- 英文摘要
- With the stable development of modern society and economy, people's spiritual world is abundant, and they often have certain special feelings for their property, such as pet cats, dogs, and objects of special significance. The current civil law system is based on the traditional premise of dividing human and things into institutional arrangements. The mental damage compensation mechanism designed under this premise cannot cover non-pecuniary damages caused by infringement of things owned by others. In the reflection of the traditional civil law dual distinction, we should pay attention to the integration of people and things, that is, people's spirit and emotions are projected on the specific object, so that the object is the load of personality interests, and that the owner of the infringed object should be entitled to compensation for non-property damage. In terms of comparative law, both French and Japanese Civil Laws hold a positive attitude towards the question of whether mental damage is compensable. Negators, such as German Civil Law, do not have a direct basis for the right to compensation claim, even though the Animal Protection Law and Article 90a of Civil Law demonstrate a legislative attitude of respecting animals. However, its judicial practice has created the general personality right, which provides a possible and feasible path for including the people’s mental interests in things with in the scope of general personality right in the future. The Civil Code of Mainland China explicitly stipulates that compensation for mental damage may be claimed for property damage, but there are certain requirements that are conditional affirmations. The current compensation mechanism in Taiwan’s civil law for infringement of personality rights is generally the same as that of Germany. It can draw inspiration from the German approach of creating general personality rights and interpreting the mental interests of victims whose things have been infringed by others as “other personal interests” in Article 195 of the Civil Law. However, considering the subjectivity of emotional values, the leniency and severity of the “serious circumstances” in the same article and the burden of proof in procedural law can balance mental interests and normal social life.
- 目次
- 目 次
壹、問題提出
貳、當前理論基礎爭議
一、否定物受侵害得主張精神損害賠償者
二、肯定物受侵害得主張精神損害賠償者：以人格與財產二元區
分作為前提所設計之民法規範的反思作為切入視角
三、肯認侵害他人之物應賠償精神損害所具有之功能
參、比較法參考及啟示
一、肯定之立法例
二、修正式之肯定立法例
三、否定之立法例
肆、以民法第195條第1項之「其他人格利益」作為橋樑
一、以民法第195條第1項作為請求權基礎
二、以實體法之情節重大及訴訟法之舉證責任平衡精神利益與社會正常活動
伍、結論
