Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159302
|
| Title: | 國際應收帳款承購相關國際規範及其準據法研究
A Study of International Norms and Choice of Law on International Factoring |
| Authors: | 莊丞茹
Chuang, Cheng-Ju |
| Contributors: | 許耀明
莊丞茹
Chuang, Cheng-Ju |
| Keywords: | 應收帳款承購
債權讓與
準據法
衝突法
第三人效力
優先權
羅馬規則Ⅰ
factoring
assignment of receivables
applicable law
conflict of laws
third-party effects
priority
Rome I Regulation |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-09-01 16:21:41 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 應收帳款承購業務於1980年代引進臺灣，我國就此業務未設置專法或專章規範之，是以此業務於民法上係何種性質、業者若涉及國際訴訟時其準據法為何、此業務是否及如何融入既有民法及涉外民事法律適用法架構，將影響相關當事人之權利義務。
國際間嘗試就應收帳款承購業務為實體法上統一，重要里程碑為國際統一私法協會1988年「國際應收帳款承購業務公約」，以此為基礎，聯合國2001年通過「聯合國國際貿易應收帳款讓與公約」進一步處理許多爭議問題，並就此業務涉及之各項法律關係規範一套獨立之選法規則。國際應收帳款承購商聯盟訂定之「國際應收帳款承購統一規則」所處理議題則與前述二個公約不同，其專注處理雙承購商應收帳款承購制度下，出口承購商及進口承購商之間權利義務分配。2023年，國際統一私法協會發布「應收帳款承購業務示範法」作為立法範本供各國參考。前述國際文件展現出於過去數十年間，國際間尋求應收帳款承購業務實體法上之統一，於法律架構方向上並未大幅變更，而係逐漸朝同一方向聚攏。
與此同時，國際應收帳款承購業務之準據法選擇，則需加以釐清。此業務其中「債權讓與」安排，涉及讓與人(供應商)、受讓人(承購商)及債務人(向供應商購買商品或服務之買方)三方間法律關係，其三方各自法律關係應適用何法律為準據法，即須明辨。歐盟2008年「關於契約義務準據法規則(羅馬規則Ⅰ)」已就債權讓與之準據法予以規範，然而，除前述三方外，債權讓與更可能有其他第三人涉入，例如讓與人之破產管理人或其他債權人，如對已讓與予承購商之債權主張權利，或同一債權被數次讓與予不同人，而出現競爭之其他受讓人時，即涉及債權讓與可否對抗第三人、及債權優先順序等問題，決定此類問題之準據法為何，亦應釐清。又我國採債權行為、物權行為二分法架構，債權讓與係準物權行為，應與其原因債權行為加以區別，然而國際間有部分法域不區分此二者，故就債權讓與之準據法，是否及如何與國際接軌，亦須予以關切。
鑒於國際私法選法規則與其所涉及之實體法領域高度相關，本論文將先探討應收帳款承購契約之法律性質，次而觀察國際文件規範趨勢，最後研討歐盟2008年「羅馬規則Ⅰ」規範之債權讓與選法規則以及相關學術討論，並以「羅馬規則Ⅰ」之思考架構為基礎，分析於涉外民事法律適用法規定，國際應收帳款承購業務中各方當事人關係之準據法。
Factoring was introduced into Taiwan in the 1980s. However, no specific law or dedicated chapter has been established in Taiwan to regulate this business. Accordingly, questions such as the legal nature of factoring under the Civil Code of Taiwan, the applicable law in cases involving international litigation, and whether and how this business can be integrated into the existing framework of the Civil Code and the Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, all have significant implications for the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
Efforts have been made internationally to achieve substantive legal harmonization in the area of factoring. A significant milestone was the adoption of the UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring in 1988 by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). Building on this foundation, the United Nations adopted the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade in 2001, which further addressed numerous contentious issues and established a standalone set of choice-of-law rules governing the various legal relationships arising from factoring transactions. The General Rules for International Factoring issued by Factors Chain International (FCI) differ in focus from the above-mentioned conventions. These rules concentrate specifically on the allocation of rights and obligations between the export factor and the import factor under the two-factor system of international factoring. And in 2023, UNIDROIT issued the Model Law on Factoring as a legislative template for states to consider. The above international instruments illustrate that, over the past few decades, global efforts to unify the substantive law of factoring have followed a consistent trajectory, with no major shifts in legal structure but rather a gradual convergence in a common direction.
At the same time, the choice of applicable law for international factoring transactions requires further clarification. One key aspect of such transactions is the assignment of receivables, which involves legal relationships among three parties: the assignor (the supplier), the assignee (the factor), and the debtor (the buyer who purchases goods or services from the supplier). It is necessary to determine which law governs each of these legal relationships. The European Union’s 2008 Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I Regulation) provides rules on the law applicable to the assignment of claims. However, beyond these three parties, other third parties may also become involved in the assignment of receivables. For instance, the insolvency administrator or other creditors of the assignor may assert rights over the receivables already assigned to the factor. In cases where the same receivable is assigned multiple times to different parties, priority conflicts among competing assignees may arise. These situations give rise to questions about whether the assignment is effective against third parties and how priority among conflicting claims is determined—questions that must be resolved by identifying the applicable law.
Furthermore, Taiwan adopts a dualist structure distinguishing between obligatory acts (claims-based contracts) and dispositive acts (property-transferring acts). An assignment of receivables is regarded as a quasi-dispositive act and must be distinguished from the underlying obligatory act. However, some foreign jurisdictions do not make this distinction. Therefore, whether and how Taiwan’s rules on the applicable law of assignments should be aligned with international developments is also to be concerned.
Given the close connection between the choice-of-law rules and substantive law, this thesis will begin by examining the legal nature of factoring contracts. It will then explore the regulatory trends reflected in international instruments. Finally, it will analyze the choice-of-law rules governing the assignment of receivables under the Rome I Regulation and the related academic discussions. Based on the framework of the Rome I Regulation, this thesis will assess the applicable law governing the relationships among parties involved in international factoring transactions under Taiwan’s Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements. |
| Reference: | 一、中文文獻
(1)專書
王國旭(2013)，新版國際應收帳款承購統一規則。臺北市：財團法人台灣金融研訓院。
王澤鑑(2025)，債法原理，2025年3月增訂新版校正。作者自版。
吳嘉生(2017)，國際私法理論與經典案例研析。臺北市：五南。
柯澤東著，吳光平增修(2020)。國際私法，2020年增訂六版。臺北市：元照出版有限公司。
陳冠志(2016)，應收帳款承購實務解析。新北市:宏典文化。
陳榮傳(2025)，國際私法實用案例研析與裁判評析。臺北市：五南。
馬漢寶(2022)，國際私法，第四版。臺北市：馬漢寶出版。
黃裕凱(2013)，國際私法。臺北市：五南。
蔡華凱(2018)，國際私法實例研習。臺北市，三民。
劉鐵錚，陳榮傳(2018)，國際私法論，修訂六版。臺北市：三民。
(2)期刊論文
王志文(2008)，涉外債之關係法律適用規範之修正，月旦法學雜誌，第158期，頁5-24。
王澤鑑(2003)，不動產讓與擔保-第一個習慣物權的創設，台灣法律人第11期，頁93-103。
何佳芳(2020)，契約客觀準據法：特徵性履行 台灣高等法院102年度海商上易字第3號判決評釋，收錄於國際私法裁判選析，2020年增訂三版，頁275-285。
林恩瑋(2017)，法庭地法優位或是特徵性履行？新修正涉外民事法律適用法第20條的幾點疑義，法學叢刊，第245期，頁95-117。
許政賢(2018)，債權讓與的效果-以雙重讓與時的優劣決定之基準為中心，月旦法學教室第191期，頁31-46。
曾品傑(2021)，我國習慣法上之讓與擔保，月旦法學雜誌第311期，頁155-194。
游進發(2022)，讓與擔保之基本結構-對最高法院109年度台上字第2634號判決之反思，月旦裁判時報第125期，頁18-28。
蔡華凱(2011)，涉外債權讓與的準據法規定適用於法定債權讓與？以最高法院九十四年度臺上字第一一二二號判決為例，月旦法學雜誌，第189期，頁240-250。
蕭長瑞(2003)，論應收帳款承購業務之法律性質，存款保險資訊季刊，第十七卷第一期，頁42-67。
謝在全(2021)，判例法之進程-以讓與擔保為例，月旦法學雜誌第310期，頁178-213。
(3)碩士論文
張道周(2005)。應收帳款管理契約之研究。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。2005年1月。
王舒慧(2005)。國際應收帳款承購業務之法制面研究。東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士班民商法組碩士論文。2005年1月。
林晏如(2007)。應收帳款管理業務(FACTORING)契約性質及債權讓與行為之研究。國立政治大學法律學系法律學研究所民法組碩士論文。2007年7月。
陳彥棟(2021)。應收帳款承購業務法律關係之研究—以民法債之移轉為中心，東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士在職專班法律專業組碩士論文。2021年8月。
胡曉丹(2021)。收帳款承購之比較法研究。國立臺灣大學法學院法律學系碩士論文。2021年8月。
(4)法院判決及主管機關函令
最高法院77年度臺上字第1286號民事判決。
最高法院80年度臺上字第1813號民事判決。
最高法院86年度臺上字第796號民事判決。
最高法院92 年度臺上字第624號民事判決。
最高法院94年度臺上字第1348 號民事判決。
最高法院97年度臺上字第1591號民事判決。
最高法院98年度臺上字第2259號民事判決。
最高法院100年度臺上字第2221號民事判決。
最高法院100年度臺上字第899號民事判決。
最高法院101年度臺上字第1722號民事判決。
最高法院102 年度臺上字第1825號民事判決。
最高法院104年度臺上字第1695號民事判決。
最高法院104年度臺上字第2314號民事判決。
最高法院106年度臺上字第706號民事判決。
最高法院107年度臺上字第1049號民事判決。
最高法院107年度臺上字第1428號民事判決。
最高法院108年度臺上字第2132號民事判決。
最高法院109年度臺上字第2634號民事判決。
最高法院109年度臺上字第3214號民事判決。
最高法院110年度臺上字第1132號民事判決。
最高法院111年度臺上字第2851號民事判決。
最高法院112年度臺上字第201號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院96年度重上字第165號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院98年度重上更(一)字第95號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院98年度重上字第160號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院99年度重上字第286號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院99年度重上字第615號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院100年度上字第286民事判決。
臺灣高等法院100年度上易字第1128號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院103年度上字第912號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院104年度重上字第453號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院105年度上字第1163號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院花蓮分院106年度上字第2號判決。
臺灣高等法院106年度上更(一)字第78號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院110年度金訴字第61號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院111年度重上字第801號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院112年度重上更一字第9號民事判決。
臺灣高等法院112年度重上字第712號民事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院96年度重訴字第606號民事判決。
臺灣士林地方法院98年度建字第108號民事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院105年度重訴字第234號民事判決。
臺灣臺北地方法院107年度訴字第240號民事判決。
臺灣高雄地方法院109年度重訴字第74號民事判決。
財政部民國87年8月5日台財融字第87737880號函。
中央銀行外匯局民國92年4月25日台央外染字第0920028868號函。
行政院金融監督管理委員會民國98年8月24日金管銀外字第09850003180號令。
二、外文文獻
(1) Books
Chalmers, Damian, Davies, Gareth and Monti,Giorgio (2019). EUROPEAN UNION LAW. Cambridge, United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press.
Mills, Simon, Ruddy, Noel and Davidson, Nigel (2017). SALINGER ON FACTORING. London : Sweet & Maxwell.
Salinger, Freddy R. (1999). FACTORING : THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INVOICE FINANCE. London : Sweet & Maxwell.
Schmitthoff, Clive Macmillan and Adams, J. N.(1986). Schmitthoff's Export trade : the law and practice of international trade .London : Steven.
(2) Book Chapter
Jäger, Horst-Ulrich (1989). Export Factoring and Forfaiting. In Horn, Norbert(eds.), STUDIES IN TRANSANATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW, VOL.6, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE FINANCE (pp.277-325). Boston : Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
(3) Articles
Alexander, Mary Rose (1989). Towards Unification and Predictability:The International Factoring Convention, 27 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 353-386.
Bazinas, Spiros V. (2002). UNCITRAL's Contribution to the Unification of Receivables Financing Law: The United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, 7 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW n.s. 49-68.
Bridge, Michael (2009). The proprietary aspects of assignment and choice of law, 125 LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW 671-698.
Brink, Ulrich(1998). New German Legislation Opens Door to Ratification of UNIDROIT Factoring Convention, 3 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW 770-775.
Deschamps, Michel (2002). The Priority Rules of the United Nations Receivables Convention - A Comment on Bazinas, 12 DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE & INTERNATIONAL LAW 389-400.
Ferrari, Franco (1997). The International Sphere of Application of the 1988 Ottawa Convention on International Factoring, 31 INTERNATIONAL LAWYER 41-64.
Hartley, Trevor C. (2011). Choice of Law regarding the Voluntary Assignment of Contractual Obligations under the Rome I Regulation, 60 INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 29-56.
Heinze, Christian & Warmuth, Cara Janine (2017). The Law Applicable to Proprietary Effects of Assignment and Its Interplay with Insolvency, 22 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW 808-825.
Moore, Carroll G. (1959). Factoring - A Unique and Important Form of Financing and Service, 14 BUSINESS LAWYER 703-727.
Nishitani, Yuko (2017). Cross-Border Assignment of Receivables:Conflict of Laws in Secured Transactions, 22 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW 826-841.
Perkins, Joanna (2008). A Question of Priorities:Choice of Law and Proprietary Aspects of the Assignment of Debts, 2 LAW AND FINANCIAL MARKETS REVIEW 238-243.
Reisman, Albert F. (1974). What the Commercial Lawyer Should Know about Commercial Finance and Factoring, 79 COMMERCIAL LAW JOURNAL 146-156.
Rinze, Dr Jens P. (2021). International securitisation, factoring, asset-based lending and receivables finance - the perfection of assignments of receivables in respect of third parties and insolvency administrators, 36(12) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW AND REGULATION 495-504.
Salinger, Freddy(2007). International Factoring and Conflicts of Law, 1 LAW AND FINANCIAL MARKETS REVIEW 7-10.
Sigman, Harry C. & Smith, Edwin E. (2002). Toward Facilitating Cross-Border Secured Financing and Securitization: An Analysis of the United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, 57 BUSINESS LAWYER 727-766.
Torsello, Marco (2000). The Relationship between the Parties to the Factoring Contract According to the 1988 Unidroit Convention on International Factoring, 2000 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 43-60.
Verhagen , Henrik L. E. & Dongen, Sanne van (2010). Cross-Border Assignments under Rome I, 6 JOURNAL OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1-22.
Walsh, Catherine (2017). The Law Applicable to the Third-Party Effects of an Assignment of Receivables:Whither the EU, 22 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW 781-807.
Xu, Alison (2021). A New Solution concerning Choice-of-Law for the Assignment of Debts, 70 INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 665-696.
Yeomans, Nicola (2005). UNCITRAL Convention on Assignment of Receivables: towards a uniform international law of bulk assignments? 20(9) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW AND REGULATION 411-418.
Zakoucky, Petr (2007). Propriety Aspects of the Assignment of Receivables: An Open Issue under Article 12 of the Rome Convention, 8 COMMON LAW REVIEW 40-43.
(4) Case
BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Case C‑548/18), Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of 9 October 2019.
Brandsma qq v. Hansa Chemie AG, Hoge Raad [Supreme Court of the Netherlands],16 May 1997, NJ 1998, 585 (Neth.).
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v. Five Star General Trading LLC, Court of Appeal (England & Wales), [2001] EWCA Civ 68, [2001] QB 825 (Eng.).
(5) Treaties and Norms
1980 CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONVENTION OBLIGATIONS.
1986 CONVENTION ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS.
1988 UNIDROIT CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL FACTORING.
2001 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF RECEIVABLES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
2008 REGULATION (EC) NO 593/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 17 JUNE 2008 ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (ROME I).
2023 UNIDROIT MODEL LAW ON FACTORING.
(6) Documents of Goverments or International Organizations
British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2011). Study on the question of effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over a right of another person.
European Commission (2016). Report From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over the right of another person.
European Commission (2018). Proposal for a Regulation on the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims.
Factor Chain International. General Rules for International Factoring.
International Finance Corporation(2024). Knowledge Guide on Factoring Regulation and Supervision.
UNIDROIT (1979). Study LVIII- Doc. 7.
UNIDROIT (1986). Study LVIII-Doc. 25.
UNIDROIT GOVERNING COUNCIL (2025). 105th session, item No. 9 on the agenda: Implementation status and promotion strategy for UNIDROIT Instruments (b) UNIDROIT Model Law on Factoring (C.D. (105) 20).
European Parliament (2019). Legislative resolution of 13 February 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to the third party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018)0096 – C8-0109/2018 – 2018/0044(COD)).
(7) Online Sources
Factor Chain International. Factoring in the Foundations: UNIDROIT's Model Law on Factoring and IFC's Knowledge Guide in Marrakech. Retrieved from https://fci.nl/en/news/factoring-foundations-unidroits-model-law-factoring-and-ifcs-knowledge-guide-marrakech.
International Finance Corporation. Manual or Guideline-Knowledge Guide on Factoring Regulation and Supervision, Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/en/in sights-reports/2024/knowledge-guide-on-factoring-regulation-and-supervision.
European Union. Glossary of summaries-Trilogue. Retrieved from https://eur-lex. europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/trilogue.html. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
107961024 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107961024 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 102401.pdf | 2983Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
