論公有公共設施國家賠償責任賠償義務機關的認定：日本法的考察

國家賠償法近年面臨修法的討論，當中賠償義務機關的認定也同樣面臨修正，其中公有公共設施設置管理有欠缺的賠償義務機關不同於現行法的規定，採取多層次的認定模式，固可收認定明確的效果。然值此修法之際，日本國家賠償法以「費用負擔」來認定公權力主體是否為賠償義務者的認定模式是否值得臺灣進行修法時作參考，有待進一步討論。本文採取比較法的研究方法，探討日本此等制度的制定歷史脈絡、制度結構、法院運作實況，並與臺灣國家賠償制度做比較，研究此等制度於臺灣適用的可能性。本文發現在立法論上，此等制度的運作在公權力主體設置管理公有公共設施時，費用負擔可成為法律適用者認事用法的參數；另一方面，在形式民營化的情形，日本立法例在處理經營者及管理者分離的情形，則可供我們在制度上予以借鏡。

關鍵字

國家賠償；公有公共設施；賠償義務機關；費用負擔者；危險責任

並列摘要

The State Compensation Law is confronting amendment in recent years, the clause of deciding compensating authority also has some corrections in the draft, this condition also reflect on the type of government-owned public facility. The State Compensation Law Amendment Draft adopt multi-levels judgment modal, no doubt, this modal can pursue definiteness. However, is this amendment perfect? When Japanese State Compensation Law stipulates the public bodies that bear the expenses should be liable for victims. Can Japanese State Compensation Law bring us some inspirers? This article will explore the historical context, institutional structure, and courts' judgments in Japanese legal system, and compare with the legal structure of Taiwan's State Compensation Law, then discuses the Japanese State Compensation Law can recommend or not. This article divides two situations: one is the Government-Owned Public Facility which is installed or managed by public bodies; the other is organization-privatization. The former, ”expenses burden” can be a parameter when courts make judgments. In the other hand, in the later, we can consider to introduce the concept of ”expenses burden” from Japanese legislation. This legislation can deal with the situation that separate the different roles of management and superintendent in the same Government-Owned Public Facility. I believe if we can adopt these suggestions, we could handle the affairs of state compensation well.