司法實務對行政契約之判決類型與檢討

Legal analysis on the types of judament concerning administrative contract

郭銘倫(Ming-Lun Guo)

指導教授 ： 陳櫻琴

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201500144

摘要

論文摘要
行政程序法在民國90年1月1日施行，行政契約被列為重要的行政程序類型之一，該法施行至今，司法實務上已逐漸累積出各種行政契約的案例，將之作進一步的歸納、分析、類型化應有助於行政契約法制的再建構，此為本文的研究目的。

然而，在適用該法行政契約相關法規的前提，必然是當事人間所訂立的契約性質確屬行政契約。對此，本文在第三章即先撰寫行政契約法首應面對的問題，也就是行政契約與私法契約的區別方法究竟為何。結論上，本文認為現階段行政契約與私法契約的判斷標準，似應以契約標的說為主，行為主體說為輔，待時機更為成熟時，或可全面採取行為主體說作為判斷標準。另外，並在同章節整理司法實務在遇到此問題時，所選用的判斷標準有何。

行政契約之類型，學者一般將之分類為對等關係契約與隸屬關係契約、負擔契約與處分契約以及雙務契約與和解契約這六種類型，然而，此六種類型之區分只是概略地就行政契約的型態、屬性加以區隔，尚非如同民法般有著比較明確，具體的契約類型，在司法實務上，這些類型也沒有太大的區分意義。本文透過歸納法整理行政法院在裁判上有關行政契約的類型，如下附表一所示。而本文將目前司法實務上行政契約類型化之理由有二，其一為形成契約定性的共識，日後在相同的契約類型，可免除契約性質之紛爭；另外，由於不同種類之行政契約，在制度面上似宜有不同的規範內容，猶如民法般，在契約通則外，針對不同契約類型規範較為細緻的內容，如此可減少紛爭，也可令當事人在訂約的各個階段就雙方權利、義務的主張與負擔有一定程度的預見，減少不安定感。

關鍵字

類型 ； 行政契約 ； 司法實務

並列摘要

Abstract

The Administrative Procedure Act has entered into force in January 1, 2001, and since then, the administrative contract is recognized as part of important administrative procedure. Throughout the implementation of the act, judicial practices have developed cases regarding various types of administrative contracts. Conducting inductive analysis on the cases and by categorizing the cases should be constructive towards the re-construction of the legal structure of the administrative contracts, which is also the aim of this Thesis.

However, as a prerequisite to apply relevant provisions of administrative contract, the character of the administrative contract within the contract has to be confirmed in advance. This Thesis discussed this problem in Chapter 3, and clarified the method to differentiate between administrative contract and private contract. In sum, this Thesis submitted that the test applied ought to be primarily based on the subject-matter of the contract, and secondarily, by examining the actors. However, in the future along with the development, it is recommended to wholly adopt the test of actors. Also, this Thesis concluded in this chapter the test adopted by judicial practices when facing this problem.

Regarding the categories of the administrative contracts, scholars generally categorizes these contracts into six types, namely the co-ordinate contract and subordinate contract, ehe burden of contract and disposal contract, and last but not least, compromise contract and reciprocal contract. However, this categorization is roughly made based on the format and the character of the administrative contract, which is less certain and concrete if compared to the types of contracts included in the Civil Code. In judicial practices, this categorization is also less meaningful. This Thesis therefore aimed to inductively analyze and conclude the categories of administrative contracts based on administrative court judgments, and presented the conclusion in Table 1. There are two purposes of making this categorization: firstly, to form consensus on the categorization in order to avoid conflicts; secondly, as different types of administrative contracts require different governing norms, these norms can be written into specific provisions aside from general provisions, similar to the Civil Code. By doing so, it is expected that conflicts can be avoided, and parties could make better prediction regarding the rights, obligations and burdens before entering into contract, and abolish the feeling of uncertainty.

並列關鍵字

types ； administrative contract ； judament concerning

參考文獻

9.林明鏘，進口蘋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11（2008）。

7.林明鏘，行政契約與行政處分—評最高行政法院八十八年度判字第三八三七號判決，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第33卷第1期，頁93-130（2004）。

6.林明鏘，行政契約法論－以德國行政契約法為中心試評法務部行政程序法民國八十三年四月草案，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第24卷第1期，頁143-180（1994）。

12.吳庚，行政契約之基本問題，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第7卷第2期，頁107-146（1978）。

16.陳清雲，論公法與私法之區別—從大法官會議釋字第八十九號解釋談起—，立法院院聞，第4卷，第三期，頁61~67（1996）。