臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自我國引進信託法制以來，轉眼間已歷經二十餘年，其間，社會政經結構不斷變革，原有信託法制已難謂完全符合當代社會需求。再者，我國已邁入高齡化社會，信託之使用頻率將會大幅提高，而信託制度之運行中，受託人又扮演著舉足輕重之角色、擁有著廣泛的裁量權限，為了確保信託利益均能實踐，實有必要重新檢討我國受託人義務之規範，近日信託法研究修正專案小組即已如火如荼地著手研擬信託法修正草案。而本文試圖以美國法律學會最新彙編完成之信託法律整編第三版為借鑑對象，透過比較法的分析、對照，借鏡美國法累積二十餘年之實務案例與成熟經驗，於修法之際，提供一個可行的修法方向，期能拋磚引玉。
本文第一章為緒論。於第二章，本文首先介紹信賴義務之概念，分析增訂此等總括性概念是否有其實益，鑑於我國已有各該具體義務之規定，本文認為無需增訂信賴義務之上位規範。於第三章，本文探討是否有必要引進美國法上之一般管理義務，從立法論之層次出發，若將受託人之管理行為具體化明定於法規範中，可避免將來實務運作之爭議、提供受託人更明確之依循方向，故本文建議增訂受託人之確認義務、保存信託財產義務、增進收益義務、以及運用分配信託財產義務。於第四章，本文探討現行法之分別管理義務規範是否合宜，為確實達成分離獨立信託財產之目的，確保信託利益，本文建議增訂標明信託財產義務。
於第五章，本文檢討受託人之注意義務，首先探究受託人之注意義務標準是否應該因受有報酬而異，本文比較信託法制與民法委任、公司法之法律關係，檢驗法規範體系之一貫性，得出注意義務不應區分是否受有報酬而異其標準之結論。次之，關於委託人是否得以放寬注意義務、放寬是否有其界線，參酌信託制度本質與實務需求，本文認為，應允許委託人放寬受託人之注意義務，即便受託人為信託業者，亦同，惟不得減免受託人之故意或重大過失責任。此外，本文亦探討注意義務標準之判斷方式，透過規範目的與實務運作之觀察，本文建議將現行之判斷標準修正為主客觀折衷之判斷方式。
於第六章，本文研究忠實義務之相關議題。其中，關於受託人之管理應以受益人最佳利益或唯一利益為依歸之爭議，本文從防範受託人不正行為之層面、受託人監管之難易等面相思考、並將信託與公司作制度上之比較，建議我國藉由修法明確採取受益人唯一利益之立場，方能確保信託利益為受託人管理之首要考量。本文並檢討信託法修法草案關於忠實義務之規範，試圖貫徹既有的禁止利益衝突之法理、衡量不同草案之利弊、配套措施之有無，建議修法草案禁止其他利益衝突嚴重之行為，例如：受託人僱傭其利害關係人、利用信託機會或資訊等等，並放寬利大於弊之行為，例如受託人將自有財產轉為信託財產、受託人與受益人間之交易等等。此外，針對現行信託法第34條之去留爭議，本文參考立法論之觀點、關於受益權比例失衡之質疑，認為修法草案應刪除第34條之規定，並回歸忠實義務原則。
於第七章，本文透過立法例之比較，肯定信託法修法草案關於公平義務之規範。第八章則係關於分散投資義務之討論，鑑於美國學說與實務均已證實分散投資有助於管控風險，亦有益於信託投資獲利之穩定性，本文建議增訂受託人之分散投資義務。於第九章，本文就信託帳簿之保存期限提出建議，修法草案關於保存期限之規定窒礙難行，本文考量實務上之可行性，建議以十五年作為我國信託帳簿之保存期限。於第十章，本文自資訊提供義務之目的出發，期許能改善資訊不對稱之監管難題，建議修法草案規定受託人應主動提供資訊予有代表性之受益人。於第十一章，本文介紹美國法上關於共同受託人之義務，並回顧我國法制，我國法雖然較為嚴格，惟亦保有相當彈性而為值得肯定之立法。
最後，於第十二章，本文檢討受託人授權他人處理信託事務時之義務，首先點出我國現行法之法律效果可能鼓勵受託人違反委託人對於其親自裁量之信賴，並考量民法與信託法之關係，建議信託法應將受託人不當授權後之法律效果修正為絕對責任。再者，本文分析修法草案第25條第2項之合理性，為使信託能享有專業投資之協助，本文建議信託法規不應強加受任人報酬之上限，應允許在受託人之授權與受任人報酬均為合理時，以信託財產另行支付受任人之報酬。本章最後著眼於信託業之監控難度與風險分配，建議信託業法增訂受託人授權他人處理信託事務之責任規範。
經過以上之比較與分析，可見現行法與修法草案仍有改善之空間。於理論層面，本文透過借鑑美國信託法律整編，試圖建構出一個可行、完善並符合我國國情的修法草案，期許我國信託法之受託人義務規範能更加符合社會需求、兼具實務與理論之正當性。

Taiwan has introduced Trust Law for more than two decades during which political and economic changes make the existing Trust Law no longer a fit and proper legislation, and as Taiwan becomes an aged society, the use of trust would certainly increase. Also, the trends in drafting practices are to leave the protection of settlor objectives and beneficiary interests primarily to the fiduciary duties imposed upon trustees. To ensure that the purpose of trust could be accomplished, the legislation concerning the duties of trustees shall be carefully reviewed. In response to the newest Trust Law amendment proposal, this thesis bases on lessons learned from Restatement (Third) of Trust, compares different regulations, makes references to the cases and academic views of the U.S., and then attempts to provide suggestions for the amendment.
The first chapter of this thesis is the preface. The second chapter first introduces the term “fiduciary duty” and analyzes the merits of including this general concept. Considering the concept of fiduciary duty has already been embodied in different specific duties, this thesis suggests that we need not codify the concept. The third chapter discusses whether there is sufficient justification for introducing the duty to administer. In terms of legislation, codifying the duty to administer could avoid debate over the administration of trustees and provide a clear guidance for trustees. Therefore, this article recommends codifying the duty to administer (including ascertaining the duties and powers of the trusteeship, the beneficiaries and purposes of the trust; collecting and protecting trust property; managing the trust estate to provide returns or other benefits from trust property; and applying or distribviiiuting trust income and principal). The fourth chapter probes whether the existing regulation fits the current circumstances, and then suggests that duty to earmark trust property is needed to eliminate all of the potentially conflicting interests occasions.
The fifth chapter concerning the duty of prudence first analyzes if the test of prudence should vary depending on whether the trustee receives compensation. By comparing trust with the contract of mandate in Taiwan’s Civil Code and the idea of Company, this thesis suggests that, to reconcile Trust Law with Civil Code and Company Act, the duty of prudence should not depend on being compensated or not. As to the question of whether the settlor could modify the standard of care and whether there is a limit, to maintain the flexibility of trust and consider the need of settlor to draft around fiduciary rules in order to effectuate his or her purpose, the settlor who wishes to modify the standard of care shall be free to do so, but with a limit not to absolve the liability for gross negligence. This thesis further suggests that the standard of care shall include the subjective test that takes the trustee’s special skills into account and makes the trust administration more efficient in turn.
The sixth chapter studies the duty of loyalty. The chapter starts with the issue of whether the duty of loyalty shall require a trustee to administer the trust “solely in the interest of the beneficiary” or “in the best interest of the beneficiary”. In light of the monitoring problem, the important protection provided by the sole interest rule, and the comparison between the trust law and the law of corporations, this thesis takes the view that the legislation of Taiwan shall adopt the sole interest rule. This chapter then reviews the duty of loyalty articles of the Trust Law amendment proposal, on the basis that the trust law policy is to prefer to remove altogether the occasions of temptation rather than to monitor fiduciary behavior, this thesis recommends the Trust Law amendment proposal shall prohibit conflicted transactions in which the risk outweigh the gain, such as employing trustee’s family members and taking advantage of a trust opportunity for personal gain, and allow the conflicted but benign transactions, such as loans by trustees personally with reasonable interest and trustees dealings with beneficiaries. In addition, this chapter analyzes the queries advanced by scholars with respect to article 34 of Taiwan’s Trust Law and agrees with the view that the article shall be abolished.
The seventh chapter affirms the regulation of duty of impartiality in the Trust Law amendment proposal. The eighth chapter discusses the duty to diversify, considering that a diversified portfolio can eliminate a significant amount of risk and stabilize the return, this thesis is deeply convinced that the amendment proposal shall include the duty to diversify. The ninth chapter recommends that the amendment proposal sets the duration for records and accounts keeping to 15 years. The tenth chapter argues that the rationale of the duty to furnish information and the asymmetrical information problem justify requiring the trustee to proactively furnish information to fairly representative beneficiaries. The eleventh chapter introduces the duty with respect to co-trustees in the U.S. and endorses Taiwan’s regulation that trust shall be jointly administered by all the trustees.
The twelfth chapter regarding the duty with respect to delegation first points out that excusing the trustee who made improper delegation merely because the delegate did not act unreasonably would encourage trustees to betray the confidences reposed in them, and considers the interrelationship between Taiwan’s Civil Code and Trust Law, this thesis argues that the liability for improper delegations shall be absolute. Next, the chapter makes the point that article 25 of the amendment proposal might hinder trust from getting astute investment advice, and the law shall allow the cost of delegation be paid from trust property when both the delegation and the cost are proper. The end of this chapter proposes that, in view of the monitoring problem and risk allocation, Taiwan’s Trust Enterprise Act shall include the liability rule with respect to the improper delegation.
The above analysis shows that the existing Trust Law and the amendment proposal could be further improved. This thesis intends to provide guidance to the amendment of Trust Law and attempts to suggest an enforceable trust law amendment proposal on the theory level. It is expected that through taking advantage of the experience from the Restatement (Third) of Trust, the trust scheme in Taiwan could be both theoretically and practically justified, thereby illuminates deeper debates about trust issues.

中文摘要 v
Abstract viii
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究範圍與方法 2
第三節 論文架構 2
第四節 基本名詞對照 3
第二章 信賴義務 5
第一節 概論 5
第二節 美國法 6
第三節 我國法之省思 7
第三章 一般管理義務 8
第一節 美國法 8
第一項 確認義務 8
第二項 保存信託財產義務 9
第三項 增進收益義務 12
第四項 運用分配信託財產之義務 12
第二節 我國法 16
第三節 省思與移植 16
第一項 美國法之訴訟上攻防義務案例評析 16
第二項 我國法之檢討 21
第四章 分別管理義務 23
第一節 美國法 23
第一項 概論 23
第二項 違反標記義務之指標案例 25
第二節 台灣法 25
第一項 現行法 25
第二項 修法草案 26
第三節 省思與移植 27
第一項 美國法上法律效果之評析 27
第二項 我國法之檢討 30
第五章 注意義務 33
第一節 美國法上之謹慎義務 33
第一項 謹慎義務之放寬與界線 33
第二項 謹慎義務之判斷時點 34
第三項 專家意見作為保護屏障之界線 35
第四項 處分信託財產時之謹慎義務 37
第五項 處理稅務時之謹慎義務 39
第二節 台灣法 41
第三節 省思與移植 43
第一項 受有報酬是否影響注意義務之標準 43
第二項 注意義務之放寬與界線 45
第三項 美國法上謹慎義務與我國注意義務標準之調和 49
第四項 營業信託注意義務之檢討 50
第五項 再建構我國法之受託人注意義務 52
第六章 忠實義務 54
第一節 美國法 54
第一項 不可分割之忠實義務 55
第二項 忠實不可分割之例外 57
第三項 自己交易 65
第四項 其他利益衝突之情形 68
第五項 與受益人交易 72
第六項 保密義務 73
第七項 與公司法忠實義務之區辨 73
第二節 台灣法 75
第一項 現行信託法 75
第二項 信託法修法草案 77
第三項 信託業法 80
第三節 省思與移植 81
第一項 最佳利益或唯一利益之論辯 81
第二項 反思我國之忠實義務規範 84
第七章 公平義務與增進收益義務 101
第一節 美國法 101
第一項 公平義務 101
第二項 增進收益之義務 108
第三項 增進收益義務與公平義務之適用差異 109
第四項 對於相繼受益人之義務 110
第五項 公益信託下的增進收益義務 114
第二節 省思與移植 114
第一項 公平義務之增訂 114
第二項 應否引入增進收益義務 115
第八章 分散投資義務 116
第一節 美國法 116
第一項 概論 116
第二項 無需分散投資之情形 118
第二節 省思與移植 121
第一項 美國法上保留條款之檢討 121
第二項 我國法之建構 122
第九章 帳簿作成義務 123
第一節 美國法 123
第一項 概論 123
第二項 帳簿作成義務與信託條款調整之界線 124
第三項 經法院承認之帳簿 125
第二節 省思與移植 127
第一項 台灣法 127
第二項 回顧與借鑑 128
第十章 資訊提供義務 132
第一節 美國法 132
第一項 概論 132
第二項 預期享有信託利益者請求信託資訊 136
第三項 信託條款對於資訊提供之限制 137
第四項 受託人得否拒絕提供資訊 138
第二節 省思與移植 140
第一項 我國法 140
第二項 我國法之檢討 140
第十一章 關於共同受託人之義務 142
第一節 美國法 142
第一項 概論 142
第二項 授權予其他共同受託人 145
第三項 共同受託人意見不一致 145
第二節 省思與移植 146
第一項 移植與否之探討 146
第二項 我國法之檢討 147
第十二章 授權他人處理信託事務時之義務 150
第一節 美國法 150
第一項 概論 150
第二項 得授權之管理行為 152
第三項 受任人與受託人之責任與報酬 154
第二節 台灣法 156
第一項 現行法 156
第二項 修法草案 156
第三節 省思與移植 157
第一項 受託人得授權之界線 157
第二項 我國現行信託法與修法草案之檢討 158
第三項 營業信託之授權責任檢討 161
第十三章 結論 164
參考文獻 169
附錄一 175
附錄二 180
附錄三 189

一、中文部分 （按筆劃排列）
（一）書籍
王志誠（2012）。《信託法》，4版。台北：五南。
王澤鑑（2003）。《侵權行為法第一冊：基本理論 一般侵權行為》。台北：三民。
方嘉麟（1994）。《以比較法觀點論信託法制繼受之問題》。台北：月旦。
史尚寬（1990）。《債法總論》。台北：自刊。
李智仁、張大為（2015）。《信託法制案例研習》，4版。台北：元照。
林誠二（2000）。《民法債編總論(上) 》。台北：瑞興。
金鼎（2014）。《公司章程之效力與界限：以英美法制為借鏡》。台北：元照。
陳聰富（2008）。《侵權歸責原則與損害賠償》。台北：元照。
謝哲勝（2014）。《信託法》，4版。台北：元照。
（二）期刊文獻
吳英傑（2015）。〈論受託人違反信託本旨而為信託財產之處分：救濟方法暨其法理基礎〉，《台大法學論叢》，44卷2期，頁407-456。
吳英傑（2017）。〈歐洲民事法模範草案與信託法〉，《台大法學論叢》，46卷3期，2017年9月出版。
陳忠五（1999）。〈校園學生事故中應負損害賠償責任之人－臺灣板橋地方法院八十七年度訴字第六九○號民事判決評釋〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，1期，頁64-92。
劉興善（1997）。〈從信賴關係談受託人、受任人、法人代表和公司負責人之注意義務〉，《政大法學評論》，57期，頁425-428。
劉連煜（2003）。〈公司負責人之忠實及注意義務〉，《月旦法學教室》，7期，頁24-25。
謝哲勝（2002）。〈信託業管理信託財產的權限〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，90期，頁65-76。
（三）其他
信託法研究修正專案小組歷次會議研商結論（103.2.7第75次會議研商結論）。
二、英文部分（按字母順利排列）
（一）書籍
Bogert, G. G., & Bogert, G. T. (1960). The Law of Trusts and Trustees (2d ed.). Kansas City, Missouri: Vernon Law Book Company.
-------- (1993). The Law of Trusts and Trustees (Rev. 2d ed.). Kansas City, Missouri: Vernon Law Book Company.
Fratcher, I. W. A. (1987). Scott on Trust (4th ed.). New York, United States: Aspen Publishers.
Garton, J., & Moffat, G., & Bean, G. (2015). Moffat’s Trusts Law (6th ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Glister, J., & Lee, J. (2015). Hanbury & Martin: Modern Equity (20th ed.). London, England: Sweet & Maxwell.
Rounds, C. E. (2006). Loring: A Trustee’s Handbook (2006 ed.). New York, United States: Aspen Publishers.
Rounds, C. E., & Rounds C. E. (2015). Loring and Rounds: A Trustee''s Handbook (2016 ed.). Wolters Kluwer Law & Bus.
American Law Institute (1959). Restatement Second, Trusts (2d ed). Philadelphia, United States: American Law Institute.
American Law Institute (2007). Restatement Third, Trusts (3d ed). St. Paul, Minn: American Law Institute.
（二）期刊文獻
Alexander, G. (1999). Cognitive Theory of Fiduciary Relationships Cornell Law Review, 85(3), 767-785.
Ascher, M. L. (1985). The Fiduciary Duty to Minimize Taxes. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 20(2), 663-718.
Bennett, C. (1993). When the Fiduciary''s Agent Errs-Who Pays the Bill Fiduciary-Agent, or Beneficiary. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 28(3), 429-534.
Booth, R. A. (1999). The Suitability Rule, Investor Diversification, and Using Spread to Measure Rick. Business Lawyer (ABA), 54(4), 1599-1628.
Cooper, J. (2007). Speak Clearly and Listen Well: Negating the Duty to Diversify Trust Investments. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 33(3), 903-942.
Curtis, J. (1996). The Transmorgrification of the American Trust. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, 31(2), 251-312.
DeMott, D. (1988). Beyond Metaphor: An Analysis of Fiduciary Obligation. Duke Law Journal, 1988(5), 879-924.
Fischel, D., & Langbein, J. H. (1988). ERISA''s Fundamental Contradiction: The Exclusive Benefit Rule. University of Chicago Law Review, 55(4), 1105-1160.
Flannigan, R. (2006). The Strict Character of Fiduciary Liability. New Zealand Law Review, 2006(2), 209-242.
Frankel, T. (1983). Fiduciary Law. California Law Review, 71(3), 795-836.
Hallgring, R. (1966). The Uniform Trustees'' Powers Act and the Basic Principles of Fiduciary Responsibility. Washington Law Review, 41(4), 801-837.
Kiziah, T., & Campbell, L. (2011-2012). Drafting to Effectuate Grantor''s Retention Desires with Respect to Publicly Held Securities. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, 46(2), 199-254.
Langbein, J. (1994). Reversing the Nondelegation Rule of Trust-Investment Law. Missouri Law Review, 59(1), 105-120.
-------- (2004). Mandatory Rules in the Law of Trusts. Northwestern University Law Review, 98(3), 1105-1128.
-------- (2005). Questioning the Trust Law Duty of Loyalty: Sole Interest or Best Interest. Yale Law Journal, 114(5), 929-990.
Leslie, M. (2005). In Defense of the No Further Inquiry Rule: Response to Professor John Langbein. William and Mary Law Review, 47(2), 541-586.
-------- (2006). Common Law, Common Sense: Fiduciary Standards and Trustee Identity. Cardozo Law Review, 27(6), 2713-2752.
Niles, R. (1943). Trusts and Administration. Annual Survey of American Law 1943(Part Three), 617-632.
Niles, R., & Schwartz, B. (1944). Breach of Trust Recent Developments. New York University Law Quarterly Review, 20(2), 165-190.
Parfitt, C., & Munro, M. (1999). Whose Interests Are We Talking About?: A.(C.) v. Critchley and Developments in the Law of Fiduciary Duty. University of British Columbia Law Review, 33(1), 199-214.
Roth, R. (1999). Understanding the Attorney-Client and Trustee-Beneficiary Relationships in the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate Litigation: Reply to Professor McCall. University of Hawai''i Law Review, 21(2), 511-530.
Scott, A. (1945). The Law of Trusts, 1941-1945. Harvard Law Review, 59(2), 157-208.
Sealy, L. L. (1962). Fiduciary Relationships. Cambridge Law Journal, 1962(1), 69-81.
Weinrib, E. (1975). The Fiduciary Obligation. University of Toronto Law Journal, 25(1), 1-22.
Wellman, R. (1978). Punitive Surcharges Against Disloyal Fiduciaries--Is Rothko Right. Michigan Law Review, 77(1), 95-118.