违约精神损害赔偿的要件

The Elements of Mental Damages for Breach of Contract

摘要: 《民法典》第996条将“侵害人格权益”规定为违约精神损害赔偿的要件。在司法实践中，认可违约精神损害赔偿的案件多涉及人格权益侵害，但只能说明违约行为侵害人格权益时可能引发精神损害赔偿，而并不能论证其是违约精神损害赔偿的成立以违约行为侵害人格权益为必要。“侵害人格权益”本是侵权行为引发精神损害赔偿的构成要件，将其纳入违约责任的体系中作为违约精神损害赔偿是否成立的判断标准，一刀切地阻断了未侵害人格权益而引发精神利益损害的违约案件的救济可能性。因此，在构建第996条解释论之际，应当摒弃“人格权益侵害”的要件化思维，将“人格权益侵害”从违约精神损害赔偿的构成要件柔化为引发违约精神损害赔偿的典型情形列举，关于违约精神损害赔偿的有无以及具体范围，仍应回归到违约责任体系中进行判断。

Abstract: Article 996 of the Civil Code sets “infringement of personal rights and interests” as a condition for compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. Although many cases in judicial practice that support compensation involve infringement of personal rights and interests, this phenomenon is a feature of the scenario rather than a proof of the legitimacy of the condition. “Infringement of personal rights and interests” is essentially a core constituent element of tort liability. Incorporating it into the judgment standard of breach of contract confuses the boundaries between breach of contract liability and tort liability, making it difficult for breach of contract cases with severe mental damages but no direct infringement of personal rights and interests to obtain relief. To provide a logically consistent application path for Article 996, the “infringement of personal rights and interests” condition should be abandoned, and it should not be used as an entry threshold for compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The positioning of “infringement of personal rights and interests” should be flexibly adjusted from a “necessary condition” to a “commonly associated situation in practice”, and ultimately protected within the breach of contract liability system to avoid hindering the realization of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract due to mechanical application of the condition.