德國民法工程契約中承攬債權擔保之研究與台灣法制之借鑑


黃 立

中文摘要

德國聯邦上議會於2017 年3 月31 日,通過了由聯邦下議會 議於2017 年3 月10 所通過之修正承攬篇工程契約法之法案,該 法律規定於德國民法第650a-650v)。這是德國首次將工程契 約(650a-650o)、建築師與工程師契約(650p-650t),以及 定作人契約(650u-650v)訂入民法之中。這些修正於2018 年 1 月1 日生效,其效力僅及於自該日起締結之契約,舊契約不受 此法條修正之影響。本文僅討論修法後,德國民法工程契約章承 攬債權擔保的問題,及其與台灣法制之比較。 在觀察德國對承攬人債權擔保制度時,應該將德國民法第 647 條與第647a 條,第650e 條和第650f 條所規範之擔保方式合 併觀察,且相互補充。制定這些擔保方式的目的,在於對承攬人的先行給付義務做經濟上的均衡,以保障承攬人因承攬契約所生 金錢債權。制定的動機是源自於破產法。立法者希望能均衡承攬 人先行給付的義務,因承攬契約所生金錢債權於定作人破產時, 給予承攬人別除權。 德國立法者與司法實務對於承攬人依據契約應先為給付,所 產生之風險牢記在心。因此在立法與實務上均追求降低承攬人之 風險。台灣民法第513 條是唯一的對承攬人保障的條文,欠缺了 類似德國民法第650f 條的規定。台灣的建商多半要求營造廠商 拋棄此一抵押權,造成台灣民法第513 條甚少有派上用場的機 會,將來修法的時候可以考慮做適當之修正。

 

A Comparative Study on Security of Payment under Construction Contract between German and Taiwan Law

Li Hwang

abstract

On March 31, 2017, the Senate in the Federal Republic of Germany passed the “Law on the Reform of Construction Contract Law”, which had already been passed by the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic Germany on March 10. In Sections 650a-650v of the German Civil Code (BGB), this anchors for the first time special legal regulations on building contracts (Sections 650a-650o), architects' and engineers' contracts (Sections 650p-650t) and property developers' contracts (Sections 650u-650v). The changes come into force on January, 01, 2018 and only affect contracts concluded from this date. Current contracts are not affected by the changes. This paper analyses only the issues of the security of payment under construction contract after the changes, and compares the new system with the legal frame of Taiwan. The contractor’s security of payment has been regulated in several articles of BGB, to observe the German guarantee methods should combine article 647 with the article 647a, Article 650e and Article 650f, and complement each other. The purpose of formulating these guarantee mechanisms is to balance the economic risks of the contractor for who has to finish work prior to the payment from the employer, so as to protect the contractor’s monetary claims arising from the contract. The motivation for the formulation was derived from the bankruptcy law (§ 50 Abs. 1 Bankruptcy Code). The legislators hoped to balance the contractor’s obligation to pay in advance, and grant the contractor the exclusive right for monetary claims arising from the contract to exempt from the employer’ s bankruptcy. German legislators and judicial practice always keep in mind the risks that the contractor should finish work prior to the payment from the employer according to the contract. Therefore, both legislation and practice seek to reduce the risk of contractors. Article 513 of the Taiwan Civil Law is the only provision to protect the contractor, and it lacks provisions similar to Article 650f of the German Civil Law. Most Taiwanese builders require constructors to abandon this mortgage. As a result, Article 513 of the Taiwan Civil Law rarely comes in handy. When the law is revised in the future, appropriate amendments can be considered.