| 摘要註: |
審判的正義須透過執行手段加以實現;私法上如此,公法上亦然。民事上債務人死亡時,可透過民法規定找尋出繼承人,然而公法上有其自成之論理,是否可一貫繼受私法上繼承理論,則有疑問。 查行政機關為達到特定行政目的,有時得要求人民負擔責任,但人民並非國家遂行任務之工具,因此立法者對於責任主體之認定,應具備正當性。實務上對於權利義務繼受問題之操作,原則多以義務內涵是否具有「一身專屬性」為判斷基準。稅捐債務為執行的大宗,對於稅捐債務可否繼承,稅捐稽徵法並無可繼受之明文規定,實務發展慣以類推適用或適用民法第1148條規定,作為行政法上金錢給付義務繼受之法律依據,而行政執行法第15條係以遺產為執行範圍,甚或司法院大法官會議釋字第622號解釋提出之非繼承而僅屬代繳之解套辦法等等,其本質皆屬行政法上義務得否或如何繼受之問題,似未發展出完善的處理模式。 就此,本文以執行債權人裁撤或合併,及自然人死亡而發生之義務概括繼受類型為例,嘗試從責任繼受概念內涵之界定、憲法基礎之探尋、釐清法律關係,做體系性的研究,對我國司法實務上幾則重要的大法官解釋,加以檢討評析,期望有助於建構我國行政法上義務繼受之法制。 The justice of trial shall be carried out by the means of implementation. Private laws do this way, and so do the public laws. The Civil Codes have legislations to find out heirs to property, but it is doubt that private inheritance theory can be consistently followed by the public law. The public law has its own reasoning, so it is required to be to be explored successor liability. In order to achieve specific official purposes, the administrative authorities claim burdens on the people. But the people are not tools to carry out the State tasks, therefore the legislators ought to make clear laws to know "who" should take responsibilities. The practical about substantive rights and obligations of heirs to property consulted to the principle of exclusiveness. There are no express provisions about whether taxes debt may be inherited. The practical applies article 1148 of Civil Code in accordance with administrative debts. Yet, article 15 of administrative execution law narrows the executive range on inheritance, and No.622 of J.Y. Interpretation claimed substitute duty instead of succeeding. These are about how to succeed essentially, but not a good way to deal with "who" is the right person to compulsory execute. My study is based on obligations with the death of human beings, through the definition of right and obligation of inheritance, to analyze Constitutional rights, and to discuss J.Y. Interpretations. |