• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 14
  • 14
  • 3
  • Tagged with
  • 17
  • 17
  • 10
  • 7
  • 7
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
11

日本不當勞動行為救濟制度研究-以勞動委員會救濟命令為中心 / A study on the labor disputes resolution system of unfair labor practice in Japan-centered on the order for relief of labor relations commission

張智程 Unknown Date (has links)
在勞資自我形成之協商與對抗過程的理型中,勞資間力的均勢及衡平,乃因存在公正之集體勞資關係規範,當勞資之一方(特別是資方)以特定行為違反集體勞資關係規範時,即構成所謂的「不當勞動行為」。而不當勞動行為救濟制度,即屬國家以立法授權行政機關,以特別之行政程序介入勞資自制的領域進行干預與管制,進而回復並確保集體勞資關係得以衡平、公正之特別法制度。 本論文對於日本不當勞動行為救濟制度之探究,擬以「目的」及「手段」之兩大脈絡切入論述:首先,本論文擬從日本戰後勞動法學說的演進作為切入之角度,解讀作為戰後繼受法制之不當勞動行為制度,在嘗試融入本土化之過程中所遭遇之理論爭議,並期以自團結權學說之憲法、集體勞動法論述發展中,再次尋找日本學術界長年間對於不當勞動行為制度論的學說爭議,提供縱向性的宏觀思考脈絡可能性,並找尋足以立足當代集體勞動關係領域之不當勞動行為制度目的論的學說基礎。其次,進入手段層次的探討中,本論文則是在對制度目的嘗試建構的制度理論基礎之下,進入相對較具體地研究,亦即在勞動委員會制度之手段現狀下,勞動委員會得作成何等之不當勞動行為救濟命令進行探討:日本勞動組合法第二十七條,規範勞動委員會具有抽象且廣泛的救濟命令作成裁量權,惟實務上乃係經由數十年的實務與學說演進,方填補制度規範的空白、形成制度穩定的制度運作,以及類型化的裁量標準與救濟命令作成基準,本論文期藉由深入探討各類型救濟命令之實務及學說論述作為切入角度,冀以在對救濟命令手段實態之進行廣泛之觀察後,得相對具象、完整化日本不當勞動行為救濟制度之面貌。 在對不當勞動行為制度之目的理論,以及作為救濟手段之救濟命令進行全盤之檢討後,在行政救濟程序中制度之衝突點之產生,本文主張乃肇因於救濟制度之本質,係屬一作為多重內涵並列的複合性制度:繼受法VS傳統法對立觀點下的複合性制度、公VS私法對立觀點下的複合性制度、集體勞動紛爭VS個別勞動紛爭觀點下的複合性制度、以及救濟VS紛爭「調整」解決對立觀點下的複合性制度等多重複合性質之制度。 從而,在多重複合性觀點之對立下制度之應然之道何在,本文主張擬應回到不當勞動行為制度之目的面,亦即集體勞資關係法秩序之保障進行概念之展開,進而在達成目的保障之手段上,嘗試論述解決上開肇因於多重複合性制度內涵而產生的衝突之本質,以合目的性之手段方法達成調合、再建構不當勞動行為救濟法理。
12

争議行為の目的制限法理の再考 -「権利紛争の解決を目的とする争議行為の正当性」の米日台比較を中心として

張, 智程 23 March 2016 (has links)
京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第19453号 / 法博第187号 / 新制||法||154(附属図書館) / 32489 / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 村中 孝史, 教授 稲森 公嘉, 教授 潮見 佳男 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM
13

問題壽險業退場機制之研究 -兼論過渡保險機制 / A Study on the Exit of Troubled Life Insurers from the Market - Extended Study on the Transition Insurance Mechanism

林沛瑩, Lin, Pei Ying Unknown Date (has links)
邇來,數家壽險公司,包含2009年之國華人壽、2014年之國寶人壽與幸福人壽以及2016年之朝陽人壽,陸續遭主管機關金融監督管理委員會(下稱金管會)宣布接管,並委由保險安定基金辦理國華人壽、國寶人壽與幸福人壽之標售退場程序。上開問題壽險業之資本適足率未達法定標準或淨值為負時,金管會與相關單位未立即積極處理,甚而遭監察院糾正金管會未正視問題保險業退場法制之缺失並加以修正改善。面對問題壽險業失卻清償能力之窘境,立法機關在問題保險業退場法制上有幅度甚廣之修法,先後自2014年6月4日公布調整安定基金之權限與問題保險業之監理措施,以及參照外國立法例增訂過渡保險機制;2015年2月4日則修正公布資本適足率標準之分級,進而明確制定主管機關得採取之監理措施與其效果。   然而,其中有關過渡保險機制之立意雖屬良善,相關法制架構,付之闕如。考察美國、加拿大與日本等國家之保戶保障機制,有以過渡保險機構處理問題壽險業之經驗與制度,為貫徹有效維持保戶保障之處理原則,若我國保戶保障機制除承接問題保險業之保險契約外,另設過渡保險公司承接問題保險業之資產、負債與營業,具有重大實益。參酌他國之實務經驗與制度,本文建議《保險法》第149條之2第3項規定,對於所謂過度保險機制應提高位階,修改為以保險法明訂或以保險法明確授權之法規命令立法方式,授權主管機關得就過渡保險機構之具體內容與範圍加以明訂相關辦法。另考量我國保險法制與監理環境,且實務慣例上多委託保險安定基金擔任接管人,由其發揮過渡機構之功能而自行承接問題保險業之保險契約,實乃治絲益棻。本文建議未來管理辦法應應以保險安定基金透過設立過渡保險公司承接問題保險業之資產、負債與營業為宜。
14

大理院民事判決法源之研究(1912-1928) / A study on the source of civil law during early republican China (1912-1928)

黃聖棻, Huang, Sheng-Fen Unknown Date (has links)
本文目的乃是欲從大理院之民事判決例中,嘗試去探究大理院的民事法源,去了解大理院所建立的民事法規範的淵源到底是從何而來?其審判究竟根據什麼樣的法源?大理院對這些法源的態度為何?法源衝突時,規範的效力問題又該如何解決?根據本文考察,大理院之民事法源,在成文法方面,除了約法之外,主要依照《大清現行律》民事有效部分作為其審判依據,在運用層面上導入了歐陸法學概念用來解釋《大清現行律》,促使中西法律文化的融合。此外,前清其它有效法律與民國時期民事特別立法也都被大理院以之為法源。關於條約,大理院則認為其具有法源地位,得直接適用而不需再經由國內立法程序。至於大清民律草案,在民國初年並非有效的成文法律,大理院將其定性為「條理」而加以適用,但是在適用上的判語則相當岐異,為其弊端。同時,大理院時期已經能運用外國立法例與一般法律原則來加強判決理由與調整當事人利益的分配。當然,大理院處於新舊交融的時代,一些傳統義理道德的觀念仍在大理院判例中找得著其痕跡。而對於判例,大理院則是承認其法源性,具有法規範效力,並且對其相當重視,形成獨特的地位,兼具羅馬法系與普通法系的特徵。 / This study is try to find the source of civil law during early republican china(1912-1928), and to apprehend how these kinds of source of civil law be shaped by the judges on the civil adjudications of Dali Yuan(Supreme Court). Besides, the focus is also on what these sources of law are and how Dali Yuan resolve the issue while these sources conflict. First, the statutory sources of civil law include the provisional constitution, treaties, Ching Empire Current Penal Code, and some civil regulations. Ching Empire Current Penal Code is the most important legal basis on the trial. Dali Yuan uses European legal concepts to interpret Ching Empire Current Penal Code and this give Penal Code a new life. Besides, Dali Yuan considers the treaty could be directly applied and not need to be by the way of internal legislative process. In this period, Civil Code Draft is still not valid, so that Dali Yuan takes Draft as principle of law to be applied. Moreover, foreign statutes sometimes can be found in the judgment to strengthen the reason. Of course, on the era of variance, sometimes traditional idea still exists in the judge mind. The precedent play an important role before the Civil Code is put in force. The precedents of Dali Yuan can be considered as source of law. The legal system during this period can be called the amalgamation of Roman law and common law.
15

抵銷之擔保機能—以民法第340條之解釋為中心 / Securing function of offset- about article 340 in the civil code of the R.O.C

林殷正 Unknown Date (has links)
抵銷制度所具有之簡易清償機能與公平維持機能已廣受我國學說與實務承認,惟抵銷制度是否具有擔保機能一事,則尚未受到充分之關注與討論而仍存有疑義。 所謂抵銷之擔保機能者,係指在互有相對立債權債務的主被動債權人間,若被動債權人資力不足且同時對多數債權人負有債務時,身為多數債權人之一的主動債權人,可藉由抵銷權之行使,使其與被動債權人間相對立之債務立即消滅,產生主動債權人藉由抵銷權之行使,令自身債權獲得較其他債權人優先受償、主動債權如同受被動債權擔保般的效果。 此一抵銷權之擔保機能反映在法律規定上,與之關連最密切者,乃民法第340條。蓋民法第340條乃規範多數債權人(扣押債權人與主動債權人)於競爭何人得自被動債權人財產受償時,抵銷權行使應否受限制的問題。因此,若承認擔保機能為抵銷制度之本質機能,則在民法第340條之解釋適用上,即應擴大允許被動債權受扣押後抵銷權之行使範圍,使此一抵銷制度之本質機能得以充分發揮。 然觀察我國法將發現,目前我國學說對於抵銷制度本質上是否具有擔保機能,討論仍極為有限,此種討論不足的情況延伸至審判實務上,使各級法院在解釋適用民法第340條時,因欠缺理論基礎,導致對系爭條文之解釋適用存在有見解分歧、法律適用不安定的問題,凸顯了對於抵銷之擔保機能進行深入研究,並統一民法第340條解釋適用之必要性。 對上述問題,因日本民法第511條與我國民法第340條規範幾近相同,且該國判例學說長期以來已累積豐富之討論成果,可為我國法解釋適用之參考。在整理該國判例學說與修法動態後,可得出下列三點啟發:第一、「擔保機能」僅是多種「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的可能選項之一,其存在對於抵銷制度並非絕對。第二、日本法上對於民法第511條之所以存在多種解釋方法,此亦係肇因於其背後對於「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」的選擇不同所致。第三、在決定是否以「抵銷制度本質具擔保機能」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」後,尚須注意此一結論是否能與扣押命令效力範圍、民法第511條之體系定位、期限利益喪失約款之對第三人效力等周邊問題建立邏輯一貫而無矛盾的解釋。 將對日本法之研究成果運用在我國法的解釋適用上,可自民法第299條第2項之規範方式推知我國立法者有意採取「對抵銷期待利益之保護」作為「抵銷對第三人效力理論基礎」。考量民法第340條與民法第299條第2項同為抵銷制度下「抵銷對第三人效力」規範,故兩規範在解釋適用上應採取相同之理論基礎。換言之,民法第340條所規範的「抵銷與扣押」關係中,主動債權人之所以可藉由主張抵銷而獲得較扣押債權人優先受償的類似擔保效果,實為保障主動債權人對抵銷之期待利益所產生的事實上反射效果,並非抵銷制度本質上有何擔保機能存在。而在否定抵銷制度本質上具有擔保機能後,則可以此結論作為解決相關問題之起點,逐一推論出民法第340條應如何解釋適用,以及其他周邊問題的解答。 / Expediency in satisfying debts and keeping fair treatment among creditors are two major functions well acknowledged by academics and the judiciary in Taiwan. However, a possible third function - securing unpaid loans through claiming an offset (hereinafter referred to as securing function) - has not yet been fully discussed. The purpose of this thesis is to fill this gap in the understanding of the issue. Securing function of offset means that in the situation that two people are each others’ creditors and one of them is insolvent, the solvent creditor can assert their right of offset. To claim an offset allows a creditor/debtor to have his/her unpaid loans preferentially satisfied before other creditors’ claims. Allowing a creditor to claim offset results in the same effect as the creditors’ loan having been secured. In the civil code of the R.O.C, Article 340 is most relevant to the question of whether the right of offset includes the securing function. Article 340 stipulates that, “When an obligation has been attached by an order of the court, the third debtor of such obligation shall not take a claim which he has acquired from the creditor after the attachment to offset the obligation attached.” The question in point is: • whether the limitation on the garnishee’s right of offset is only limited to his counter claim against his creditor generated after the issuance of an attachment order, or • should it be expanded to all of his counter claims, including those generated before the issuance of an attachment order. The key to answer the abovementioned question lies in whether securing function is within the intention of the legislator in enacting Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. After scrutinizing essays related to the right of offset in the Civil Code of the R.O.C., it is clear that scholars in Taiwan have not discussed the questions enough yet. The lack of academic research results in considerable confusion in judicial practices when applying Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. Japanese scholars and legal precedents of the Japanese Supreme Court have been exploring the securing function issue of the right of offset for more than half a century. There is the same question regarding Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code, and the article is almost identical to Article 340 of the R.O.C Civil Code. We consider it to be helpful to review their research and take it as our reference. The gist of Japanese academic research and legal precedents regarding the above-mentioned issue, can be summarized as follows. First, acknowledging securing function of the offset right is not necessary in constructing the theory of the right of offset; second, explanations for Article 511 of the Japanese Civil Code in Japan have not yet been unified. There are still controversies in Japanese scholars' research and legal precedents regarding the issue, as Japanese scholars and Japan's Supreme Court continue to offer various theories regarding the legislative intent of Article 511. Third, whether securing function can be considered as within the legislative intent of Article 511 further relates to the solutions to the following three questions: the scope of attachment orders, the role of the right of offset within the whole of the Japanese civil law system, and the influence of acceleration clauses. The above-mentioned research on Japanese law concludes that the legislative intent of the Japanese Civil Code is not to confer securing function to the right of offset, but to protect legitimate expectations of the debtors to have the chance of claiming offset. The same conclusion can be derived from observing the design of paragraph 2 of Article 299 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C., which regulates the influence of the right of offset on the third party creditors (hereinafter the “third party effect”). Paragraph 2 of Article 299 stipulates that, “At the time of the debtor being notified, if the debtor had the claim against the transferor [sic], and if such claim matures before or at the same time as the claim transferred does, he/she may claim for offset against the transferee.” To clarify, when a debt is transferred from the original creditor to a new creditor (hereinafter transferee), the debtor can only claim an offset against the transferee with a counter claim that matures before or at the same time as the transferred claim does. The same design in the Japanese law leads to the conclusion that the legislative intent in designing the third party effect of the right of offset is based on protecting the legitimate expectation of the debtor in having the chance to claim the right of offset. We propose that it is helpful to construe Taiwan’s system in the same way. To clarify the conclusion further, Paragraph 2 of Article 299 and Article 340 of the Civil Code of the R.O.C. both regulate the third party effect of the right of offset. The same theory of interpretation should be adopted in order to keep the Taiwanese civil law system coherent. Article 340 provides that a garnishee can only claim the right of offset when his/her counter claim against the creditors originated before the date of issuance of the attachment order. We should construe that the legislative intent is to protect debtors’ expectation of a chance to claim an offset identical to the construction of the paragraph 2 of Article 299. Although the operation of Article 340 allows the debtor/creditor to satisfy his/her claim preferentially before other creditors under some circumstances, the so-called “securing function” of right of offset can only be considered as a collateral effect and is not within the legislative intent of the regulation. After denying the legislative intent of securing function of the right of offset, the thesis further clarifies the answers to three questions relating to the third party effect of the right of offset: (1) the limitation on the right of offset stipulated in Article 340 shall be construed as an exception in the civil law system of Taiwan; (2) the scope of an attachment order shall not reach the right of offset of the third party (garnishee) in principle; and (3) the acceleration clause shall not influence the rights of third parties.
16

工程契約之履行與擔保— 以保證廠商及監督付款之實務問題為核心 / A Study of Fulfillment and Guarantee of The Construction Contract: Focusing on Guarantee Supplier and Supervised Payment System

潘怡廷 Unknown Date (has links)
營建工程契約不同於一般傳統之承攬契約,在於其履約期長、所牽涉之標的金額龐大,有其專業性要求且風險性高之特性,因此工程契約所衍生之履約爭議往往十分常見,基於工程契約之特性,為了確保權益之實現,因而發展出許多工程契約之擔保類型,除了一般常見之工程履約保證金以及銀行出具之履約保證書之履約擔保方式外,透過約定由第三人實際接續施作工程,以完成業主之完工利益,乃工程契約特殊之擔保類型之一,最常見之情形乃保證廠商之約定以及監督付款之協議。 然而,保證廠商性質上乃民法上之保證人,基於保證廠商單務契約之性質,原則上保證廠商並無任何法定之權利得向業主請求給付工程款,僅得基於求償權之規定,向承包商請求相關之費用,但是因承包商於此等情形已無資力甚或是不知去向,保證廠商往往要求約定業主將原應給付予承包商之工程款讓與予承包商,否則不願接續繼續施作。因此實務上保證廠商與業主間,往往約定將承包商權利移轉予保證廠商或將工程契約之一切權利義務移轉予保證廠商之條款,但是此等條款之效力如何以及所衍生之效力,在實務上迭生爭議。 工程實務所發展出的監督付款協議,係指大型工程承包商將工程部分分包予其他廠商之時,若承包商資金週轉發生問題,而分包商不願繼續履約時,為了確保廠商繼續施作,業主、承包商及分包商其中二方或全體共同協議,由分包商接續施作工程,而將業主應給付予承包商之工程款監督付款予分包商。然而,在法院實務上,業主時常主張監督付款之協議並未使分包商取得對於業主之工程款直接請求權,而主張拒絕給付工程款予分包商。此等監督付款之協議內容應如何解釋較為合理,以及監督付款之分包商權利是否獲得足夠之保障,均為重要之議題。 本文將整理法院實務所觀察到的保證廠商以及監督付款協議之重要判決並類型化,比較各種類型與法律概念之釐清,逐一檢視各案中法院對於保證廠商以及監督付款之定性是否妥適,並分析當事人間之法律關係。嘗試就涉及承包商之債權人若受讓工程款債權或是進行強制執行之扣押時之四方權利義務衝突 (在承包商之債權人、業主、保證廠商/監督付款之分包商彼此之間,權利之衝突應該如何判斷?)之爭議,綜合保證廠商及監督付款之法律定性、各工程款之法律性質之判斷,提出符合我國法理之解釋,並就我國法律所欠缺之部分,提出可供參考的修正方向,希冀能對於我國工程契約以及擔保法制提供若干貢獻。
17

我國消費者保護官制度之研究 / The Research of our System of Consumer Ombudsman

邱惠美, Chiu,Fee Mei Unknown Date (has links)
由於生產技術日益精進,商品製造過程繁複,功能亦趨於複雜,導致商品潛在危險性昇高,加上產業結構多層化及行銷策略廣告化,以致責任體系模糊不清,而企業經營者更挾其鉅力萬鈞的經濟優勢,利用誇大不實的商業廣告,麻醉、鈍化消費者選購商品的能力,或因標示不實,欺騙、誤導消費者的認知,並產生種種危險,形成對於個人生命、身體、健康或財產上的威脅,造成消費者與企業經營者間的糾紛。由於企業經營者不但擁有雄厚人力、財力及資訊優勢,加上今日的生產過程,多具有高度技術性與高度複雜性,經濟上弱勢的消費者在私法體系中,無論在事前消費資訊獲得或事後爭議救濟過程上,並未擁有對等的地位,一旦在消費過程中遭遇到健康上或財產上的損害,很難循傳統之民事法律規範獲得有效救濟,也因為不容易獲得法律上的救濟,使得消費者對於維護自己的權益遭遇到困難,而怨聲四起。 因此先進國家無不以立法、司法及行政措施,來保護消費者應有之權利,透過政府公權力,提供一個便捷的管道,讓消費者得加以諮詢或申訴所遭遇到的消費爭議。台灣在消費者保護法(以下簡稱消保法)公布實施後,在立法上已經形成一個制度化的消費者保護體系,其中最特殊的就是設立消費者保護官(以下簡稱消保官)制度,當消費爭議發生時,透過申訴、調解程序,幫助消費者與企業經營者協商,以維護消費者之基本權益。 依北歐國家的法律規定,保護官(Ombudsman)指保護一般市民免受政治或行政權濫用之害,並為其權利守護神之官吏而言。北歐四國,即瑞典、挪威、丹麥及芬蘭,均只有一位消保官,且均為政府所任命,獨立行使職權,積極介入調查影響市場交易習慣之案件,以保護消費者權益,對良好市場交易習慣之建立,貢獻良多。瑞典係第一個成立消保官之國家,距今已有近40年之歷史,其雖僅有一位,然其位高、權重、受人敬重,主導整個國家之消費者政策及市場交易習慣,且整個消費者總署均為其輔佐幕僚。反觀我國,消保官設立至今已逾12年,然有關消保官之法規,除消保法之外,僅有消保官任用及職掌辦法、消保官執行職務應行注意事項、指揮消保官行使職權要點,是否符合行政程序法之規定,不無疑義。而各地方政府消保官之設置單位並不一致,有設於府本部,有設於法規會或法制室,亦有設於主秘室、建設局、企劃室或行政室等,此不僅反應消保官之定位不明,且導致消保官有將無兵,影響消費者保護工作之推展。目前包括中央及地方已有44位,行政上不僅無輔佐之幕僚人員,且須受上級長官之指揮監督,與北歐各國實不可同日而語。誠然兩者之任用資格及職掌並不完全相同,但會造成此種結果,實與整個國家之制度設計有相當大之關係。 本論文將先就北歐四國消保官設置之沿革、地位、運作、管轄、申訴及權限等作一簡介,其後論述我國消保官制度,俾比較兩者之異同,分析其優劣,以作為改進我國制度之參考。消保官之設置,既係消保法立法特色之一,亦為能否充分發揮保護消費者功能之主要關鍵所在。自第一位消保官就任以來,至今已逾12年,究竟消保官之制度與當初之設計是否吻合?該制度究竟是否有存在之必要?又如有存在之必要,是否有未盡完善之處?又如有未盡完善之處,究應如何改善?為期能有全盤及深入瞭解,爰就我國現行消保官制度之相關問題予以探討,並試擬消保官制度未來應發展之方向。

Page generated in 0.0222 seconds