摘要
依我国民法第二百十八条之规定，如全數赔偿将对於赔偿义务人之生计造成重大影响时，法院得酌减损害赔偿數额。此一「酌减条款」之规定，系继受自瑞士债务法第四四条第二项。本文首先就不同法律体系下对於损害之數额确定後，决定赔偿數额之规范模式，及就采取「酌减条款」之必要性加以分析。其次，本文比较分析瑞士债务法、荷蘭1992年民法新法、东欧及北欧各国、目前整合中之欧洲侵权行爲法及契约法学界草案中，所采纳酌减条款其制定背景及酌减之要件。本文并分析解释我国民法第二百十八条之「酌减条款」其应具有之内涵，在思考层次上并就「酌减事由之存在」（法院「酌减权之发生」）与法院「酌减权之行使」此二概念加以区别。我国民法第二百十八条条文排除了出於故意或重大过失之损害事件，赔偿义务人受有酌减之可能，与本条保障赔偿义务人生计之规范目的不一致，且在比较法上相对而言严格。本文於检视近年之案例後，发现我国法院实务仍有扩张适用前揭排除酌减要件之倾向。与此相对者，法院应避免运用此一条款进行一般性的酌减，以免动摇损害赔偿制度之责任基础。
According to the Art. 218 Civil Code of Taiwan, it grants courts the power to reduce the amount of compensation, if the awarding full compensation would lead to substantial influence on existence ability of the compensation debtors. This reduction clause was adopted from the Art. 44 para. 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations of 1912. The first contest of this article is using the comparative studies to analyze how different legal systems decide the amount of compensation, after the sum of damages has been confirmed, and explaining the necessity of introducing the reduction clauses into the civil codes. The next part of this article is to analyze the background and the conditions of provisions in the countries, which grant the power to the courts to reduce the amount of compensation. Among them are the Swiss Code of Obligations, the new Civil Code of the Netherlands of 1992 and the provisions in the eastern European and Scandinavian countries. The new academic drafts to integrate the European tort and contract law are also included. In the final part, the conditions of mitigation from the courts according to the Art. 218 Civil Code of Taiwan will be analyzed. This article clarifies object of this provision, distinguishes “the existence of the mitigation reasons” from “the discretion of the courts to exercise this mitigation power” and explains the content of suitable conditions. The ＊ Assistant Professor of Law, National Cheng-Kung University, Dr. iur. of the University of Mainz, Germany (2006) exclusion of the mitigation power to the courts in the present Art. 218 Civil Code of Taiwan, provided the damage was caused willfully or by gross negligence, is not consistent with the purpose of this provision, i.e. to maintain the existence ability of the compensation debtors. This is relatively strict from the view-point of comparative law. After analyzing the recent cases and opinions of the courts in the past, this article finds on one hand the potential trends of the courts to expand the exclusion in the Art. 218 Civil Code of Taiwan. On the other hand the courts should also prevent a general equitable mitigation, because this will undermine the foundation of the liability.
