| Abstract: | 在我國現行行政專法及國有財產法制下，國有財產除供公務、公共及國營事業使用外，原則上尚不排除可出租或出售與私人，形成國有財產租賃或買賣法律關係。此等法律關係究屬私法性質或公法性質，直接影響到發生爭議時，法院審判權歸屬之判斷問題。對此，歷來司法院解釋、行政法院，以及普通法院之裁判見解相當分歧，歸納整理略可大別為「公益模式」及「所有權能模式」兩種思考路徑。有鑑於當代行政皆須以公益為取向，且不因採行公法或私法形式而有異，故公益原則並不適宜作為國有土地出租法律性質之判準。此外，國有土地出租非恆是國家立於所有權人地位，所為之單純財產收益之國庫行政而已。在國家以其作為給付或促進行政執行手段之範疇，國家容有選擇以行政契約或是私法契約建構國有土地租賃法律關係之選擇自由。除法律另有特別規定外，有鑑於國有土地出租之准否與簽約機關多屬同一，且租賃法律關係相對單純，本文認為不宜採行雙階理論，將是否准予人民申請承租以及締結土地租賃契約區分為兩階段，並將前者單獨定性為行政處分。縱使吾人將國有土地出租之准否及契約締結視為是一整體之契約，且屬私法契約，在公財產法之體系下，亦無完全契約自由適用之餘地；公法規範在此仍應發揮一定之直接或間接規制效力，法院於個案審判時應予以酌量。
Under current Taiwan administration regulations and the legal system concerning national property, aside from office use, public use and used by stateowned enterprise, it’s plausible to lease or sell to private sectors, constituting legal relationships of leasing and selling national property. The nature of these legal relationships whether they should be public or non-public determines which court has the jurisdiction to resolve disputes. As to the matter, relevant Judicial Yuan Interpretations, judgments issued by administration and ordinary courts have shown their opinions in significant differences, which could be generalized into two concepts, “public interest model” and “property right model”. Nonetheless, since contemporary administrative actions are to achieve the public interest, despite of public or non-public measure, the principle of public interest should not be the proper standard in determining the nature of disputes. Furthermore, the State is not permanently the property owner to simply obtain profits from the fiscal management in the national land lease contract. When the State action aims for Leistungsverwaltung or advancing administrative execution, the State should have the discretionary power to choose administrative or private contract as to consti-tute the legal relationship in national land leases. Unless it’s specified in law, since the one granting and signing the national land lease contract is done by the same regulatory agency, to simplify the legal relationship, this article emphasizes that the twostage theory should not be employed as to avoid sepa-rating the process into two different phases. Even if the granting and signing lease contract are integral and considered as private contract, under the public property reg-ulatory scheme, the freedom of contract shall not be applied without exceptions. In other words, the public law should have binding force directly or indirectly, which the courts should also take into consideration in delivering judgments. |
