臨床試驗執行委託契約報酬爭議案：勞務契約之定性與報酬給付義務【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Disputes on the Remuneration of CRO in Clinical Trial Commissioned Contract: Characterization in Respect of Labor Contract and Obligation of Remuneration
關於勞務契約報酬給付爭訟，實務上多先進行契約定性，再選擇相關成文法規連結適用。然而，契約是由當事人意思表示合致形成之權利義務關係，其法律上拘束力，本質上來自「當事人合意」。除有強行規定介入外，「當事人合意」不僅作為當事人之行為規範，亦成為法院之裁判規範。因此，在紛爭解決上，首應透過契約解釋探求「當事人合意」為何，若當事人約定不備，再進行契約漏洞填補。
本案契約報酬爭議，雙方間權利義務關係應透過契約解釋探求「當事人合意」為何，抑或進行契約補充，至該契約定性上為委任、承攬或混合契約，並非核心問題。最高法院107年度台上字第2440號民事判決，似認本案應逕回歸契約約定，決定兩造間權利義務關係，實值贊同。
In matters to litigations about the obligation of remuneration concerning a labor contract, it would first be characterized in legal practice, then choose related legal norms to be application. However, contract is the relationship of rights and obligations between parties with agreed intentions and its legal validity comes from the agreed intentions between parties. It would be the act norm of the parties and therefore the norm according to which the judgment could be made, except for an imperative law. Therefore, in matters of litigation, first of all, it should be found out what the agreed intentions between the parties really are, and then the gaps in the contract should be filled.
The issues in this case, such as the remuneration and the relationship of rights and obligations between the parties, should be solved through explanations of the contract in terms of the agreed intentions between the parties. Whether the issued contract could be characterized as a mandate contract, a contract for work, or a mixed contract would not be the key point in this case. The civil judgment of the Supreme Court No. 2440 of 2018, according to which the case should be focused on the agreement in the contract to decide the relationship of rights and obligations between the parties, is supportable.
093-114
