法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
把餅做小的司法院釋字第七二六號解釋-角色被高估的勞動基準法第八十四條之一所稱的「核備」(Compensation for Frustrated Expenses instead of Damages for Breach of Contract – Focused on German Law)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 黃瑞明
出版日期: 2018.12
刊登出處: 台灣/靜宜法學第 7 期/145-166 頁
頁  數: 22 點閱次數: 765
下載點數: 88 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 黃瑞明
關 鍵 詞: 司法院大法官會議釋字第七二六號解釋勞動法勞動基準法第八十四條之一集體勞動法
中文摘要: 大法官會議在民國 103 年作出釋字第七二六號解釋,其內容在釐清最高法院與最高行政法院對於勞基法第八十四條之一所稱「核備」的見解孰是孰非。此一概念其實就是整個勞動法的縮影,唯有掌握後者的「宏觀圖像」,吾人才能正確地詮釋前者的涵義與問題。遺憾地,大法官們卻反其道而行,在不諳勞動法特性(尤其忽視集體勞動法)的情況下逕行認定地方勞工行政主管機關的核備(公權力的介入)即能令適用該條的勞工免於過勞的命運。然而,由於核備在實務上幾乎形同對雇主所主導的超時工作進行背書,本號解釋恐怕僅能對聲請人的個案發揮第四審的效果而已。
英文關鍵詞: frustrated expensescompensation for damageperformance interestreliance interestpositive interestnegative interesttheory of frustration§284 BGB
英文摘要: The so-called frustrated expense is a matter of reliance. The creditor is willing to pay such expenses because he trusts that the debtor will perform his obligations of the contract. This payment of expenses will become meaningless (frustrated) when the debtor breaches the contract. In this case the creditor can claim for compensation of damage of positive interest according to the civil code of Taiwan. However, the nature of this damage caused by frustrated expenses refers to the restitution of the negative interest. Due to a lack of causality the relating regulation of civil code cannot be applied here. The jurisprudence and the legal praxis in Taiwan are rarely aware of this problem so far. The reason is that the traditional theories of damage cannot provide the solution to this problem.
In contrast, since more than one hundred years this issue has been steady discussed in Germany, but a consensus could not be reached. In 2002 the German obligation law was amended to solve this problem. Since then debates around this new regulation of § 284 BGB are still ongoing. This essay is focused on the legal problems of frustrated expenses before and after the amendment of BGB in Germany. Based on this research the possibility to receive the German law in Taiwan will be under study.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、作為獨立法律領域的勞動法
一、源自民法、屬於私法但自成一格的勞動法
二、集體力量與強行法:勞動法的兩大支柱
三、對勞動法的認識僅止於公法層面的大法官們
參、勞基法第八十四條之一的基本結構
一、勞基法之內另外開闢的二等艙
二、地方主管機關難以勝任核備的角色
肆、兩個最高法院之間的爭執:釋字第七二六號解釋的作成背景
一、源自民法思維的最高法院一○二年度臺上字第一八六六號判決
二、出自依法行政立場的最高行政法院一○○年度判字第二二六號判決
三、大法官會議受理本案聲請的正確性
伍、大法官們正確地支持行政法院的見解
陸、大法官會議讓自己矮化為第四審
柒、大法官們忽略了集體勞動法的實然面
一、集體力量不彰的我國勞工
二、團體協約幾乎不存的我國職場
三、如果工會的力量夠強,勞工甚至不用進二等艙
捌、代結論:擴大論述的格局會是寓意深遠的開頭
參考文獻
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
黃瑞明,把餅做小的司法院釋字第七二六號解釋-角色被高估的勞動基準法第八十四條之一所稱的「核備」,靜宜法學,第 7 期,145-166 頁,2018年12月。
返回功能列