伪卡盗刷的责任分配研究——以法释〔2021〕10号第7条为基础  

Study on the Liability Apportionment for Unauthorized Payments with Counterfeit Cards—Based on the Article 7 of the Judicial Interpretation [2021] No. 10

作　　者：凌超羿 Ling Chaoyi

机构地区：[1]德国雷根斯堡大学法学院

出　　处：《南大法学》2024年第6期75-91,共17页NanJing University Law Journal

基　　金：国家留学基金委员会“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目(201808310166)”资助。

摘　　要：伪卡盗刷不会在实体上导致持卡人对发卡行的债权减少或债务增加,发卡行才是盗刷案件的真正受损人。根据法释〔2021〕10号第7条,持卡人和发卡行之间的责任基础应当回归于双方之间的合同关系。在伪卡盗刷中,持卡人的真实债权债务关系虽未受损,但由于发卡行违反账户管理协议项下的正确记账义务,持卡人对其享有以“恢复原状”为内容的支付本息请求权和以“可得利益”为对象的赔偿损失请求权。与此同时,若持卡人违反旨在保护发卡行自有资金安全的附随义务,则其应在发卡行已确认损失的范围内对发卡行承担损害赔偿责任。发卡行虽可通过向持卡人主张这一损害赔偿请求权来实现盗刷损失在彼此之间的分摊,但这项损害赔偿请求权仍会受到与有过失规则和多方当事人追索关系的限制。Unauthorized payments with counterfeit cards do not affect the cardholder’s legitimate deposit claim against the issuing bank,while the issuing bank is the true victim of the fraud.According to Article 7 of the Judicial Interpretation[2021]No.10,the responsibility between the cardholder and the issuing bank should be based on their contractual relationship.In cases of unauthorized payments with counterfeit cards,although the cardholder’s legitimate deposit claim remains intact,the issuing bank,by breaching its obligation to correctly account for transactions under the account management agreement,is liable to the cardholder for restitution of the principal and interest and compensation for any loss of profits.Additionally,if the cardholder breaches any subordinated obligations intended to protect the issuing bank’s own funds,they may be held liable for damages to the extent that the issuing bank has confirmed losses.While the issuing bank may seek compensation from the cardholder to apportion the fraud loss between them,this right to compensation is subject to the comparative negligence rule and the complex multi-party claim relationships.

关 键 词：伪卡盗刷 冲正权 与有过失 附随义务 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学] D922.281[政治法律—法学]