| Abstract: | 本計畫係探討法定從屬性擔保外之其他擔保權利。例如附保留所有權約款之分期付款買賣，標的物所有權於買受人付清價金時始終局取得。如買受人於交付買賣標的物後未清償價金，出賣人得取回標的物，就標的物拍賣所得受償之。此即以所有權為擔保之約定擔保權利類型。發卡銀行為擴大刷卡消費而鼓勵申請附卡，附卡持有人非信用卡使用契約之當事人，但銀行所擬定之附卡定型化約款，常約定附卡持有人就正卡持有人之消費金額，負連帶清償責任；該約款使原僅負提供擔保權利之債務人喪失從屬性之保護，而成為原法律關係之債務人，不再區別擔保權利之債務人或真正之債務人，債權人所享有之擔保權利是否已逾擔保之目的？此種非典型擔保，應否完全承認之？又工程契約中業主多要求承商繳交履約保證金，或命銀行提出附立即照付約款之保證金保證書。履約保證金以擔保主債權為其目的，承商在擔保目的未發生前，即預先給付業主，係一新型態擔保之「擔保給付」。而立即照付約款，銀行給付業主保證金後，如認係獨立之擔保權利，則業主可終局保有。此時業主取得與主債務獨立之保證金，是否已逾擔保權利之擔保目的之合理範圍，脫離擔保權利之擔保目的？實有必要探討，以確保契約法中擔保權利合理發展。
This research project is mainly to discuss other category of secured obligation which is different from the statutory accessory ones, for example, sale by installments with the clause of retained title, where title to the thing is retained until the buyer fully pays the purchase price. Besides, in order to expand the amount of consumption via credit card, the issuing bank encourages primary card holders to apply for additional cards for their family members or the third parties. Additional card holders are not parties to this given credit card contract, however, clauses of standard contract formulated by the issuing bank always stipulate that additional card holders should be jointly obliged to pay for the debt of the primary card holders. Nevertheless, this kind of clauses deprives the secondary debtor, merely responsible for the provision of security, of the protection of his/her supplementary duty, and makes the secondary debtor become the primary one. Whether the secured obligation, without distinguishing a secondary debtor from a real debtor, has overstepped the necessibility to attain to its goal? Whether we should acknowledge its legality without limitation? These issues are significant ones which should be dealt with in the development of contract law. Furthermore, in the work contract, the proprietor always ask the undertaker to provide performance bond, or ask the guarantee bank to provide a letter of guarantee as performance bond, and with a clause requiring instant payment. Performance bond is to secure the performance of obligation, which the undertaker shall provide to the proprietor prior to the failure of performance. After the obligation being fulfilled, the proprietor is liable for refunding the performance bond. Moreover, whether the proprietor’s claim to invoke instant payment clause toward the guarantee bank is distinguished from that for indemnification toward the undertaker? After the guarantee bank pays the proprietor, with the view that it is an independent claim, the proprietor can still keep the performance bond provided by the undertaker. In this circumstance, whether such performance bond acquired by the proprietor has transgressed the reasonability and necessibility of the purpose and object of secured obligation? This opinion is reflected in many decisions made by the Supreme Court, and it deserves further discussion to explore the future development of contract law regarding secured obligations. |
