| Popis: |
我國原則上禁止私力救濟，惟強制執行作為私權實現之合法管道，亦應有所限制，避免過度侵害他人權利。超額查封禁止之立法目的即在保護債務人之財產免受過度侵害，惟按實務通說，查封縱有超額情事，倘非屬極端超額者，即無違背超額查封禁止規定。又謂我國採平等主義，以執行人員尚應考量是否仍有其他債權人參與分配為由，認該原則難以遵循而應放寬解釋。對此，本文整理我國近20年來有關超額查封之最高法院裁判，欲釐清法院對於「超額」之認定標準。此外，以採取優先主義之德國法為比較對象，除簡介德國法之查封制度外，並說明優先原則與超額查封禁止原則之規定與相關爭議。最後，重新檢討現行實務有待商榷之處，並提出若干淺見作結。In principle, private remedies are prohibited in Taiwan. Therefore, compulsory enforcement is the only way to apply for implementation. But it doesn't have to be a means of sacrificing the debtor's basic rights. In accordance with Article 1 Item 2 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, which has been in force since 2014: ＂Compulsory enforcement shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of fairness and reasonableness, balancing the interests of creditors, debtors, and other interested parties, in an appropriate manner, and to the degree no more than necessary to achieve the enforcement purpose.＂ In other words, compulsory enforcement should be based on the principle of fairness and reasonableness, and not exceeding the necessary limits, which has been recognized by legislators. This research focuses on the protection of debtor's rights in the compulsory enforcement Law as the core topic and paying particular attention to the excessive Attachment in Compulsory Enforcement Act of Taiwan, which was stipulated by Article 50: ＂The attachment of the movable property is limited to the property whose price is sufficient to repay the claim amount under the compulsory enforcement and the costs to be borne by the debtor.＂ Due to shortage of studies in the field of compulsory enforcement in Taiwan, this study try to sort out systematically the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court in the past 20 years, and to clarify the court's judgment standards for the excessive Attachment and the considerations behind them. Especially, the practice has always focused on whether the creditor can obtain the satisfaction of the creditor's rights through compulsory execution. It is easy to ignore the protection of the debtor's rights and interests, leading to the occurrence of illegal compulsory enforcement. This article examines also from a comparative law perspective to introduce the German compulsory enforcement law. |
