行政執行之救濟──以最高行政法院107年4月份第1次、107年10月份第2次庭長法官聯席會議決議為中心

Remedies for Administrative Enforcement: Focus on the Resolutions of the Joint Meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court in April and October 2018

本文以「行政執行之救濟」為題，說明行政執行法所涉聲明異議、債務人異議之訴的救濟方式。簡言之，行政執行法就行政執行之救濟所為規定，尚有不足，故行政法院需適用、準用或類推適用強制執行法、行政訴訟法等規定，甚至援引學說見解，以資補充，而最高行政法院107年4月份第1次、107年10月份第2次庭長法官聯席會議決議，正是在行政執行法之相關救濟規定有所爭議或缺漏的背景下，孕育而生。該等決議分別論述行政執行之聲明異議、行政執行之債務人異議之訴，以釐清行政執行之救濟方式，然而，該等決議未藉此對於行政執行之救濟──行政執行法所涉行政執行之救濟──與司法執行之救濟──行政訴訟法所涉強制執行之救濟，作出適當的區分，稍有可惜，故本文對其加以評論及分析，以確保人民訴訟權獲得合理的保障。

This article uses ''Remedies for Administrative Enforcement'' as a topic to explain remedies for the motion of objection and the debtor's objection against the administrative enforcement under Administrative Execution Act. In a few words, due to inadequate norms on remedies under Administrative Execution Act, the administrative court needs to apply to, apply mutatis mutandis to or analogously apply to the provisions of Compulsory Enforcement Act, Administrative Litigation Act and so on, and even to cite theoretical insights to supplement. The Resolutions of the Joint Meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court in April and October 2018 were born in this context. The Resolutions separately discussed the motion of objection and the debtor's objection against the administrative enforcement to clarify the method of remedies for administrative enforcement. However, it is a pity, that the Resolutions did not take the appropriate distinction between remedies for administrative enforcement–remedies for administrative enforcement under Administrative Execution Act–and remedies for judicial enforcement–remedies for compulsory enforcement under Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, this article reviews and analyzes it to ensure that the people's right to litigate is reasonably guaranteed.