建築執照使用執照核發與國家賠償責任 -以保護規範理論解析最高法院九二一地震相關判決

The Relationship between State Compensation Law and The Issue of Construction Use of Licenses – Analysis The Supreme Court Judicial decision from the thesis of Protective Regulation.

周瑞堂(Jui-Tang Chou)

指導教授 ： 陳介山

嶺東科技大學/財經學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6823/LTU.2011.00048

摘要

國家賠償法(以下簡稱國賠法)於民國69年7月2日公布，70年7月1日施行，全文共17條條文。在國賠法施行以前，實務上係援用民法第186條之規定，向國家請求損害賠償，在國賠法施行以後，行政法學界，無不寄予厚望。然而在國家賠償法施行後第二年，最高法院作下72年台上字第704號判決，認為：關於國賠法第2條第2項後段之公務員怠於執行職務，致人民之自由或權利遭受損害，此等應作為而未為義務之怠於執行，以人民有公法上請求權為限，並不及於反射利益，嗣該判決並被選為判例。該判例的事實是因為違章建築經人民請求拆除而政府未加以執行，經人民訴請該管公務員怠於執行職務，請求國家賠償。最高法院認定人民對於此種違章建築拆除之請求不具公法上請求權，只是反射利益，故雖然公務員不作為，不能成立公務員怠於執行職務之國家賠償責任。如此的見解，拘束國內實務迄今幾乎逾15年，這些來對國賠法第2條第2項後段運作。
回顧我國國內受人矚目重大意外傷亡事件，自74年間臺北市民生別墅社區輻射屋案 以來、歷經79年間南投縣日月潭翻船案 、84年間臺中市衛爾康餐廳火災案 等3件案例為例，幾乎都是環繞在公務員怠於執行職務，致生人民之自由或權利受有損害，究竟人民因公務員怠於執行職務，該應執行而未執行之行為，所得據於請求的，是否僅有公法上請求權？
79年間南投縣日月潭翻船案，歷經8年訟累，迄87年11月20日有重大之突破，開始有翻轉機會。因最高法院72年台上字第704號判例對於國家賠償法第2條第2項後段公務員所怠於執行之職務，以人民有公法上請求權為限，並不及於反射利益，被司法院大法官第469號解釋宣告違憲，該號解釋引進德國「保護規範理論」，在法律所創設之人民公法上請求權與反射利益間，認為如果該法規範除具有課予公務員義務外，並兼具有保護人民利益為目的，則該公務員已無不作無之裁量空間，因其不作為，如致生人民自由或權利受損，該人民得請求國家賠償。此號解釋文以法規範制定如具有保護人民之目的，則開啟了人民除公法上請求權之外，如另具保護人民之利益時，亦得請求國家賠償之另一道窗。
「保護規範理論」在德國已有一百多年之歷史，我國行政法學界通說認為「保護規範理論」是一種解釋方法，雖然有新舊保護規範理論之別，但對於人民基本權保障之意旨則一。我國國內民國88年9月21日凌晨，臺灣省南投縣集集鎮發生百年僅見芮氏7.3級強度地震(以下簡稱九二一地震)，多數房屋倒塌與人民傷亡，我國各級法院也在這十餘年間累積二十數件關於九二一地震之相關判決 ，本文在研讀關於九二一地震之相關判決中，發覺在「保護規範理論」引進這十餘年當中，我國各級法院所作出之判決不無相異之處，本文擬從最高法院這十數件判決出發，以「保護規範理論」來解析最高法院九二一地震相關判決，使得建築主管機關建造執照使用執照核發與國賠法之關係作連結，尤其民國73年建築法第56條之修法前後 所衍生建築管理主管機關應負實質審查或形式審查之義務與國家賠償責任之關係，並思索建築師簽證是否可能衍生委託行使公權力之國家賠償責任。
人民在公務員怠於執行職務，受有自由與權利之損害，在尋求得請求國家賠償之過程，稱得上是一部血淚史，本文以第469號解釋作為分水嶺，對於國賠法關於公務員怠於執行職務之修正，幸有助益。

關鍵字

保護規範理論 ； 九二一地震 ； 國家賠償

並列摘要

There are a earthquake which had occurred in Jiji Nantou county Taiwan 1999 September 21, more than 2000 people dead , and so many people was injuried by the collapsed building. The actions were brought at court in Taipei、 Taichung 、and Yunlin of Taiwan, to recovery damages.
In this master’s thesis have six chapters, had collected and analysis four judicial decision there are: T.S.T. No. 2049 (Sup. Ct., 2006) , T.S.T. No. 1839 (Sup. Ct., 2005) T.S.T. No. 2345 (Sup. Ct., 2006) , T.S.T. No. 871 (Sup. Ct., 2010) , including fore Buildings are Dong Xing Building in Taipei, Xiag-Yang Yong-zhao Building in FengYuan in Taichung County and TaiPin-HongZong (17) Building in Taichung County and Zhong-Shan Guo-Bao Building in TouLiu Yunlin County.
Almost the Builders and architects of buildings which had collapsed , because they was suspected do shoddy work and use inferior materials, the public servant need response for it? Due to The Building Act Article 56 had modified in Nov 7 1984, Before 1984 the Building provided : “ For the parts of construction works that require inspection, the municipal or county (city) competent authority of construction shall, upon approval of the construction plan, designate the constructor together with the supervisor to submit reports Inquire Qualified before to continue construction, and the competent authority of construction may carry out inspection at any time. After 1984 aforesaid provision delete the obligation to Inquire ,“For the parts of construction works that require inspection, the municipal or county (city) competent authority of construction shall, upon approval of the construction plan, designate the constructor together with the supervisor to submit reports in time before to continue construction, and the competent authority of construction may carry out inspection at any time.” The Building Act Article 56 modify had any different ? The Building Act Article 56 is either right of claim of the public law or the interest of reflection as a result of the discharge of duties by public servant ? The modification of Building Act Article 56 still have the purpose of protection ?
Precedent T.S.T. No. 704 (Sup. Ct., 1983) states that, "pursuant to Article 2, the second sentence of Paragraph 2, of the State Compensation Act, the so-called ‘negligence in the discharge of duties by a public servant’ refers to the situation where the public servant is obligated to discharge certain duties to the victim but fails to do so. In other words, the victim has the right of claim under the public law with respect to certain duties of the public servant. After the request for execution, if, as a result of the failure to discharge the duties, harm is caused to the liberty or rights of the victim, the victim can claim the nation to be responsible for compensatory damages based on the aforesaid provision. Where the people can thus enjoy the interest of reflection [point is unclear] as a result of the discharge of duties by public servant, but where the people cannot make a request for the discharge thereof, in this instance, even if the public servant fails to discharge his/her duties, the people cannot exercise any right of request under public law to seek to safeguard their interests, and as such they cannot claim state compensation based on the above provision."
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan interpretation No 469 ( November 20 1998) provided that: Precedent T.S.T. No. 704 (Sup. Ct., 1983) shall be applicable in the situation where the prerequisites are satisfied, and if the identifiable persons have the right of claim under public law and have made a request for action by the public servant in accordance with legal procedures where the latter fails to discharge his/her duties. But when the people can thus enjoy the interest of reflection as a result of the discharge of duties by public servant, where the people cannot make a request for the discharge thereof, in this instance, even if the public servant fails to discharge his/her duties, the people cannot exercise any right of request under public law to seek to safeguard their interests, and as such they cannot claim state compensation based on the above provision. The portion of said Precedent which contravenes the aforesaid intent of the interpretation would be imposing limits on the rights of the public to request state compensation where the law does not so impose, and it would be contradictory to the constitutional purpose of protecting the rights of the public and therefore such portion should no longer be applicable.
Before Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan interpretation No 469 accumulated many case that the people cannot exercise any right of request under public law to seek to safeguard their interests, for example Sun-Moon Lake shipwreck case, which judgment T.S.S. NO 1881 (Sup.Ct.,1985),
But in the Min-Sen villa Radiation House judgment T.S.G. NO 1 (Taiwan High.Ct.,1998) that: Atomic Energy Act Article24 , clearly stipulates that the identified person shall enjoy certain rights or if it grants the identifiable person who satisfies the legal requirements the rights of request of certain action vis-à-vis the administrative body or governments authorities, undoubtedly the purpose of the regulation whereof lies in protecting the interests of the individual. the laws are enacted for the public welfare or the benefits to the general public, and judging from the overall structure of the law, the applicable party, the intended regulatory effects and factors of social developments, the laws also intend to protect the identified persons, then the person who claims that his/her interests have been harmed as a result of the public servant's failure to discharge his/her duties shall have a recourse in law.
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan interpretation No 469 has declare three significant parts:
The first are :The determination of the purpose of protection under the aforesaid legal provision depends on each individual case.
The second are: Article 2, Paragraph 2, of the State Compensation Act provides that "where the exercise of public authorities in the performance of duties by a public servant results in illegal violation of the liberty or rights of the people by reason of deliberateness or negligence, the state shall be responsible for compensation. The same shall apply where harm is caused to the liberty or rights of the people by reason of failure of a public servant to discharge his/her duties." As long as the official conduct of a public servant satisfies the following: exercise of public authorities (either intentional or negligent), illegal conduct, sufficient causal link between the harm to the liberty or rights of the identifiable persons and the illegal conduct, and the harm is not caused by natural disasters or force majeure events, the victim may base his/her case on either active action or passive inaction and, in accordance with the former or the latter clause of the aforesaid article, request state compensation. The essence of that stipulation is evident and is not dependent on the victim's having a right of claim under the public law with respect to the public servant's failure to discharge duties and the subsequent actual failure thereof after the claim.
The third part is: If the purposes of the laws are to protect the life, health, property and other interests of the citizen, and there are clear provisions in regard to the exercise of public authorities by the relevant authorities, by virtue of this provision, the public servant of the responsible authority does not have the discretion for inaction with regard to the identifiable persons to whom he/she has a responsibility to act. Therefore, where harm is caused to the liberty or rights of an identifiable person as a result of an intentional or negligent failure to discharge official duties or a refusal to discharge duties where so obligated, then the victim can claim compensatory damages from the state.
This master’s thesis will comments Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan interpretation No 469 about aforesaid the second and third parts. Especially Analysis The Supreme Court Judicial decision from the thesis of Protective Regulation, which Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan interpretation No 469 declared. Meanwhile also on The Relationship between State Compensation Act and The Issue of Construction Use of Licenses.

並列關鍵字

Protecvive Regulation ； State Compensation Act

參考文獻

參考文獻

參考文獻(以筆劃排列)

(一)書籍

1李惠宗，〈主觀公權力、法律上利益與反射利益之區別〉，《行政法爭議問

題研究》，五南圖書出版公司，2001年8月。