行政訴訟程序上行政處分理由之追補

Subjoining and Substitute of the Reasons of Administrative Decisions in Administrative Litigation Procedure

張世昌(Shih-Chang Chang)

指導教授 ： 盛子龍

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2003年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200300479

摘要

行政程序法第96條第1項第2款要求行政機關記載，其在作成處分時所認為之重要理由，若行政機關記載之理由無法支持原處分時，行政機關是否能於行政訴訟程序上提出可支持原處分之正確理由？法院是否可依職權斟酌足以維持原處分之理由？此一問題之產生，源由於行政機關在作成處分時，未能將事實調查清楚，或是將法律觀點加以釐清，即對於處分之作成有認事用法之錯誤，因此向外表示錯誤之理由，此一問題即為學理上所謂「行政處分理由之追補」。本論文就比較法角度研究此一問題，參照法制與我國相近之德國法制與日本法制之發展經驗，除澄清處分理由追補之問題定位外，並整理足資我國法制借鏡之法律思考觀點，對行政機關責任與人民權利保障及程序經濟等層面加以檢討，對涉及此問題之上中下游制度加以檢討，將比較法的經驗作本土性地消化，尋得較合適我國法制之見解。
第一章為導論，提出數個有關案件，並敘述問題意識之由來；第二章為德國法制之發展，介紹德國法對本問題之概念、定位，並介紹通說實務與少數說見解之分歧點；第三章為本論文最主要部分，詳細介紹日本學說、實務對本問題之爭論，並尋得其中發展脈絡，以作為我國法制參考；第四章討論我國法應如何看待處分理由追補，對可能影響本問題之法律觀點予以檢討；第五章為結論。

關鍵字

行政程序法第96條第1項第2款 ； 實質說理瑕疵 ； 處分理由追補

並列摘要

Article 96, paragraph 1, number 2 of Administrative Procedural Law demands that the authority concerned, when making an administrative decision, should put down in writing the important reasons. If the reasons put down cannot support the original decision, can the authority concerned put up correct reasons to support the original decision during an administrative litigation process? Can the court exercise it’s own authority on considering the correct reasons which would be able to sustain the original decision? This problem arises because the authority concerned, when making the decision, failed to clearly investigate the facts or clarify the legal disputes. In other words, it has misjudged the facts or legal points and therefore formally written down the wrong reasons. This problem is called “ Subjoining and Substitute of the Reasons of Administrative Decisions “. This thesis plans to investigate this problem from the view of comparative law. By comparing the developing experiences of German and Japanese law, which are most similar to our law, not only clarify the systematical position of the problem but also put to order contemplated legal points of view which might be useful references for us in examining the problem concerning the liability of the authority concerned, practice of the protection of constitutional rights and economy and efficiency of the procedure. Finally, we can probably have a better understanding and find a better solution to this problem.
Chapter 1 is a general introduction of the problem. It proposes some actual cases and explains where the consciousness of the problem comes from. Chapter 2 describes the development about the problem in German law , how the German law approaches the problem and introduces the divergent points in theoretical structure among scholars and between practice and theory. Chapter 3 is the most important part of this thesis, it presents an complete overview of the problem under the context of Japanese law. Chapter 4 discusses the problem in our law and reviews possible legal points concerning the problem. Chapter 5 is the conclusion.

並列關鍵字

Subjoining and Substitute of the Reasons ； Article 96Ⅰ(2 )of Administrative Procedural Law ； Substatial Imperfections to Talk Reason

參考文獻

1、我國部分

1.王澤鑑，《侵權行為法第一冊》，台北，自版，初版（1998）。

2.林山田，刑法通論（上冊），台北，自版，增訂七版，（2000）

3.吳庚，《行政法之理論與實用》，台北，自版，五版（1999）。

4.吳庚，《行政法爭訟法論》，台北，自版，初版（1999）。