2020-08-012024-05-17https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/687171摘要：本計畫旨在開啟科技部的三年期研究計畫，主要研究對象為民法第二編「債法（尤其契約法）」與第三編「物權法」之間的關係。 　　我國法仿德國法的規範模式，「債物二分」，因此債權與物權間的差異何在，成為必須關注的基礎理論問題。文獻上向來認為：不論從權利「內容/對象」抑或是「效力」觀察，兩種權利均有所不同。然而，前者所謂「對人權」與「對物權」的區別，已經漸漸受到質疑。至於後者「相對權」與「絕對權」的對立，則在我國法上屹立不搖，似乎不容挑戰，許多基本原理原則亦由此開展。本研究計畫著眼於此，預計從「權利效力（尤其主觀範圍）」的觀點切入，剖析債權法與物權法，以及其所屬的原理原則。 　　第一年研究計畫，主要目的在於說明「債權效力」與「物權效力」的基礎構造，並進一步修正、釐清「物權作為絕對權」與「債權作為相對權」的意義。具體而言，我國學理上常見以下主張：「物權作為絕對權，因此可以對任何人主張；而債權作為相對權，因此只能對特定人主張」。然而，絕對權（或絕對性）與相對權（或相對性）分別究何所指？是否如同文獻中所稱「分別處於權利效力的兩端點」？有待進一步研析。舉例言之，姑且不論過失侵權行為是否包含債權等相對權，至少「任何人」均不得故意以背於善良風俗之方法，侵害他人債權。就此而言，是否與「債權相對性」有所扞格？系爭規定是否、如何調和於「債權相對與物權絕對」的二元對立之中？凡此問題，均為本計畫第一年的研究重點。 　　在此基礎之上，第二年研究計畫，則進一步探討（尤指物權法上的）「絕對效力與公示原則」之間的關係。詳言之，我國學說與實務上常見以下二種（簡化後的）論述：第一、「因為對世，所以公示」；第二、「因為公示，所以對世」。二項命題之間，究竟何者為是？何者為非？抑或可能避免循環論證的兩者皆是？抑或兩者均有其不足？而在我博士論文之中，將「債權物權化」領域中的公示原則，與（比例原則的）必要性原則相連結。此等主張，是否亦得擴及適用於「物權法」領域？以上關於公示原則的種種疑問，則是本研究計畫第二年的重心所在。 　　至於第三年的研究計畫，則聚焦於「物權法上的債之關係（例如地上權的地租等）」此種債權與物權的「交錯領域」。傳統文獻或有稱之為「約定的物權內容」；惟此觀點是否、如何相容於物權法定原則，則有待進一步研究。事實上，在我的博士論文之中已經指出：在德國法上，此一概念自從八零年代發展至今，尚屬「法定契約承擔」領域中的新興議題。然而，不論規範內容抑或規範密度，我國法與德國法之間均存有明顯落差。因此，針對我國法開展本土化的研究，有其必要。有鑑於此，本研究計畫第三年將以此為題，盤點、整理、分析我國實定法上相關規定，試圖抽繹並勾勒出我國「物權法上的債之關係」的雛型。<br> Abstract: This project aims to start the three-year research project of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The main research object is the relationship between the second part of the Civil Code "law of obligations (“Schuldrecht” in German) (especially contract law)" and the third part of the Civil Code "property law (“Sachenrecht” in German)". Taiwan’s Civil Code imitates the regulation model of German Law, which distinguishes the obligatory rights (“obligatorisches Recht” in German) and the property rights (“dingliches Recht in German). Therefore, the difference between these two rightshas become a basic theoretical issue that must be paid attention to. The literature has always believed that the two types of rights are different from the perspective of their "content/object" or their "scope of effects". However, the difference between the former`s so-called "in personam rights" and "in rem rights" has gradually been questioned. As for the opposition between "relative rights" and "absolute rights," it still stands firm in our country`s law and seems to be incapable of challenge. Many basic principles have been developed from this. This research project focuses on this, and is expected to analyze the law of obligations and property law, as well as the principles to which they belong, from the perspective of "(especially subjective) scope of effects". The main purpose of the research project in the first year is to explain the basic structure of scope of effect of the “obligatory rights" and the "property rights", and to further amend and clarify the meaning of "the property rights as absolute rights" and "the obligatory rights as relative rights". Specifically, the following claims are common in our country`s literature: "The property right is an absolute right, so it can be claimed against anyone; while the obligatory right is a relative right, so it can only be claimed against a specific person." However, what do absolute rights and relative rights mean? Are they really at both ends of the same spectrum? It needs further study and analysis. For example, regardless of whether § 823 I 1 Taiwan’s Civil Code includes obligatory rights and other relative rights, at least "anyone" should not intentionally infringe on the obligatory rights of others in a manner against the rules of morals. In this regard, is it inconsistent with the "relativity of obligatory rights"? Whether and how the disputed regulations are reconciled in the binary opposition of "relative obligatory rights and absolute property rights"? All these issues are the focus of research in the first year of this project. On this basis, the second year`s research plan will further explore the relationship between "absolute effect” and “the principle of publicity" (especially in the property law). In detail, the following two (simplified) statements are common in our doctrine and practice: first, "because of the absolute, so publicize"; second, "because of publicity, so be absolute." Between the two propositions, which one is right? What is wrong? Or is it both possible to avoid circular arguments? Or do both have their disadvantages? In my dissertation, the principle of publicity in the field of "propertized contractual rights ("Verdinglichung obligatorischer Rechte" in German)" is linked with the principle of necessity (of the principle of proportionality). Can these claims also be extended to the field of "property law "? The above questions about the principle of publicity are the focus of the second year of this research project. As for the third year`s research plan, it focuses on the interlaced field of obligatory/contractual relationship in property law (for example, the land rent of superficies, etc.). Traditional literature may call it "agreement on the content of property rights"; however, whether and how this view is compatible with the “numerus clausus principle” remains to be further studied. In fact, it has been pointed out in my dissertation that in German law, since the development of this concept in the 1980s, it is still an emerging topic in the field of "propertization ("Verdinglichung" in German)". However, regarding the content or density of the regulations, there is a clear gap between Taiwan law and German law. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out localized research on Taiwan law. In the third year of this research project, we will take this as the topic to sort out and analyze the relevant regulations of our country`s positive law, trying to deduce and outline the prototype of our country`s "obligatory relationship in property law".對人權對物權絕對權相對權公示原則物權法上的債之關係in personam rightsin rem rightsrelative rightsabsolute rightsprinciple of publicityobligatory relationship in property law