脫法行為與法律解釋

「脫法行為」並非法律正式規定之概念，有關之論述多來自於學術討論以及實務判決。我國學說對脫法行為最常見之敘述有：「以形式上合法之手段，達成實質上違法之目的」，實務上之發展大多亦遵循此語句，表示：「所謂脫法行為係指當事人為迴避強行法規之適用，以迂迴方法達成該強行法規所禁止之相同效果之行為」，不過觀察其論述過程，不僅對脫法行為之定義極為模糊，恐造成法律適用不安定之疑慮，加上判決常以系爭行為「違反立法目的」為由，而「依《民法》第71條，無效」，因此不能確定脫法行為理論是否有獨立於法律解釋之實益。從對日本學說之研究可知，脫法行為本質上即為人民迫於社會上必要而對不合時宜之強行規定所為之反抗，並且無論採取法律解釋說、近期區分規避類型而為相應處理，抑或從公、私法調和角度出發之法律適用說，均強調法官必須就「社會新興需求」與「強行規定之理想」進行價值衡量，以掌握脫法行為之中性評價。基此觀點重新檢討法律解釋之理論後，吾人發現部分脫法行為態樣因發生於「逸脫立法計畫之漏洞」，導致無法藉由傳統之法律解釋方法加以解決，而必須依據所涉案例特徵，以脫法行為理論、否認法理、確立新行為態樣等為相應處理，並且彼此間沒有互相取代問題。然而上述「脫法行為理論」、「否認法理」、「確立新行為態樣」等畢竟涉及造法權限之爭議，法官不得輕易為之，必須確保其已試圖於「立法計畫範圍之內」善盡解釋、補充之能事，仍無法使系爭行為得到妥善評價，始得允許法官訴諸其他價值衡量因素，並且須進行更詳細之說理。本文乃建議參考法國對法律詐欺理論或美國學者提出之「規避意圖」，設立主觀要件以提高使系爭行為再次接受強行規定評價之正當依據，此際即得就法規理想之貫徹、社會經濟新需求、對經濟弱勢者之保護、交易安全之維護等諸多利益，進行價值權衡，並藉由妥善運用《民法》第71條但書所具備溝通公、私法秩序之功用，賦予脫法行為無效以外之法律效果。

關鍵字

脫法行為；契約自由；強行規定；法律解釋；規避意圖；價值衡量；借名登記

並列摘要

“Evasion of statutes/regulations” isn’t the formal concept created by the law. Almost all relevant discourses upon it were built up by theoretical developments and judgments. Many theories in our country describe evasion of statutes/regulations as, “To achieve a substantively illegal purpose by taking advantage of ostensibly legal means.”, which is also followed by most of judgments, explaining it as, "The concept of so-called evasion of statutes/regulations refers to a person intending to avoid the application of mandatory rules achieves exactly the same goals prohibited by this mandatory law by using a circuitous method. ". However, when analyzing the process of legal reasoning, it is not only that the definition of the evasion of statutes/regulations is too vague to maintain legal certainty, it could also be uncertain whether it is necessary to distinguish the theory of evasion of statutes/regulations from the legal interpretation, which is because judgments are often based on the reason that "the behavior violates the purpose of statute ", and thus "according to Article 71 of Taiwanese Civil Code, it is invalid.". By studying Japanese studies, we learn that the reason why people evade statutes/regulations is essentially due to social necessity, which prompts resistance to antiquated mandatory rules from people. Therefore, despite dealing it with legal interpretation, classifying evasion into different types, or looking at the problem from the perspective of reconciliation of public law and private law, a judge should always measure and balance the value between “emerging social needs” and “ideal purposes of mandatory rules” to manifest the neutral evaluation of evasion of statutes/regulations. After reviewing the theory of legal interpretation based on this point of view, it could be concluded that some types of evasion occur when there are loopholes beyond the scope of legislative plan, thus making it difficult to solve the problem by traditional methods of legal interpretation. Instead, one should adopt the theory of evasion, the theory of disregarding, or define new types of juridical act according to the characteristics of the case involved. Moreover, all of the above-mentioned methods cannot be replaced with each other. However, no matter which method a judge would adopt, the theory of evasion, the theory of disregarding, and defining new types of juridical act, after all, arouse a controversial issue of distribution of legislative power, therefore, none of them should be invoked at will. It must be ensured that only if a judge has exhausted all means, including legal interpretation and analogizing “within the scope of the legislative plan,” yet still unable to properly evaluate the disputed behavior could he or she resort to other criteria of value measurement, and more detailed reasons must be presented. This paper argues that the element of "intention to evade " existing in the theory of "Fraude à la Loi" in French or proposed by an American scholar is worth considering. We could enhance the legitimacy for making the disputed behavior evaluated by mandatory rules once again by establishing a subjective element. In the meantime, judges should measure every value involved, such as the implementation of the ideals of regulations, emerging social and economic needs, protection for the economically disadvantaged, and maintenance of transaction security, etc. While making good use of the proviso of Article 71 of Taiwanese Civil Law, which has the function of communicating the order of public and private law, the legal effect of evasion could be more variable and more flexible other than invalidity.

並列關鍵字

Evasion of Statutes/Regulations ； Freedom of Contract ； Mandatory Rules ； Legal Interpretation ； Intention to Evade ； Value Measurement ； Borrowing Other's Name for Registration