有效無效，法無定法──從法律解釋方法看民法第71條

The Problem of Indeterminacy: Revisiting Article 71 of the Civil Code

民法第71條對於法律行為違反強制或禁止規定者，明定其效力。本條規定施行近九十年來，司法判決從嚴格遵守法條文義，逐漸走向目的解釋。法院各自解讀第71條的文義和目的，適用四種不同的模式，得出不同的結果，判決分歧的情形十分明顯。許多判決和法律文本之間，呈現明顯的差距。民法第71條及相關法律必須修正，明定強制或禁止規定的意義及其判斷標準，並對違法行為的效力，提供更為明確且多元的選擇。 Enacted in 1929, Article 71 of the Civil Code provides that a juristic act which violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the law is void, unless the law leads to a different conclusion. Although the Article has been implemented for nearly ninety years, the exact meaning of the Article is still enveloped in the mist of indeterminacy. The courts have employed various methods of statutory interpretation in applying the Article, ranging from strict construction of the text to a more purposive approach. The courts have thus developed four modes of application. With ample discretionary power, the courts have applied different modes to similar or even identical cases, resulting in different decisions. This thesis calls for an application more consistent and predictable.