自最高行政法院109年度裁字第140號裁定，論強制執行之拍賣性質

The Interpretation of Compulsory Enforcement Auctions in the Supreme Administrative Court’s Ruling No. Caizi 140 in 109

強制執行拍賣性質於學說屢有爭論，但傳統司法實務向來採私法說之見解。近來最高行政法院109年度裁字第140號裁定，認為拍賣屬行政處分，改採公法說，似忽視行政執行準用強制執行法，對於拍賣不宜有相歧異之認定。再者，其恐悖於聲明異議貴在迅速、有效之本旨。誠可謂為「特殊見解」，後續影響尚待觀察。拍賣行為之性質，各說均有無法合理解釋之缺憾。倘單純回歸強制執行法及相關法規範，重新檢視拍賣行為，由拍賣與買賣之相同與不同之處予以觀察，可認為拍賣性質為「私法說」，且應屬「特種買賣關係」，如對拍賣有爭執，強制執行法及相關民事實體法，均有相對應之救濟途徑。

Despite the numerous discrepant views on the nature of compulsory enforcement auctions, the traditional judicial practice in adjudicating such cases has always been to adopt the theory of private law. According to Ruling No. Caizi 140 made by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2020, auctions are to be carried out as administrative acts, since public law seems to ignore the mutatis mutandis compulsory execution method of an administrative execution, and since it’s not suitable to have discrepant assumptions about auctions；moreover, public law lacks the speed and effectiveness of a motion of objection, and can be regarded as a“special opinion”；the subsequent impact of this ruling remains to be seen. In fact, there is practically no cogent interpretation of the exact nature of administrative auctions. Simply going back to the compulsory enforcement laws and the related regulations, and re-examining the auction procedures, paying special attention to the extent to which they differ from other commercial activities, it can be seen that auctions should be regarded as a special commercial relationship falling under the purview of private law, such that any disputes which may arise can be handled in accordance with compulsory enforcement laws and related civil substantive laws.