法人論爭象徵著權利主體在公法與私法上的分道揚鑣,而這個變化在實定法上的印證即是德國民法典以及對此多所仿效的日本與中華民國民法典;因而當我們考慮到:日本與中國在十九世紀末、二十世紀初無意間繼受了這個割裂的權利主體論述時,或酗竣擖i以透過對既有學說—尤其是法人實在說—的反思,將一個極具西方性的制度在地化。為此,首先本文將檢討通常對法人擬制說的誤會以及這個理論本身的折衷性。其次將透過法人理論從古典羅馬法時代到Hobbes的變化,說明法人橫跨公、私法的雙面性格。接下來經由實定法之比較觀察法人原有之兩個面向的割裂,從而檢討十九世紀擬制說與實在說的真正對立所在。在檢討完法人問題在歐洲的面貌後,進一步探究在東亞先後繼受近代西方式法律的日本法與中華民國法中,法人問題如何發揮其在私法之外的力量。最後提出本文之結論。
The controversy of body corporate symbolizes the separation of public and private law. This metamorphosis is witnessed by the German Civil Code (BGB) and its followers: the civil codes of Japan and the Republic of China. Taking, therefore, into account the unconsious reception of Japan and China around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, we may localize an extremely western institution by reflecting upon existing doctrines-- especially the theory of reality. This article, hence, examines in the first place some common misunderstandings about the theory of fiction and its eclecticism. Through, secondly, the transformation from ancient Roman Law to Hobbes, it tries to demonstrate the Janus-faced character of body corporate: it set its feet on both side of public and private law. Thus the true opposition between the theory of fiction and that of reality can be depicted by underlining the scission of the two dimensions in positive law. After the European version, it turns to the East Asian legal regimes of Japan and the Republic of China for the observation of effects exerted apart from private law by the body corporate , and draws the conclusion at the last part.