English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50932974      Online Users : 969
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/70471


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/70471


    Title: 支票付款人對執票人 應負支付之責之質疑
    Other Titles: Questioning the Payer Bank`s Duty to Paying Checks to Holders in Taiwan
    Authors: 楊芳賢
    Yang, Fang-hsien
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 支票;無條件付款委託;支票契約;第三人利益契約;付款人;執票人;票據法第一四三條;直接請求權;支票付款人之支付之責;崇友崇反案
    Cheque;Unconditional payment order;Cheque contract between the drawer and drawee;payer;Contract`s right of third party;Payer bank;Holder or payee of cheque;Article 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Code Taiwan;Direct claim;Cheque payer`s duty to pay;The Chong You/Chong Fang Case
    Date: 2011.12
    Issue Date: 2014-10-06 17:14:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文質疑各種支票付款人對執票人應負支付之責之理由依據。最高法院及學說基於各種理由或依據幾乎均肯定支票付款人對執票人應負支付之責，但是本文認為，支票付款人僅對發票人應負支付之責，對執票人，並不負支付之責；而且無論支票、支票之付款委託、支票契約、第三人利益契約，以及票據法第一四三條前段均難以作為肯定見解之依據，而且本條前段規定亦非民法第一八四條第二項之保護他人之法律，付款人拒絕付款並不構成對執票人之違反保護他人法律之侵權行為。此外，就崇友崇反案，最高法院及若干學說主張崇友公司對付款銀行得依票據法第一四三條前段規定請求之見解，明顯錯誤，因為本案並不符合本條前段之構成要件。本文認為崇友公司僅得依原因債權對債務人請求給付；值得注意的是，因崇友公司就其受雇人故意變造支票獲款致債務人仍負有原因關係之債務，應與付款銀行共同承擔責任，而債務人又須承擔付款銀行之過失。在此，斟酌崇友公司之受雇人係故意變造，而付款銀行僅係過失，崇友公司至少應承擔60%之責任，故債務人就崇友公司所主張之原因債權，得依不完全給付或侵權行為對崇友公司主張損害賠償請求權，而主張抵銷至少60%之金額。
    Under current practice in Taiwan, the judicial judgments and scholarly opinions hold the position that a payer bank of a cheque owes a legal duty to make payment to the holder of the cheque. However, my view is that the bank only owes a legal duty to its customer, i.e. the cheque-issuer, but the bank does not owe a legal duty to the holder of the cheque. I argue that the judicial judgments and scholarly opinions do not provide any legal foundations for the legal duty of the payer bank toward the cheque holder. I also argue that a violation of Article 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Code by a payer bank is not a violation of a law for protection of the other parties as provided under paragraph 2, Article 184 Civil Code of Taiwan.
    Relation: 法學評論 , 124, 255-298
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    255-298.pdf725KbAdobe PDF23058View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback