预售商品房交易违约金争议之研究

The Research on Dispute of Liquidated Damage Issue Arisen from Pre-Sale of Commercial Houses

经案例检索发现,因"违约处罚"衍生的违约金争议在中国台湾地区"最高法院"2012—2018年间有关预售商品房买卖定型化契约的裁判中数量最多,多数案例中契约违约方主张约定违约金过高,请求法院酌减。而台湾地区"相关行政主管部门"依据"消费者保护法"公告具强行效力的"应记载及不得记载事项",针对违约金数额设有最低或最高门槛,即"出卖人违约时,应赔偿之金额不得低于房地总价款15%;买受人违约时,得被没收之金额不得高于房地总价款15%。倘该赔偿或没收之金额超过已缴价款者,则以已缴价款为限"。再检视相关裁判,有一明显趋势,即举凡出卖人违约而请求酌减违约金者,除极少数特例外,绝大多数情形是"法院"经审酌后都未予酌减。倘买受人违约而请求酌减者,"地方法院"均未酌减;台湾地区"最高法院"则有酌减,尽管酌减比例不一,但经酌减后之违约金约略都在房地总价款的10%左右。台湾地区"最高法院"通常是参考"相关财政主管部门"公布的同业利润标准或出卖人建案完工入账年度的个体综合损益表,酌减买受人应支付的违约金数额。

According to case review,between 2012 to 2018,the breaching parties claim mostly for reducing liquidate damages in majority cases decided by“Supreme Court”of China-Taiwan on the contract breaching issue of the pre-sale of commercial houses.Claiming the liquidated damages,there is a certain limit to comply with,stipulated by Mandatory Provisons of Standard Contract issued by the“Administrative Agency”in China-Taiwan.Author finds that the“Courts’Decisions”are different on status of breaching party.The sellers’claims for reducing liquidated damages were refused in cases decided by“Courts”at all levels.The buyers’claims for reducing liquidated damages were refused by“District Courts”,while the decisions of“Supreme Court”are always in favor for buyers.