輔仁法學第50期

近年來，不論是在我國或德國，常見有因反對各類交通、能源等基礎建設計畫所展開之大規模抗爭行動。為探究問題根源，並尋求長久解決之道，德國法學界及立法實務界立即意識到是否現行計畫行政法制中，關於公眾參與之相關規定有所缺漏，並積極透過修法嘗試再行改善及強化該等機制。也因此，本文首先分析德國及我國現行各類計畫程序法制中公眾參與之相關規定，以探尋其缺失之處。繼之，並說明公眾參與之概念，及透由在計畫行政程序中嵌入公眾參與欲謀求之目的，與其應有之功能。再者，若欲改善並強化現行計畫行政程序中之公眾參與機制，則應思考在法制化時應將何等核心要素納入規範，方能使其確實有效達成前述目的，或發揮應有之功能，此亦為本文說明之重點。又由於我國行政法制向來深受德國法制之影響，因此本文最後亦將簡要說明該國聯邦行政程序法於2013年中新增第25條第3項關於及早公眾參與之規範內容，以及該國學理上對該條項規定之評析，以期能作為我國日後修法之參考。

關鍵詞：公眾參與、審議式民主、計畫確定程序、行政程序法、斯圖加特中央車站改建案

In the recent years, the large-scale actions which protested against all kinds of infrastructure plans for transportation or energy occurred commonly in Taiwan as well as in Germany. The research will explore the root of the problem to seek the long-term solutions. The jurisprudence and legislative practice immediately explore whether the current administrative law for the relevant provisions of the public participation is lacked or inadequate. Then, these mechanisms are energetically improved and strengthen by modifying the laws.
As a result, this study analyzes all kinds of planning procedures for the relevant provisions of the public participation and to explore its deficiency. The research explains the concept of the public participation to reach the purpose. Besides, it is advanced the function through adding public participation in the administrative procedures. Also, this study investigates what core elements should be included in specification to improve and to strengthen the public participation mechanism of the existing administrative procedures. The legislating and modified law in our country is deeply influenced by the German legal system. Finally, the study briefly explains the content of the public participation norm from the last § 25 III of the German Federal Administrative Procedure Act in 2013. The study provides the valuable reference for the future research.

Keywords: Public Participation, Deliberative Democracy, Plan Approval Procedure, Administrative Procedure Law, Stuttgart 21

目次
壹、公眾參與訴求之緣起：台灣與德國之事例
貳、現行法制檢視
一、德國法制
二、我國法制
參、現行法制之缺失
一、規範結構之缺失
二、程序設計之缺失
三、實際運作之缺失
肆、公眾參與之概念與功能
一、公眾參與之概念內涵
二、參與人員之範疇
（一）一般性或任何人之參與
（二）利害關係人或利益關係人之參與
三、參與之形式
伍、公眾參與之功能
一、（基本）權利保護功能
二、資訊取得功能
三、行政決定過程之透明化與對於行政之控制
四、衡平、化解衝突、整合及提升接受度等功能
五、提升行政之有效性
六、彌補現行代議民主體制之不足與媒介民主正當性
陸、公眾參與法制化之指導原則
一、參與程序之時點要求
（一）及早之參與
（二）參與之延續性
（三）參與之例行化
二、參與程序內容形構之要求
（一）公平及中立客觀性之確保
（二）參與成果之有效性
（三）參與程序瑕疵法律效果之思考
柒、德國聯邦行政程序法新增第25條第3項及早公眾參與之規定
一、立法背景簡介
二、規範功能
三、規範內容
（一）適用領域
（二）參與程序進行之時點
（三）主管機關之致力義務
（四）受影響公眾之概念範疇
（五）參與程序之進行
（六）參與程序結果之通知
（七）對後續行政程序之影響
（八）違反本條項規定之效果
四、德國學理之評析
捌、代結論─正視公眾參與計畫程序之意義

60年代晚期產品責任制度的確立，促使了懲罰性賠償金法制的日漸發展。然因90年代初期後偶有出現鉅額裁決而引起爭論，故即觸發論者紛紛投入研究，且聯邦最高法院此際亦開始表示關切並對數起鉅額裁決案件予以司法審查。此外，隨著90年代侵權行為改革法案的進行，各州亦藉機而對該賠償金制度作出限制性的立法規範。然在此些司法審查與立法改革的作為與方案中，卻無對於大規模瑕疵產品致害事件面臨多重裁決所生過度扼殺與公平性等問題，提出具體的立法解決方案。而儘管各州法院對於此等重要問題已有所關切並提出看法，但最後均是陳言無能為力並表示唯有透過全國性立法方能解決。從而，此議題於美國法上儼然是產品責任及懲罰性賠償金責任制度中最為重要的研究課題之一。因此，鑑於我國近年大量黑心產品致害事件頻傳，且適用消保法而課予多重懲罰性賠償金責任將是可期，輔以國內迄今對此重要問題仍未有研究性論文出現等情形下，本文即擬研究美國法上此等問題之相關判決及學者間的建議方案，以期作為我國司法實務及未來修法上之參考。

關鍵詞：消費者保護法、大規模侵權訴訟、多重裁決、產品責任訴訟、集體訴訟、正當程序條款、一次性裁決

The establishment of product liability system in the late 60's promoted the gradual development of punitive damages system, and surprising award appeared in the early 90's, so scholars have written articles to criticize and research, and the Supreme Court has expressed concerns and started constitutional judicial review on several high punitive damages awards. In addition, with the progress of tort reform in 90 years, each state had also reformed punitive damages system and made restrictive legislative norms. However, if we carefully investigate the actions and programs of the judicial reviews and legislative reforms, there are no concrete solutions and legislation proposed for overkill, fairness concerns, or other serious problems caused by mass defect products for continual litigations and facing multiple punitive damages awards. For the issue of “multiple punitive damages study of mass defect products”, each state court has already concerned and put forward their views, but ultimately they still expressed that they had nothing to do but appealed for the solution of nation-wide legislation. Therefore, in the USA law, this issue has been one of the most important research topics for product liability and the liability system of punitive damages. However, for this emerging and serious problem, there are still no academic research papers in our country's law. In view of the harmful events of a large number of unsafe products in our country in recent years, multiple punitive damages on the application of consumer protection law has already been the matter can be expected. Therefore, through the related judgments of U.S. courts and scholars’ studies, I would like to use this thesis to reflect on the defects of the responsibility of multiple punitive damages and suggestion for amending the law about mass defect products in our country's law.

Keywords: Consumer Protection Law, Mass Tort Litigation, Multiple Punitive Damages Verdict, Products Liability Litigation, Class Action, Due Process Clause, One-time Award

目次
壹、前言
貳、多重懲罰性賠償金之政策疑慮
一、不一致之判決結果
二、過度扼殺之破產可能
三、社經方面之不利影響
四、超越法令之處罰範圍
五、不當或阻礙和解之成立
參、多重懲罰性賠償金之合憲性爭論
一、否定論說
二、肯定論說
三、綜合評述
（一）司法實踐現狀
（二）問題核心思考
肆、多重懲罰性賠償金之各種解決方案
一、賠償金制度本身之改革
（一）制度之廢除
（二）數額之限制
（三）陪審團裁量權之剝奪
二、一次性裁決的先行者原則
（一）概念及發展
（二）方案之評析
三、共同基金之設立與分配
四、單一審理的集體訴訟
（一）概念及立論
（二）方案之評析
五、先前裁決額證據之提出
六、先前裁決額之等額扣除
七、已受裁決聲明書之核發與登記
伍、結論與建議
一、制度的政策選擇及問題成因
二、計算模式的選擇及配套設計
（一）個別應報不法性模式
（二）全部整體不法性模式
（三）配套措施的具體建議
三、消保法修法後的檢討與回應

薩伊德曾指出：自第一次世界大戰至1950年代之間的新興民族主義浪潮中，有兩個完全不同的政治階段。其一為民族主義型反帝國主義的時期；第二是隨之而起的解放運動型反帝國主義的抵抗。而這兩個時期各有不同的「想像的文化」。但若缺乏第一時期，則無論在歷史或政治上都不可能有第二時期的出現（E. Said, 1990）。而在日治時代的臺灣，民族主義雖確已萌芽，但因為臺灣人的「想像的文化」內容受到歷史的各種制約，所以仍僅停留於第一階段。易言之，直到1920年代為止，臺灣人的「共同體的想像（imaginings of communities）」並未達於近代國民國家的民族認同層次，而僅限於以祭祀公業、同鄉會、宗親會、村廟等地方團體或社會集團為媒介，對多元價值及複數集團進行認同與忠誠的分割。
儘管如此，這種對於古老共同體的想像，畢竟也因著1923年日本殖民政策由漸進統治轉換成為內地延長主義，將日本民商法適用於臺灣後而開始解體，並逐漸走向對近代型共同體（國民國家）的想像之路。然後又在日本法西斯勢力崛起之後遭到重挫。本論文所處理的，正是藉著檢討臺灣的慣習法中與臺灣人自我認同關係最深的「祭祀公業」制度的法律性質，以分析祭祀公業之沒落如何改變了臺灣人民族認同的形式與內涵。

關鍵詞：祭祀公業、實務法曹、總有、共同體的想像、日治法院檔案

It is well known that by and large the development of colonial legal system in Taiwan can be divided into two periods: 1） the period of ritsurei as principle (1896-1921); 2） the period of chokurei as principle (1922-1945). During the second period, in principle the Japanese law was extended to Taiwan through chokurei, with exception for Taiwanese laws to be preserved through special chokurei. This dichotomy of principle/exception was sometimes criticized as the opportunism of an incomplete integration policy, but in fact it brought about a situation of cunning of reason where the interest of colonizers and that of the colonized unconsciously converged. The case of whether to abolish Kong-giap is one example.
Most literature on Kong-giap maintains that the position of abolishing Kong-giap held by the majority of Japanese legal professionals in Taiwan was a carefully planned conspiracy by the colonial rulers. This view overestimates the capacity of the Japanese ruling group because it fails to take into consideration how seriously are serious students constrained by modern laws.
The legal bureaucrats in colonial Taiwan were legal bandits who believed in legal positivism. They were very different from the calculating and strategic-minded Hara Takashi and Goto Shinpei in their logical thinking. Based on the empirical foundation of the original texts of legal decision in civil matters contained in the “Archives of Courts under the Japanese Rule,” this project seeks to prove that at least during the period of Taisho Democracy the severe critique of these colonial legal professionals of Kong-giap had nothing to do with the Kominka movement. Their demand of abolishing Kong-giap was mostly motivated by their training in positivistic laws and experiences in legal practice. For them the rights and duties of a modernized state must not be defined by social customs. Rather, they must be clarified by law.
A group of Taiwanese intellectuals began to employ modern legal and social theories to intervene in the debate on Kong-giap in the 1920s. By way of printing media, political associations, and the advocating of the modern values of Western Europe, they formed the public sphere of the Taiwanese society. With the development of capitalism, a Taiwanese civil society was emerging. The formation of modern public sphere in Taiwan signaled the emergence of modern Taiwanese imagination of state and nation.

Keywords: Kong-giap, Legal Bureaucrats, Gesamteigentum, Imagination of State and Nation, Taiwan Colonial Court Records Archives

目次
壹、序論
貳、前史：1923年以前
一、日本領台前的祭祀公業
二、祭祀公業之種類及其內容
參、內地延長主義時期的祭祀公業
一、於台灣適用民商法的問題與祭祀公業的廢止論爭
（一）公業廢止論
（二）公業廢止反對論
（三）日治法院檔案中的案例介紹
二、祭祀公業之法律性質
（一）合有（Rechtsgemeinschaft zur Gesamthand）
（二）普通法﹙羅馬法﹚上之法人
（三）總有（Gesamteigentum）或日耳曼法上之法人（Körperschaft）
三、祭祀公業大解體─日治法院檔案（台中地方法院）中的線索
四、「絕緣體」的最終抵抗─1937年之後的祭祀公業
肆、結論

不動產先買權的制度運作是實務上重要問題，但既有相關學說研究仍有不足。其中，具物權效力之先買權由於其效力較債權效力先買權為強，對相關當事人影響較大，特別值得關注。不動產先買權的（相對）物權效力究何所指，與一般所謂物權效力是否相同，有待釐清，本文從相關當事人的利益衡量等角度探討之，對既有的學說與實務見解予以回應，並提出解釋論上的建議。
關於不動產相對物權效力先買權，首先，本文以為具物權效力之先買權人請求塗銷第三人的移轉登記，實質上就是以意思表示撤銷出賣人與第三人間的法律行為，並因而請求塗銷登記。再者，如第三人已將標的物移轉於原出賣人，具物權效力之先買權人不得直接請求出賣人移轉登記，而亦應請求塗銷第三人的所有權移轉登記。

關鍵詞：優先購買權、優先承買權、先買權、物權效力、相對物權效力

The system of rights of first refusal of real estate is an important issue in practice. However, the existing studies are insufficient. The effect of in rem rights of first refusal is superior to in personam rights of first refusal and has greater impact on relative parties. Therefore, we should be concerned about the effect of in rem rights of first refusal especially. This study explores the meaning of the effect of (relative) in rem rights of first refusal of real estate and the divergence between in rem rights of first refusal of real estate and general in rem rights from the perspective such as consideration of the interests of the concerned parties. This study also discusses the existing doctrine and practice and makes some propositions in explanation.
About the “relative in rem rights of first refusal of real estate”, first of all, this study holds that when the in rem right holder of first refusal claims for registration of cancellation of the ownership of the third party, he revokes the juridical act between the seller and the third party by an expression of intent in reality and claims for registration of cancellation. Furthermore, if the third party has already transferred the real estate to the original seller, in rem right holders of first refusal shall not claim for registration of transfer directly. The in rem right holders of first refusal shall claim for registration of cancellation of the ownership of the third party as well.

Keywords: Preemption, Right of First Refusal, Option of First Refusal, the Effect of in Rem Right, the Effect of Relative in Rem Right

目次
壹、前言
貳、先買權「相對」物權效力的分析、檢討
一、非謂對契約相對人亦屬無效？
二、出賣人與第三人間的法律行為相對無效？
（一）法律規定、修正說明與學說、實務見解
（二）本文分析
三、不得請求轉得人塗銷登記？
（一）實務、學說見解及修法資料
（二）本文分析
四、不得對抗基於行政處分、形成判決及法律事實等所為之移轉登記？
（一）得否對抗基於公法所為處分所為之移轉登記？
（二）得否對抗基於形成判決所為之移轉登記？
（三）得否對抗基於法律事實所為之移轉登記？
五、小結
參、第三人將標的物移轉於原出賣人的特殊情形
一、原出賣人與第三人間之買賣契約未解除
二、原出賣人與第三人間之買賣契約已解除
（一）可能為用語錯誤而無害真意
（二）可能為通謀虛偽意思表示
肆、結論

海峽兩岸對於營業秘密的保護各有其立法的背景、沿革、要件及目的等而有所差異。惟兩岸自2002年起已同為世界貿易組織的成員國，均負有遵守WTO「與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定」的義務。且觀察主要先進國家保護營業秘密之法制，不論是美國1979年制定的「統一營業秘密法」、1996年的「經濟間諜法」和近年來日本、德國多次修正之不正競爭防止法，均凸顯了保護營業秘密法制變革之刑罰化及域外犯處罰的問題。因此，本文將先探討我國及中國大陸營（商）業秘密刑罰保護的沿革、要件及缺失。其次，依據兩岸共同打擊犯罪及司法互助協議的內容，剖析兩岸共同防制侵害營業秘密罪的困難及挑戰。最後，則就兩岸共同防制侵害營業秘密罪的觀點，提出可能改善域外犯處罰的缺失及創新刑事司法互助內容的建議。

關鍵詞：營業秘密法、反不正當競爭法、侵害營業秘密罪、營業秘密域外犯、刑事司法互助

Differences exist in trade secrets protection between cross-straits, due to their own legislative backgrounds, histories, requirements, purposes, and so forth. However, since 2002, cross-straits both became Members of the World Trade Organization and need to comply with the obligations of TRIPS. Moreover, (Legal) legal systems for trade secrets protection in leading countries, such as U.S. Uniform Trade Secrets Act enacted in 1979, U.S. Economic Espionage Act of 1996, and the Unfair Competition Prevention Acts in Japan and Germany both being amended frequently in recent years, have all drawn attention on the issues of the change of legal systems in terms of the protection of trade secrets, namely criminalization and penalty on extraterritorial offenses. Accordingly, this article will first discuss the history, the requirements and the shortages of trade (business) secrets protection, as far as penalties are concerned, either in Taiwan or China. Secondary, based on the content of the “Agreement on Cross-Straits Joint Fight Against Crimes and Mutual Legal Assistance,” analyses are made on the difficulties and challenges on cross-straits joint prevention of trade secrets crimes. Finally, in view of the joint prevention of trade secrets crimes, suggestions are proposed as to likely improve disadvantages on punishment against extraterritorial offenses and suggestions regarding creative contents of judicial mutual legal assistance against crimes are proposed as well.

Keywords: Trade Secrets Act, Anti-Unfair Competition Act, Crimes on Trade Secrets Infringement, Trade Secrets Exterritorial Offenses, Judicial Mutual Legal Assistance Against Crimes

目次
壹、前言
貳、我國營業秘密刑罰保護的沿革及修法重點
一、沿革
二、修法重點
（一）增訂刑事責任
（二）域外加重處罰
（三）告訴乃論罪
（四）刑事罰併同處罰規定
三、檢討
（一）刑法之「工商秘密」與營業秘密法之「營業秘密」究竟有何異同？
（二）營業秘密法所保護的法益是否與刑法洩漏工商秘密罪等所保護的法益相當？
（三）營業秘密法的構成要件是否可改善刑法洩漏工商秘密罪等之缺失？
（四）營業秘密法的刑罰規定是否符合均衡原則？具有實現可能性？
參、中國大陸保護商業秘密的法制及省思
一、反不正當競爭法
二、刑法侵犯商業秘密罪
三、檢討
（一）反不正當競爭法
（二）刑法第219條侵犯商業秘密罪
肆、兩岸共同防制侵害營業秘密罪的困難及挑戰
一、困難
（一）我國
（二）中國大陸
二、挑戰
（一）我國
（二）中國大陸
伍、兩岸共同防制侵害營業秘密罪的建議─代結語