論基於行政契約之單方意思表示與行政處分之概念區辨──以教師法解聘、停聘及不續聘決定之法律性質認定為中心

On the Conceptual Distinction between Unilateral Expression of Intent Based on Administrative Contract and Administrative Act -- Focusing on the Legal Nature of Decisions to Dismiss, Suspend, or not Renew Contracts under the Teachers’Act.

憲法法庭111年憲判字第11號判決作成後，公立學校與教師間的聘任關係為行政契約，而公立學校依據該聘任契約所為之不續聘、解聘或停聘決定，即被定性爲「基於契約所為之意思表示」，並否認其具備行政處分之性質。然而憲法法庭111年憲判字第11號判決作成前揭判斷之論據，不無商榷之餘地。本文認為行政法上意思表示，毋寧僅係構成行政處分之概念要素之一。而從我國行政程序法第92條第1項對行政處分之定義以觀，與行政契約中得單方生效的意思表示在概念上實無衝突，兩者不具互斥性。實際上，與我國同樣繼受歐陸法制之日本行政法學，亦曾經對此問題有過討論。依據日本重量級行政法學者之見解可知，基於行政契約所為之單方意思表示與行政處分間並不具有事物本質上之差異，立法者實際上可透過制度設計，賦予契約關係中之意思表示具有行政處分性質。若依現行實務見解之理解，在教師法的具體個案中，將導致教師在行政救濟上，必須區分「解聘決定」以及「一定期間不聘任為教師之決定」而同時為不同之行政救濟程序，且針對「解聘決定」此種單方意思表示也將因欠缺行政程序法上各種程序規範，而致使人民權益受損。故本文以爲，教師法第14條以下關於不適任教師之淘汰機制中，學校所為之「解聘決定」以及「一定期間不聘任為教師之決定」性質上應皆屬行政處分。至於主管機關在此等法律關係下之「核准」行為，應理解為多階段行政處分中的協力機關所為內部行為，原則上不得作為爭訟之程序標的，惟其合法性仍應受法院審查。

Following the Constitutional Court Judgment No. 111-Hsien-Pan-11, employment between public schools and teachers has been redefined as an administrative contract. Consequently, decisions such as dismissal, non-renewal, or suspension are now considered contractual expressions of intent rather than administrative dispositions. However, this view remains debatable. This paper argues that expressions of intent are merely elements of administrative dispositions and that there is no conceptual conflict between unilateral intent within contracts and administrative dispositions under Article 92 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Comparative analysis with Japanese administrative law reveals that such expressions can, through legislative design, be given the nature of administrative dispositions. The current interpretation may force teachers to pursue separate remedies for similar decisions, undermining procedural protections and harming their rights. This article contends that decisions under Articles 14 and 15 of the Teachers’Act—such as dismissals and non-reappointments—should be treated as administrative dispositions. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education’s approval acts should be seen as internal actions in multi-stage dispositions, generally not subject to litigation but still reviewable for legality.