論我國《文化資產保存法》補償問題之辨證（上）

A Dialectic on Compensation as Provided in The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in Taiwan (Part 1 of 2)

《中華民國憲法》第15條指出了財產權，應予保障。然《憲法》第23條提到公共利益，針對增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。而文化資產係屬於全體人民之共有財，非任何人所得獨享，其當屬公共利益，且《憲法》第166條明白指出，「國家應獎勵科學之發明與創造，並保護有關歷史、文化、藝術之古蹟、古物。」故分析《憲法》此三條得知，保護「文化資產」與「私人財產」都是國家責無旁貸的責任。而補償原則可分為完全補償說與相當補償說，然依《文化資產保存法》第20條第4項及第54條第2項，應給予「合理補償」之補償範圍，其合理補償是否是採相當補償原則，為僅及於實質之財產損失，但不包括所失利益（如所損失之利潤、預期之收入或精神上損失等）在內之見解，抑或是採取完全補償之見解將其所失利益包括在內，為本論文欲所解決與分析論證之問題。且近年德國國家補償責任亦有採完全補償見解之文獻，故本文擬就《文化資產保存法》補償之問題，與德國近年見解實施比較與研析，最後提出結論。

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of China guarantees citizens the right to private property. Article 23 further prevents the curtailment of this right unless to advance public welfare. Cultural heritage is property that belongs to all citizens, is exclusive to no one, and is therefore considered public welfare. Article 166 of the Constitution states, "The State shall encourage scientific discoveries and inventions, and shall protect ancient sites and articles of historical, cultural, or artistic value." These three articles of the Constitution demonstrate that preservation of "cultural heritage" and "private property" are both obligations of the state. Compensation by the state is typically defined as full compensation or due compensation. The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, Article 20, Paragraph 4 and Article 54, Paragraph 2 require that property owners be compensated "properly" or "accordingly;" whether such compensation should be interpreted as due compensation - compensation only for material loss, excluding the loss of benefits such as profits, expected income, or sentimental value - or full compensation, which also considers loss of benefits, is the topic of this study. A conclusion is drawn following a comparison of the idea of compensation in Taiwan's Cultural Heritage Preservation Act with German literature's full-compensation view on state compensation practices.