我國民法第260條規定，解除權之行使，不妨礙損害賠償之請求。因其並 未就「損害賠償」之性質及範圍有所規範，而留有相當解釋空間。本條亟待解 決的問題至少有三：第一，我國通說及實務認為本條係採履行利益賠償主義， 解除契約後債權人所得請求之損害賠償，係原債之關係的變換型態。惟通說及 實務同時就解除契約的效果，採取直接效果理論，認為解除會使原債之關係溯 及消滅，則要如何圓滿說明履行利益損害賠償請求權於契約解除後的存續基 礎？德國通說對於解除契約的效果，採取原契約變容說，認為契約解除後，原 契約關係仍然存在，僅內容改變為回復原狀關係，此一見解較能使履行利益賠 償主義之理論首尾一貫。第二，我國學說、實務多認為契約解除後，債權人仍 得向債務人請求替補賠償，惟在民法第259條回復原狀的效果下，此一作法將 導致債權人雙重獲利，故應重新檢討請求替補賠償的容許性。第三，我國最高 法院55 年第1188 號判例及同年第2727 號判例，長年來否定債權人請求賠償 任何於「解除契約後」所發生之損害，惟此等損害實質上多為履行利益之損 害，實不應拘泥於損害發生的時點，而應允許債權人請求賠償。

Article 260 of Civil Code of R.O.C. stipulates that: “The exercise of the right of rescission does not prejudice to the claim for compensation.” Since it doesn’t specify the nature or coverage of the compensation, there is great dispute on the explanation of this article. This essay deals with three of the important issues regarding Article 260: First, the courts judgments and the prevailing theory in Taiwan hold that the compensation in Article 260 is that of expectation interest, which is the transformation of the original obligation after the contract is rescinded. Meanwhile, the courts and the prevailing theory also hold that when a contract is rescinded, it will be extinguished from the beginning. It thus becomes unreasonable to let the creditor claim for the damages of expectation interest with an inexistent contract. In Germany, the prevailing theory contends that “rescission” doesn’t extinguish a contract from the beginning, but only transform the obligation of the contract from the performance of the promise to restitution, which forms a proper solution to the contradiction. Secondly, the courts and the prevailing theory in Taiwan argue that the creditor can still claim for damages in lieu of performance after the contract is rescinded. Nonetheless, with the effect of restitution under Article 259 of the Civil Code, it can result in double-profiting of the creditor. Thus, it is necessary to reexamine whether the claim of damages in lieu of performance should be permitted. Finally, the civil cases No. 1188 (decided in 1966) and No. 2727 (decided in 1966) of the Supreme Court have precluded the creditors from claiming the damages that happen after the rescission of the contract for decades, despite the fact that those damages are often the damages of expectation interest. The proper way is to admit the right to compensation of creditors regardless of when the damages happen.