強制汽車責任保險法之和解同意權The Right of Consent to a Settlement in CompulsoryAutomobile Liability Insurance Act

摘要
　　由於我國強制汽車責任保險法採「無過失主義」：當被害人因車禍受傷或致死，無論是否有過失，請求權人均可向保險人或特別補償基金請求強制險給付或補償。除了在本法第29條及第42條有代位的規定，新法並增設了第30條及第43條「強制險和解同意權」確保代位權不受妨礙。本文以強制汽車責任保險法第30條及第43條規定作探討，對妨礙代位的情況如何才會發生？「強制險和解同意權」有何不妥之處？以及在交通事故發生時，若身為賠償義務人或請求權人，是否應該與對方和解等爭議作探討，並以圖表及大量實務判決以茲說明**。
關鍵詞：交通事故、強制汽車責任保險、特別補償基金、代位、和解
Abstract
　　After the amendment of Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (CALIA) issued, the non-liability insurance in Taiwan has established. According to Article 7 of CALIA, parties injured or dead in an automobile traffic accident can claim insurance benefit from the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Fund ("the Compensation Fund") without the consideration of traditional fault system in tort law. However, if the insured party complies with the condition of Article 29 of CALIA, the insurer can take the law status of the original injured party for compensation. Another alike mechanism also existed in Article 42 of CALIA, which is the Compensation Fund can subrogate the claimants for compensation. And because of Article 30 and Article 43, the insurer and the Compensation Fund shall not be bound by any settlement, waiver of rights, or other agreement between a claimant and the party liable for damages made without the previous consent of the insurer and the Compensation Fund. So, Article 30 and Article 43, the right of consent to a settlement, can let the insurer and the Compensation Fund to secure their right of subrogation. In this paper, the author will tackle the following problems. How to prejudice to the claim for subrogation? Whether Article 30 and Article 43 are disadvantageous to the party liable for damages excessively? And last but not least, in every automobile traffic accident, be the party liable for damages or the claimant, to make a compromise and settlement or not?
Keywords: traffic accident, Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act, the Compensation Fund, subrogation, compromise and settlement