論國家賠償法第4條第1項之行為主體──以行政助手與根據私法契約羅致之私人為中心

The Subject of Article 4(1) of State Compensation Law—Centering on Executive Assistant and Involved Individuals Based on Private Contracts

國家賠償法第4條第1項規定：「受委託行使公權力之團體，其執行職務之人於行使公權力時，視同委託機關之公務員。受委託行使公權力之個人，於執行職務行使公權力時亦同。」多數見解認為，本項的行為主體限於公權力受託人，而另外二種私人協力實行行政任務的態樣—行政助手與根據私法契約羅致之私人，並無本項適用。立基於此，對於國家應否依國家賠償法第2條第2項，為行政助手或根據私法契約羅致私人的行為負責，實務與學說各自發展出不同理由構成。
在爬梳各類觀點後，本文認為，行政助手與根據私法契約羅致之私人，並無本質上差異，先行區分行政助手與根據私法契約羅致之私人，再以不同說理方式論述國家賠償責任成立與否，亦不合理。無論係行政助手或根據私法契約羅致之私人，均得直接適用國家賠償法第4條第1項，進而連結同法第2條第2項建構賠償責任，此不僅與國家賠償法第4條第1項文義無違，亦契合該項規定本身、乃至國家賠償法的整體規範意旨。從而，責任成立的判斷重點，並不在於私人參與實行行政任務的態樣或機關與私人內部法律關係的性質，而在於私人行為是否係在「行使公權力」。

Article 4(1) of State Compensation Law stipulates:“An executor from an organization mandated with the function of public office, when exercising the public power, shall be deemed to be an employee of the mandating organization. The same shall be applied when an individual is mandated to exercise the public power.”It is mostly believed that the subject of this provision is those entrusted with public power, and the provision is not applied to executive assistants or involved individuals based on private contracts, which are the other two types of private cooperation in administrative tasks. In light of this, it is widely discussed by courts and scholars whether the state should be liable for the actions of executive assistants or involved individuals based on private contracts under Article 2(2) of State Compensation Law, and thus different perspectives have been developed. After reviewing various viewpoints, this article argues that there is no fundamental difference between executive assistants and involved individuals based on private contracts. It is unreasonable to first distinguish executive assistants from involved individuals based on private contracts and then develop different reasoning on the liability of state compensation. Article 4(1) of State Compensation Law can be applied to both executive assistants and involved individuals based on private contracts, thereby holding the state liable with Article 2(2) of State Compensation Law. This perspective is not only consistent with the literal meaning of Article 4(1) of State Compensation Law, but also in accordance with the legislative purpose of Article 4(1) of State Compensation Law and the overall legislative intent of State Compensation Law. Therefore, the key to determining the liability of state compensation lies not in the types of private participation in administrative tasks or the nature of the legal relationship between administrative agencies and individuals, but rather in the judgment whether individuals are“exercising public power”.