我國夫妻財產制中法定財產制之規範，於1985年時導入民法第1030條之1第1項「剩餘財產分配請求權」，使得夫妻問就婚後收益之盈餘進行平均分配成為可能，同時並於同條第2項導入法院有「酌減」此一數額的權限之規範，此於2002年再經修正成法院得「調整或免除」該分配數額。本文首先分析比較瑞士民法第216條及德國民法第1381條之規範與實務。其次並分析我國民法第1030條之1第2項「調整條款」之適用原則及相關實務。觀察我國過去實務，法院往往以夫妻一方對於剩餘財產創造之貢獻程度，或考量婚姻中人格義務之違反，來決定剩餘財產之分配是否「顯失公平」，一般性地透過第1030條之1第2項來調整分配數額。惟本文以為，此將使同條第1項平衡保障夫妻雙方平等參與分配婚後財產之立法目的被掏空，或抹煞了違反婚姻人格義務之夫妻一方其過去共同協力創造婚後財產價值的勞動成果。蓋調整分配數額畢竟屬例外，法院僅應以不具正當參與分配基礎之情事，即未就婚後財產之價值創造提供協力者，做為發動調整權限之界線，以期能還原第1030條之1第2項調整條款其原本應有之面貌。

In 1985 the equalization claim of the spouse for surplus of matrimonial assets was introduced in the statutory matrimonial property regime of Taiwan. Art. 1030 a paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of Taiwan enables each spouse to equalize the surplus of gains accrued during the matrimonial period. At the same time Art. 1030 a paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan also grants the courts the power to mitigate the amount of equalization claim. In 2002 this provision was modified that the courts shall have the power to adjust and exempt this amount. This article uses the comparative studies on the relevant adjustment provisions in the Art. 216 of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB) and § 1381 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and analyses their practices. Besides this article analyses the principles to use the Art. 1030 a paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan and its practices. The courts shall examine whether the amount of equalization claim is grossly inequitable or not. But in Taiwan the practices of the courts by the examination show that the extent of the contribution of one spouse to the creation of matrimonial assets and the breach of matrimonial personal obligations were also taken into consideration in the past. These lead to a general adjustment of the amount of equalization claim. This article finds that these undermine the purpose of the legislation to protect each spouse equally while matrimonial assets are distributed. The fruit of joint contribution of one spouse to create the values of matrimonial assets in the past will also be erased while he or she breaches the matrimonial personal obligations. The adjustment on the amount of equalization claim should only be an exception. The court should initiate his adjustment power only when one spouse does not have the justified foundation of equalization claim, i.e. when he or she does not provide the assistance to create values of matrimonial assets, so that the true face of the Art. 1030 a paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan it should have can be recovered.