臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

我國採購法對公共工程履約爭議的「調解」機制立法， 運作
以來， 業界正興起一波波申請調解的熱潮。隨著調解案例累積，
各類型爭議的法律觀點逐漸形成共識， 廠商紛紛以覺醒之姿態向
機關提損害賠償或損失補償要求。爭執的焦點不外契約執行所遭
遇的問題， 例如公路總局五個區工程處近兩年發包之公共工程在
履約階段發生過的爭議類型，依出現頻率多寡即有：「履約期限」、
「計價方式」、「停工工期延長增加之支出」、「契約問題」、
「變更設計補償」、「解約、終止契約」、「棄土問題」、「砂
石、鋼筋漲價」、「意外災害與風險之分擔」及「趕工問題」。
其中尤以前三類型為最常發生者。
經研究調查瞭解， 公共工程履約爭議之所以形成， 定型化契
約的不公平條款為主因。民法第247-1 條對於：「(一)、免除或減
輕預定契約條款之當事人之責任者； (二)、加重他方當事人之責
任者；(三)、使他方當事人拋棄權利或限制其行使權利者；及(四)、
其他於他方當事人有重大不利益者。」均有無效的規定。而公共
工程定型化契約屢有前述情形， 廠商不服自然會申請調解以資救
濟。除此，「風險分擔」的觀念，在國際工程契約中已被公認。我
國民法第227-2 條「情事變更原則」對於工程契約的適用以及民
法第252 條「違約金額過高」的折減亦在體現「風險分擔」的公
平原則。此與前揭公路總局五個區工程處的工程履約爭議類型大
多不可分， 造成爭議案件不斷增加。為消弭此現象， 有必要藉本
文之研究觀點提供廠商與機關參考， 校正不公平不合理的態度以
及無正當理由之差別待遇行為，以維護公共利益(採購法第6 條參
照)。
本文的研究先就法律觀點探討工程履約爭議的核心問題， 再
藉問卷調查瞭解「機關」與「廠商」的看法。問卷部份係運用EXCEL
的「樞紐分析表及圖報表」的功能做「觀察次數」的統計， 在交
叉分析中則鍵入公式自動算出「理論期望次數」， 操作
“ CHITEST” 的統計函數引數而獲得P 值， 藉以判別顯著度。
問卷調查顯示多數(約48%)工程履約爭議案件系循「調解」
機制處理的， 其中有約12%廠商因不同意調解結果續向法院提訴
訟。透過案例予以比較「調解」與「訴訟」在終結判斷上之異同，
發現調解委員與法官對採購法精神的掌握是一致的。而「機關」
與「廠商」對調解委員的專業性固有優於法官之肯定， 但對於兩
者公正性的看法卻也有出乎意料的結果， 頗值法界參考。

After the lawmaking and operation of the “ conciliation”
system in purchase law was functioned to the executing contracts
disputation in the public works in our country, the enterprises now
are rising an upsurge of applications “ to conciliate” . And after
the accumulation of the conciliation cases, the common views of
each kind of disputations in the view of law are shaping; therefore
the enterprises extract their compensation of damage or atonement
of loses claims to the government case by case with an awakening
attitude. The focus of all struggles is no other than the problems
which occurred in the execution of the contract. For example, there
are some disputation types that happened in the five district
engineering locations belong to the highest institution of Highway
in the government; these cases happened after they published the
packages of the public engineering and in the stage of executing
contracts in recent two years. When we separate them into some
categories according to its occurred frequencies, we can have some
disputation types as following categories: “ deadline of executing
contract ” 、“ way of valuation ” 、“ the increasing cost of
extending the engineering time”、“ problems of contract”、“ the
compensation of changing design ” 、“ relieve or terminate
contract ” 、“ problems of discard earth ” 、“ problems of a
price-hike of the sandstone or steel bar” 、“ problems of sharing
the risks of accidental calamity ” and “ problems of pursue the
engineering deadline” etc. And the former three types are the most
easily happened ones.
After some researches and studies, we can understand, the
main reason which the disputations happened in the executing
public engineering contract is that the unfair items in the shaped
contract. In 247-1 item of the civil law there is a rule to announce
null and void of the contract, when some conditions happened as
follow, it says: “ (A)． the litigant who was let of or ease off his
duty of the contract item in beforehand subscription; (B) ． to
aggravate the duty of the litigant on the other party;(C)．to make the
litigant on the other party abandon his rights or to limit his
executing rights;(D) ． another aspects which concerned some
significant harmful things with the litigant on the other party” .
However, it is very easily to occurred the former conditions in the
shaped contract of the public engineering, and then as the
enterprises refuse to obey the rule, they will apply a conciliation to
give relief for themselves. Besides, the idea of “ sharing risks”
was generally acknowledged in the international engineering
contract. In 227-2 item of the civil law in our country stipulate that
“ the principle of the changing circumstances” can be applied in
the engineering contract, and in 252 item of the civil law order that
“ too high sum of money in breaking contract” should be rebated;
these two items were embodied the fair principle of “ sharing
risks” . And as the former exposing cases, those disputation types
happened in the five district engineering locations belong to the
highest institution of Highway in the government, could be
categorized into the “ sharing risks” types; therefore, the cases of
disputation are increasing. To eliminate this phenomenon, this paper
has an intention to supply researched result ideas for the reference
materials of both enterprises and related governmental institutions.
And I hope that, with this effort, we can rectify those unfair and
unreasonable attitudes and those different unfair treatments without
any reason, and then can uphold the public benefit.
In this paper the author has a plan, firstly to study the core
problem of the executing contract disputation of the engineering
with a view of law; secondly, to use inquiring test papers to
investigate the ideas in both “ institutions” and“ enterprises” .
The inquiring test papers were used with a function of “ analysis
table and figure table with a hinge” to make a “ observation
times” statistics; and when it is in a cross analysis, I key in an
automatic formula to compute the “ theoretical expect times” .
After that, I operate “CHITEST” in order to gain “P value” which is
the lead number of statistic function, and then I can separate the
remarkable degree.
In the inquiring test papers, they showed that the majority of
(about 48%) those executing contract disputation cases in
engineering were abided by the “ conciliation” system to solve the
problems; and about 12% of those enterprises didn’t agree the
conciliation results and they propose a lawsuit in the court
continually.
Through cases study, when we compare the difference of the
final judgments between “ conciliation” and “ lawsuit” , we find
that both the committee members of conciliation and the judges
have a same grasp of the spirit in purchasing law. However, both the
“ institutions ” and the “ enterprises ” have a same conclusion
that the specialty of the committee members of conciliation is better
than the judges, but their ideas about the justice of the two sides are
out of our commonsense; and both of them are valued reference
materials in the field of law.

致謝.................................................................................... i
中文摘要............................................................................ ii
英文摘要........................................................................... iv
目錄................................................................................. vii
圖目錄................................................................................ x
表目錄............................................................................... xi
第一章 緒論..................................................................... 1
1.1 研究動機與目的........................................................... 1
1.2 研究方法、範圍及架構............................................... 1
1.2.1 研究方法............................................................. 1
1.2.2 研究範圍............................................................. 1
1.2.3 研究架構........................................................... 2
1.2.4 研究流程........................................................... 3
1.3 文獻回顧.................................................................... 4
第二章 公共工程履約爭議之回顧................................... 14
2.1 沿革............................................................................ 14
2.2 政府採購法有關工程履約爭議調解的立法.................... 14
第三章 相關法律探討....................................................... 20
3.1 採購法......................................................................... 20
3.2 民法............................................................................ 21
3.3 民事訴訟法.................................................................. 25
3.4 行政程序法.................................................................. 26
第四章 採購法與工程履約爭議....................................... 27
4.1 採購法涉工程履約爭議處理之相關條文....................... 27
4.2 公共工程履約爭議調解機制........................................ 30
4.2.1 名詞定義【1】................................................ 30
4.2.2 公共工程履約爭議處理途徑.............................. 32
4.3 公共工程履約爭議調解類型....................................... 39
4.3.1 一般案件分類【11】............................................. 39
4.3.2 公路總局之工程履約爭議調解類型......................... 40
4.4 案例介紹..................................................................... 43
4.5 採購法實施後履約爭議處理成效.................................. 74
4.6 調解與訴訟之比較....................................................... 75
第五章 問卷調查.............................................................. 77
5.1 調查對象與方法........................................................ 77
5.2 問卷設計................................................................... 77
5.3 問卷統計分析方法...................................................... 79
5.4 結果分析..................................................................... 80
5.4.1 工作背景之分析.................................................. 80
5.4.2 服務年資之分析.................................................. 80
5.4.3 學歷之分析......................................................... 81
5.4.4 年齡之分析......................................................... 82
5.4.5 曾否處理過工程履約爭議案件之分析.................. 82
5.4.6 工程履約爭議案件採何方式解決之分析.............. 83
5.4.7 所處理之工程履約爭議案件屬何種類型之分析.. 85
5.4.8 協議不成主要原因之分析.................................. 86
5.4.9 工程履約爭議協議不成後決定採用調解或訴訟之
主要因素之分析............................................... 88
5.4.10 定型化契約定義之分析.................................... 91
5.4.11 對工程定型化契約的認知之分析...................... 92
5.4.12 有否不公平條款之分析.................................... 94
5.4.13 調解委員公正性之分析.................................... 96
5.4.14 調解委員所作「調解方案」影響兩造能否接受的
最主要因素之分析............................................ 97
5.4.15 採訴訟處理之案件其判決符合期望程度之分析99
5.4.16 比較「調解」與「訴訟」兩種機制寬鬆標準之分
析................................................................... 101
5.4.17 調解委員的公正性滿意度之分析................... 102
5.4.18 調解委員的專業性滿意度之分析................... 104
5.4.19 法官的公正性滿意度之分析........................... 106
5.4.20 法官的專業性滿意度之分析........................... 107
5.4.21 建議優先採用那種機制解決工程履約爭議之分析
................................................................................. 109
第六章 結論與建議......................................................... 111
6.1 結論........................................................................ 111
6.2 建議........................................................................ 112
參考文獻.........................................................................115
附錄一.............................................................................117
附錄二.............................................................................119
附錄三…………………………………………………………….124
附錄四…………………………………………………………….133
附錄五…………………………………………………………….137

1. 鄭書富， 93 年，「政府採購爭議處理及案例解說」摘要。
2. 蔡英聖， 90 年，「公共工程履約爭議處理資訊輔助系統之研究
－ 以爭議調解為例」，國立台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
3. 張雅各，86 年，「公共工程爭議處理之研究」，中華大學土木工
程研究所碩士論文。
4. 鄧民治，89 年，「論工程契約爭議之仲裁」，中國文化大學法律
研究所碩士論文。
5. 蕭偉松，90 年，「論營建工程遲延與情事變更原則之適用」，東
吳大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
6. 林孜俞，91 年，「公共工程契約之訂定與招標機關之義務」，國
立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
7. 郭美伶，89 年，「公共工程契約要項之研究」，國立台灣科技大
學營建工程研究所碩士論文。
8. 徐積圓，85 年，「公共工程合約重要條款之研議」，國立中央大
學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
9. 陳曄， 92 年，「國際性工程契約對台灣承包商影響之初步研
究」， 中華大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
10. 李宗德，「工程契約糾紛處理檢討與建議」， 行政院公共工程
建設督導會報81 年6 月17 日， P.P Ⅷ 1∼ 28。見李家慶， 93
年，「工程法律與索賠實務」P.P219。
11. 交通部公路總局，93 年，「工程異議申訴及爭議調解處理訓練
教材」。
12. 行政院公共工程委員會，93 年，「公共工程委員會處理政府採
購爭議事件成效評估及修法事宜之研究」委託研究。
13. 葉英惠，「合約的風險管理」，中鼎月刊，第249 期，2004.4，
頁9。
14. 賴世聲，「契約風險分配」， 重大工程管理研討會實錄頁Ⅷ 1，
81 年6 月16∼ 17 日。
15. 史尚寬，64 年4 月，「債法總論」Ⅵ 版，榮泰印書館股份有限
公司。
16. 謝定亞， 巫光海， 92 年，「替代方案實施辦法之評議」， 營建
管理季刊。
17. 李家慶， 93 年，「工程爭議之處理」， 中華民國仲裁協會。