| 摘要註: |
本研究對象之專任工程人員，係指受聘於營造業之技師或建築師。我國早於1938年即制定建築法，規範公私建築物之建造、改造、拆卸及使用，以維護公共安全、公共交通、公共衛生及增進市容觀瞻。建築法第15條第1項明定專任工程人員負營造業所承攬工程之「施工責任」，營造業法第3條第1項第9款進一步闡釋，專任工程人員之角色為「擔任其所承攬工程之施工技術指導及施工安全之人員」，但「施工責任」之內涵為何？其本質係一干涉行政法上責任或民事責任?目前學說與判決著墨不多，但「施工責任」內涵之釐清，涉及專任工程人員在法律效果上可能分別受有刑事處罰、行政處分與民事賠償責任之前提要件，不可謂不重要，有加以研究之價值。又鑒於有關專任工程人員之刑事責任已有相當研究，故本文研究範圍僅侷限於行政責任與民事責任之研究。本文整理歸納出營造業法中專任工程人員應有之行為義務，並與建築法、勞工安全衛生法之規定相互參照後，對建築法第15條第1項「施工責任」之內涵，作一較明確之描述。此外，本文並認為專任工程人員與營造業間屬於委任之關係，但營造業法之行為義務應優於民法第535條之配合指示義務，而此行為義務在承攬契約中屬於從給付義務。而在侵權行為責任上，營造業法第34條、第37條非屬民法第184條第2項之保護他人之法律，但營造業法第35條、第38條應屬民法第184條第2項保護之他人之法律，不過第38條之適用範圍應限縮在「顯有的、立即的公共危險」，以緩和民法第184條第2項幾近無過失責任的嚴苛。而有關專任工程人員應專任之規定，本文認為是維持營造業技術水準一重要之制度，但主管機關對於逐案簽證技師制度的容忍，甚至允許應專任之工程人員得兼任逐案簽證技師，均是對營造業法所欲建立之專業分工制度一大傷害，實應儘速廢除。此外，建築法第60條第2項科予專任工程人員之連帶賠償責任，並未考量未按圖施工係因可歸責於定作人，且專任工程人員並無過失之情況，與民事侵權法理及營造業法第37條規定有所牴觸，容有再檢討之空間。 The subjects of this study are professional engineers or architects who are employed by construction enterprises as full-time engineers or technicians (Hereinafter referred to as P.E.). The Building Act was first legislated in 1938; it is enacted to regulate building management in order to maintain public security, traffic and health, and to improve the appearance of cities. Article 15, paragraph 1, of the Building Act indicates “P.E. to take the construction responsibility of the works contracted”. Article 3, paragraph 1(9), of the Construction Industry Act indicates “P.E. to take charge of technical direction and construction safety of the works contracted by the enterprise” further. But what does “construction responsibility” mean? The Acts say nothing, and the doctrines and judgments provide very little information. Due to the lack of precedents, “the construction responsibility” is one of the important elements that constitutes the liability which P.E. has to take; therefore, it is worth studying. The scope of this study is limited to administrative and civil liability, and does not contain criminal liability. This article summarizes the obligations of the Construction Industry Act that P.E. should take. Furthermore, it cross-references to the Building Act and the Labor Safety and Health Act, and concludes more explicitly with the description of “the construction responsibility”. We believe that P.E. has a contractual relationship with Construction Enterprises, but the obligations of conduct of Construction Industry Act are precedent to Article 535 of the Civil Code with instructions obligations. These obligations of conduct are one of the subsidiary obligations of the contract of construction. About the tort, we believe that articles 34 and 37 of the Construction Industry Act do not belong to the Civil Code’s Article 184, paragraph 2 – a statutory provision enacted for the protection of others, but article 35 and 38 of the Construction Industry Act should belong to Civil Code’s Article 184, paragraph 2; the scope of Article 38 is limited to “apparent and immediate public danger”, in order to reduce P.E.’s liability.About the provision that P.E. should be a full-time employee, we believe that it is one of the important items to maintain the professional and technical standards of Construction Enterprises. However, the facts that competent authorities tolerate case-by-case architect or technician, and even allow P.E. to perform like one, are gradually destructing the management of Construction Enterprises. Therefore, it should be terminated immediately. Furthermore, in the condition that P.E. has executed the obligation stated in Article 37 of the Construction Industry Act without negligence, Article 37 and the Doctrines of Tort contradict with Article 60, paragraph 2 of Building Act, which states that P.E. has several joint liabilities. Therefore, Article 60, paragraph 2, can be improved further. |