論行政契約上締約過失

蔡宜靜(Tsai, Yiching)

指導教授 ： 江嘉琪

國立中正大學/法學院/法律學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

摘要
行政契約獲得實體法之明文承認後，行政實務上廣泛使用此一行為形式於各行政領域上，尤其於實務上關於促進民間參與公共建設之領域，行政機關與人民所締結之投資契約常於締約過程中因締約行為引發爭議，例如於準備、磋商階段議約時，行政機關提供不實資訊予廠商，而造成損害，此引發之法律關係可稱為「行政法上締約過失之法律關係」，此與私法領域發展出之締約過失概念相同，係指於契約關係的過程及準備階段的接觸，當事人彼此間已產生保護與斟酌義務，而過失侵害此一義務者，則衍生出締約過失之損害賠償責任。由行政實務上之諸多案例可知，於行政契約領域發生締約過失之情事，亦非難以想像之事，例如ETC案件、歐信公司與台北縣政府之BOT案，但學理及實務上對於此一議題尚未見有充分之討論，然而於行政法上行政契約普遍被運用為行政行為形式後，締約過失理論如何運用於行政契約領域，在行政契約蓬勃發展之今日，是一值得討論之問題。
本文以行政契約上締約過失為題，探討其如何運用於行政契約領域，主要區分為三大部分。首先，締約過失理論是私法領域發展出之概念，由德國法學家耶林教授所提出之理論，被譽為「法學上的發現」，於德國歷經百年實務及學說之交互影響下，於二○○二年修訂的德國新債法中始被明文法典化，而我國民法學說及實務亦受德國法之影響深遠，且於民法第二百四十五條之一亦對締約過失責任明文規範。行政契約之締約過失於我國學理及實務上少見討論，因此，對於此一議題，本文以民法締約過失理論為一借鑑，藉由私法領域之相關論述，以建構行政契約締約過失責任。
其次，本文就行政契約領域中前契約責任之形成及其法理基礎、締約過失類型、責任要件及法律效果等問題為一探討，此部分亦為本文之主軸。另外有鑑於我國國內文獻及實務對於行政契約締約過失之論述有限，而我國行政程序法大多繼受德國行政程序法而來，因此於本文此一部分之解釋，主要引介德國法上之討論，但於我國實務上亦有不同於德國法上之爭議問題，本文亦於相關討論上就我國法上之爭議問題為一說明，以建構我國行政契約締約過失責任。
第三部分主要以我國若干實務案例，結合我國現行法之規定為檢討，比較我國現行實務上就此一問題之處理方式為一說明。
最末，綜合整理本文學理與實務案例討論之重點，歸納本文之結論，期有助於行政實務上面臨行政契約締約過失之爭議問題時，得提供參考建議。

關鍵字：行政契約、締約過失責任、雙階理論、契約責任、信賴保護原則

關鍵字

行政契約 ； 締約過失責任 ； 雙階理論 ； 契約責任 ； 信賴保護原則

並列摘要

Abstract
After administrative contract was acknowledged by substantive law, the administrative practice widely used form of this behavior in the various administrative areas, especially about the field of Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects in practice. The concession agreement that the administrative agency and the private institution sign often causes controversies due to contracting behavior in the contracting process, for example, the administrative provides false information to the private institution for damage resulting on the preparation and consultation stage of contract negotiation. This lead to the legal relationship can be described as “administrative law on the legal relationship of culpa in contrahendo”. It’s the same with concept of culpa in contrahendo from the field of civil code. It’s the meaning that the parties each other produce duty of protective and deliberate in the process of contractual relationship and the contact of preparation phase, and the person who encroaches the duty of care at fault has the liability for damage compensation of culpa in contrahendo. By the many administrative cases we can know it’s not hard to imagine that culpa in contrahendo takes place in the field of administrative contract, such as the ETCcase, the BOT project of Ou Hsin company and the Taipei County Government, but this subject of debate has not been fully discussed in doctrine and practice. After administrative contract generally was used for the form of administrative behavior in administrative law, the theory of culpa in contrahendo how to apply to the field of administrative contract is worthy to discuss nowadays.
This title is culpa in contrahendo of administrative contract, and this article is to confer how it was made use of the field of administrative contract. This article mainly divides into three parts. The first, the theory of culpa in contrahendo is concept from the field of civil code, and it’s brought up by the German jurist Rudolf v. Jhering. It’s commended the “Juristische Entdeckungen”. After the reciprocal effect of centuries of practice and doctrine, it’s legislated by the German law of obligation 2002. The doctrines and practices of our civil law is influenced by German law, and the Article 245-1 of civil code also enactes culpa in contrahendo. Culpa in contrahendo of administrative contract is rare discussed in our doctrine and practice, so this article constructs culpa in contrahendo of administrative contract by the correlative theory of culpa in contrahendo of civil code.
The second, this article is to discuss issues about the formation and legal basis of precontractual liability, the category of culpa in contrahendo, the constitutive requirement and legal effect, and it’s the main part of this article. In addition, respecting the fact that culpa in contrahendo of administration contract is discussed rarely. This article expounds to quote mainly the discussion of German law, because the Administrative Procedure Act in Taiwan is derivative acquisition from the Administrative Procedure Act in German. However there are issues practically in Taiwan different from in German, this article expounds issues practically to establish culpa in contrahendo of administrative contract in Taiwan.
The third, this part criticizes a certain number of practical cases in Taiwan integrating with regulations of the current law in Taiwan, and compares with ways of doing practically in Taiwan.
Finally, this article arranges the issues of cases in doctrine and practice, and generalizes the conclusions. This article hopes to bring up some helpful advice about confronting issues of culpa in contrahendo of administrative contract practically in Taiwan.

KEYWORDS：Administrative Contract, Culpa in Contrahendo, Two-stage Theory, Contrac- tual Liability, the Principle of Legitimate Expectation.

並列關鍵字

Administrative Contract ； Culpa in Contrahendo ； Two-stage Theory ； Contract Liability ； the Principle of Legitimate Expectation

參考文獻

8、向明恩，對我國民法第245之1之反省與檢討，台北大學法學論叢，第79期，頁145–205，2011年9月。

9、向明恩，德國締約過失上過失理論之發展，台北大學法學論叢，第70期，頁1–79，2009年6月。

19、林明鏘，進口果權利標售與行政契約：評最高行政法院95年度判字第00815判決暨台北高等行政法院92年度訴字第5337號判決，臺大法學論叢第37卷第2期，頁1–40，2008年6月。

25、洪家殷，論信賴保護原則之適用–司法院大法官釋字第五二五號解釋評析–，台灣本土法學雜誌，第27期，頁39–55，2001年10月

31、陳忠五，論契約責任與侵權責任的保護客體：「權利」與「利益」區別正當性的再反省，台大法學論叢，第36卷第3期，頁51–254，2007年11月。