論我國《文化資產保存法》補償問題之辨證（下）

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

本文係〈論我國《文化資產保存法》補償問題之辨證〉一文之下篇，接續本刊63期的上篇，有關我國現行《文化資產保存法》之補償問題、德國國家補償責任之類型以及《中華民國憲法》特別犧牲理論之發展等論述，本篇文章則是針對相當補償與完全補償之爭論、財產權與非財產權之補償範圍，以及相關法律規定、學說和實務進行說明，並對於其中之爭論加以評析。最後建議參照德國聯邦普通法院所援引之徵收補償機制與國家責任體系之精神，區分財產權與非財產權上之損失補償類型，有體系地建構我國《文化資產保存法》相關合理補償機制之功能，以符合法治國「有損失必有補償」之法理。

This paper is the second article of a two-part discourse, A Dialectic on Compensation as Provided in The Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in Taiwan. In continuation of the first part included in vol.63 which examines the regulations on compensation as stipulated in Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, the state compensation liabilities in Germany, and the theoretical development of particular sacrifice associated with the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), this paper presents a dialectic on the controversy between due compensation and full compensation, discusses the scope of compensation in relation to property and nonproperty rights, and explores relevant regulations, theories, and practices. According to the discussed results, this paper recommends that the framework of expropriation compensation and state liabilities practiced by ordinary courts in Germany should be referenced to distinguish between the types of compensation disbursed for the loss of property and nonproperty rights. This facilitates the systematic establishment of a rational compensation system for Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, thereby upholding the principle that“all losses must be compensated”as advocated in the rule of law.