbewerb unter der Hegemonie der angloamerikanischen Rechtskultur?.AcP,210,105-155.
38. Treitel, G. H.(1988).Remedies for breach of contract: A comparative account.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
39. von Bar, C.(ed.),Clive, E(ed.)(2009).Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft common frame of reference (DCFR).München:Sellier.
40. von Staudinger, J. (Hrsg.)(2005).Staudinger BGB - Buch 2: Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, Einleitung zum Schuldrecht, §§ 249-254.Berlin:De Gruyter.
41. von Staudinger, J. (Hrsg.)(2004).Staudinger BGB - Buch 2: Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, §§ 328-359.Berlin:De Gruyter.
42. von Staudinger, J. (Hrsg.)(2009).Staudinger BGB - Buch 2: Recht der Schuldverhältnisse, Einleitung zum Schuldrecht, §§ 241-243.Berlin:De Gruyter.
43. Wensing, H.-H.,Niemann, J.-M.(2007).Verstragsstrafen in Formulararbeitsverträgen: § 307 BGB neben § 343 BGB.JuS,2007,401-405.
44. White, J. J.,Summers, R. S.(2000).Uniform Commercial Code.St. Paul, Minn.:West Publishing Company.
45. Wothington, S.(2006).Equity.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
46. Zimmermann, R.(ed.),Whittaker, S.(ed.)(2000).Good faith in European contract law.New York:Cambridge University Press.
47. 王衛國譯(2006)。荷蘭民法典（第3、5、6 編）。北京=Beijing:中國政法大學出版社=China University of Political Science and Law Press。
48. 王澤鑑(2003)。不當得利。台北=Taipei:王澤鑑=Wang, Tze-Chien。
49. 王澤鑑(2000)。民法總則。台北=Taipei:王澤鑑=Wang, Tze-Chien。
50. 史尚寬(1978)。債法總論。台北=Taipei:史尚寬=Shih, Shang-Kuan。
51. 林更盛(2009)。論契約控制：從Rawls 的正義理論到離職後競業禁止約款的控制。台北=Taipei:翰蘆=Han-Lu。
52. 林易典(2010)。法院對於經支付之違約金數額的酌減／最高院九七台上一○七八。台灣法學雜誌，156，222-228。
53. 邱聰智(1993)。民法債編通則。台北=Taipei:輔仁大學法學叢書編輯委員會=Editorial Committee of Fu Jen Legal Studies Series。
54. 孫森焱(2002)。民法債編總論（上）。台北=Taipei:三民=San-Min。
55. 孫森焱(2002)。民法債編總論（下）。台北=Taipei:三民=San-Min。
56. 許士宦(2007)。民事訴訟法修正後審判實務上處分權主義與辯論主義之新發展（下）。台灣本土法學雜誌，91，9-32。
57. 費安玲譯(2004)。意大利民法典。北京=Beijing:中國政法大學=China University of Political Science and Law Press。
58. 黃立(2005)。民法總則。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
59. 黃立(2006)。民法債編總論。台北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
60. 韓世遠(2008)。合同法總論。北京=Beijing:法律=Law Press。

1. 許志榮(2023)。臺灣私立學校教師離職違約金之初探。學校行政，147，93-118。
2. 周兆昱、周兆昱、周兆昱(2018)。勞動關係中違約金條款之研究─以我國法院判決為中心。國立中正大學法學集刊，60，41-85。
3. (2019)。由應記載及不得記載事項看消費性定型化契約「內容監督」之發展與實踐──以預售屋買賣定型化契約違約處罰條款為例。月旦法學雜誌，290，21-41。