月旦知識庫
 
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫事相關   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   重要期刊 DOI文章
興大法學 本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
  【月旦知識庫】是否收錄該篇全文,敬請【登入】查詢為準。
最新【購點活動】


篇名
論私人騎樓平整通行管理義務
並列篇名
On the Management Obligation of Flat Passage and Damage Liability on the Private Arcade
作者 王服清
中文摘要
私人騎樓是否為公物性質,應予討論。據此有見解認為私人騎樓係屬「私有公物」,尚待進一步論述與分析。私人騎樓在無成立公用地役關係之情形下,即非司法院釋字第四○○號解釋所謂之既成道路。私人騎樓與我國公用地役關係(既成道路)有何不同?何謂公用地役關係(既成道路)?私人騎樓是否構成財產權特別犧牲?建築法第四十三條、建築技術規則建築設計施工編第五十七條、市區道路條例第九條明文皆規定騎樓所有人負有維持與鄰接地之消極平整義務(不改建義務)。如非因騎樓所有人而造成騎樓與鄰接地之未平整,若從以上規定推論出騎樓所有人積極平整義務即產生爭議。但政府對於私人騎樓平整權力之理論基礎又何在?騎樓所有人始終不願自行平整時,是否應由政府所負擔平整費用?惟為確保行人之權益,此時政府因而平整所生相關費用則應由騎樓所有人負擔?再者,於騎樓設置或管理有欠缺,私人發生損害時,究竟產生國家賠償責任或私法損害責任?其涉及到「公有公共設施」之定義、政府平整工程設置有欠缺時應否負國家賠償責任以及不履行管理維護義務係國家賠償責任或私法損害責任?為釐清以上諸多爭議問題,值得本文探討之。
英文摘要
Whether the private arcade is the nature of public property or not should be discussed. Accordingly, there is a opinion that the private arcade is regarded as “private public property”, pending on further discussion and analysis. In no case that the private arcade is established als the public easement relationship, that is not so-called “de facto road” due to Judicial Yuan No. 400 Interpretation. What are there differences between the private arcade and public easement relationship (de facto road)? What is the public easement (de facto road)? Constitutes the private arcade the special sacrifice of property? The article 43 of the Building Act, the article 57 of Building Design and Construction Section in the Building Technology Rules, the article 9 of Urban Roads Act provide all expressly that arcade owners bear the negative flat obligation (non-rebuilt obligation) to maintain smooth way with adjacent ground. When the arcade owners cause not these arcades with adjacent ground to not be flat, it is a controversy that above those provisions leads to the positive flat obligation. However, in which theoretical basis lies the power of the government authorities to make arcade a flat surface? When the Arcade owners have selfst been reluctant to make the arcade a flat surface, whether the government burdens these flat fees or not? But, in order to ensure the interests of pedestrians, then the related costs through governmental made flat arcade should therefore born by the arcade owners? Furthermore, when the pedestrians have been injuried due to the deficiency of construction or manage on the arcade, it generates the State liability or private law responsibility for damage? It relates to the definition of “Public Facilities”, the deficiency of construction at the times of governmental flat works generates the State liability?State liability or private damage liability is based on the non-implementation of management and maintenance obligation? In order to clarify these many controversial issues, this article is worthy of exploring.
起訖頁 39-94
關鍵詞 私人騎樓公物既成道路公有公共設施平整義務ArcadePublic PropertyDe Facto RoadPublic Facilities
刊名 興大法學  
期數 201705 (21期)
出版單位 國立中興大學財經法律學系、科技法律研究所
DOI 10.3966/199516202017050021002   複製DOI
QRCode
該期刊-上一篇 台灣日治時期「刑事訴訟」近代化之探討
該期刊-下一篇 論租稅返還請求權──以稅捐稽徵法第二十八條第一項與第二項為中心
 

新書閱讀



最新影音


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄