「知法」與「明理」──基於「法官知法」之思辨

Law Knowing and Inbeing Seeing–Speculation on the “Judges understand law”

固然，現代法治國家乃是理性主義覺醒之後從宗教母體中一次最顯著的剝離，然而自從「法」這一權柄從上帝手中讓渡於民族國家後，「理」這一外皮也再一次的成為剝離的對象而漸次退散。「法」與「理」二者，在現代法律制度中，究竟應居於何種地位，二者又有何關係，法理是否是二者在法律實踐上唯一之結合點？實際上，不論法理（法、理、法理）在法律背後起到如何之作用，法理之用語在台灣現行法上僅見於《民法》（第1條）及《民事訴訟法》（第377-1條）。在中國大陸於2017年頒佈的民法總則中，固然在法源的界定上，一改舊制通則中「民事活動必須遵守法律，法律沒有規定的，應當遵守國家政策。」的規定，正式加入了習慣——「處理民事糾紛，應當依照法律；法律沒有規定的，可以適用習慣，但是不得違背公序良俗。」但仍然無法理之適用。王澤鑒先生在運用台灣民法第一條「民事，法律所未規定者，依習慣；無習慣者，依法理。」與大陸民法進行對比解讀時，特別加入了一句「所謂法理，乃指為維持法秩序之和平，事物所本然或應然之原理；法理之補充功能，在適用上包括制定法內之法律續造（如基於平等原則所作之類推適用）及制定法外之法律續造（即超越法律計畫外所創設之法律規範）」。與中國大陸之蹣跚相較，台灣之民法，早在民國18年即以法典化，並經過將近一個世紀的填補和完善，應當說已經萃然有成。就民法法源觀之，中國大陸由早前統制時期之「遵守國家政策」到如今之「可以適用習慣」，而先行者台灣則有「依法理」之訂定。是否（在民事立法與裁判中）「依法理」乃是更為法治、科學、先進的規定呢？司法判決是法律之生命，法、理（法理）在司法裁判上應當如何運用乃是其存在之最大證明，本文將結合上述引文說辭之出處（最高法院判決中被稱為「里程碑」之判決），綜合所涉法條之變化，實證的思考何為「法官知法」（最高法院於該判決中之意旨）並述「法」、「理」之功用。 In spite of modern legal state is the outstanding detachment from the religious matrix since awakened rationalism, when the baton “law” was passed from God to Nation-states, the rationality has been the subsequently molt which fading in contemporary history. In modern legal systems, how can we place “Law” and “Rationality”, what is the relationship between them, then if the “Jurisprudence” will be the joint of “Law” and “Rational” in practice of law? Actually, whatever the role “Law”, “Rationality”, “Jurisprudence” played after the judgment, there was just two statements still in force in Taiwan--- Civil Code Article 1and Code of Civil Procedure 377-1.In terms of the definition of law sources, the General Provisions of the Civil Law which promulgated in Chinese mainland 2017 casts aside the regulation of “civil activities shall be decided according to the law, and for those that are not regulated by the law, they shall be decided according to government policies」in the old version of Civil Law, and officially adds “civil disputes shall be resolved in accordance with the law; or if the law is silent, customs may apply, but not contrary to public order and good morals.” in the new version. In Wang Zejian's comparative analysis of the “if there is no applicable act for a civil case, the case shall be decided according to customs. If there is no such custom, the case shall be decided according to the jurisprudence. 」Different from the stumbling of the civil law in Chinese mainland, the codification of the civil law in Taiwan was realized in 18 years of the Republic of China and is of great value after nearly a century's completing and improving. Looking from the sources of civil law, Chinese mainland changes from the “obeying government polices” in the early period of governance to today's “customs may apply,” and Taiwan, as the forerunner, has the “be decided according to the jurisprudence”. Is it true that (in civil judgment) “be decided according to the jurisprudence” is a more legalized, scientific and advanced rule? Jurisdiction is the life meaning of law, this essay will start from the perspective of Wang Zejian's explanation of jurisprudence, and then combine the source of the views (supreme court's judgment), relevant thoughts of what “judges understand law” is concerning improvement as well as changes of items (the intention in the decision of supreme court), and functions of jurisprudence (Li) in or out of the law.