試論行政命令作為民法第一百八十四條第二項所稱之法律

A Discussion of Whether Administrative Regulations Can Be Interpreted as within the Extent of the Term, "the Law", as Set Forth in Article 184, Paragraph 2 of Taiwan's Civil Code

顏佑紘(Yu-Hung Yeh)

《東吳法律學報》 23卷1期 (2011/07) Pp. 43-94

https://doi.org/10.6416/SLR.201107.0043

摘要

按民法第一百八十四條第二項規定：「違反保護他人之法律，致生損害於他人者，負賠償責任。但能證明其行為無過失者，不在此限。」而就本條所謂「保護他人之法律」，應自保護他人法律之「法律」該如何認定，及保護他人法律之「保護他人」該如何解釋，分別加以研究之。而本文主要之研究對象，即係在討論前者之範圍是否包括行政命令？又縱然採取肯定之見解，是否應認為包括所有類型之行政命令？本文自民法第一百八十四條第二項之文義解釋，及從避免架空侵權責任法之原則兩個面向分析後發現，並非任何規定均屬民法第一百八十四條第二項所稱之法律。但是自民事責任之產生係來自於義務違反之基本觀念，應認為某一規定欲成為本條所稱之法律，有一共通之必要條件，亦即該規定性質上應具有強制力。此外，本文於結論上認為，因為各該規定之性質千差萬別，所以並無一個明確之判斷標準能確定某一規定是否屬於本條所稱之法律，因此當一個規定性質上具有強制力時，仍然必須考量民法第一百八十四條第二項之規定、侵權責任之體系架構，甚至是考量整個民事責任之體系架構後，始能決定系爭規定是否為本條所稱之法律。在此前提下，關於「行政命令」、「法規命令」、「行政規則」及「職權命令」是否屬於民法第一百八十四條第二項所稱之法律，即有個別加以研究之必要。

關鍵字

侵權責任 ； 民法第一百八十四條第二項 ； 保護他人之法律 ； 法律規範 ； 行政命令

並列摘要

A tort law is provided in Article 184, Paragraph 2 of Civil Code. The Paragraph states that if a person, who violates a statutory provision enacted for the protection of others and therefore prejudice to others, is bound to compensate for the injury, except no negligence in his act can be proved. According to this Paragraph there is an important element of the liability, that the regulation which a person violates should be the statutory provision here. The object of this study include that the scope of the statutory provisions whether to include a government decree. Also even though certainly the view taken, should include all types of administrative regulations?From the literal interpretation of the Article 184, Paragraph 2 of Civil Code and to avoid overhead from the principle of tort law, we should consider that not any of regulations is the statutory provision here. But since the civil liability arises from the breach of obligations, the nature of the regulations should be mandatory and this is the necessary condition to be the statutory provision here.In addition, the paper's conclusion on that, because of the nature of the regulations vary, there is no a clear criterion to make sure whether the regulation is the statutory provision here. So when the nature of the regulations is mandatory, we should still consider that the Article 184, Paragraph 2 of Civil Code, the system architecture of the tort liability and even the system architecture of the civil liability to decide if the regulation is the statutory provision here. Under this premise, administrative regulations, ordinances, regulatory provisions, terms of orders must be individual studied to see if they are the statutory provisions here.

並列關鍵字

Torts ； Article 184 ； Paragraph 2 of Taiwan's Civil Code ； Statutory Provisions Intended for the Protection of Others ； Legal Norm ； Administrative Regulations

參考文獻

陳忠五(2007)。論契約責任與侵權責任的保護客體：「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再省思。國立臺灣大學法學論叢。36(3)，51-254。

胡長清，中國民法債編總論，上海，商務，1948 年 8 版。

(2001).Münchener Kommentar zum Bügerlichen Gesetzbuch, Brand 5: Schuldrecht, Besonderer Teil III (§§ 705- 853).München:

Bistritzki, Walter(1981).Voraussetzungen für die Qualifikation einer Norm als Schutzgesetz im Sinne des § 823 Abs. 2 BGB.Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ..

Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm(1983).Schutzgesetz-Verkehrspflichten-Schutzpflichten.Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 80. Geburtstag am 23. April 1983.(Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 80. Geburtstag am 23. April 1983).: