家庭場域中緊急權的適用規則，以家暴反擊行為為中心

家暴反擊行為均發生於“緊急而危難的狀態”，按照反擊行為發生的具體情境，可分為即時反擊型、應急預警反擊型與常規預防反擊型三種類型。有必要在緊急權的框架下探尋此類案件的體系性解決方案。在家庭場域中緊急權的適用空間與法理基礎具有特殊性，不同反擊場景中可適用的緊急權類型及其法律效果差異頗大。在即時型與應急預警型家暴反擊案件中存在正在進行的不法侵害，反擊人可行使防衛權，當防衛致死時由於不法侵害者對於利益衝突的強答責性，該反擊行為可以阻卻違法。常規預防型家暴反擊案件不符合防衛情勢的要求，但存在避險情狀，具有根據防禦性緊急避險使反擊人行為合法化的可能性，然而避險致死超過了被避險人的容忍限度，突破了緊急權正當化的效力邊界，可通過期待可能性為基礎的實質責任論探尋無罪的空間。

Acts of resistance against domestic violence typically occur in“situations of urgency and danger”and, depending on the specific circumstances of the resistance, can be classified into three types: immediate response, emergency warning response, and routine preventive response. It is necessary to seek a systematic solution to such cases within the framework of emergency powers. In the domestic setting, the scope and theoretical basis for the application of emergency powers are distinctive, and the type of emergency power applicable, as well as its legal effects, vary significantly across different scenarios of resistance. In cases of immediate response and emergency warning response, an unlawful infringement is actively ongoing, allowing the victim to exercise the right of self-defense. Where the defensive act results in the aggressor's death, the aggressor bears strong responsibility for the conflict of interests, thereby enabling the act to be justified as lawful. In contrast, routine preventive responses do not meet the requirements for self-defense situations; however, the presence of a danger-avoidance situation may legitimize the act through defensive necessity. Nevertheless, if the resulting death exceeds the tolerable limits of the person posing the danger, it breaches the boundaries of justification under emergency powers. In such cases, a substantive theory of liability based on the principle of“expectability”may provide grounds for exoneration.