依憲法第81條規定，法官為終身職，非受刑事或懲戒處分或禁治產之宣告，不得免職。非依法律，不得停職、轉任或減俸。復依司法人員人事條例第41條規定，實任司法官合於公務人員退休法退休規定，而自願退休時，除退休金外，並另加退養金；其辦法由司法院會同考試院、行政院以命令定之。又依司法官退養金給與辦法規定略以，未滿60歲者，給與5%。60歲以上未滿65歲者，給與10%。但身體衰弱，致不能勝任職務，經公立醫院證明者，給與60%。65歲以上未滿70歲者，給與140%。70歲以上者，給與5%。 目前於「司法人員人事條例」及「司法官退養金給與辦法」規定，司法官滿70歲應停止辦案，若在65歲至70歲間自願退休，可加領140%退養金；逾70歲未退休，等到退休時，只能加領5%退養金，亦即實任法官合於公務人員退休法規定，自願退休時，除依規定發給退休金外，另依司法官退養金給與辦法規定，按一次退休金總額或月退休金數額，發給一次退養金或月退養金，最高加發上開金額140%。現行司法官退養金給與比例係按司法官退休時之年齡作區分，並未考量司法官任職年資，恐有違平等原則。突顯我國司法官退養制度上出現三個問題，第一為我國司法官退養制度之公平合理性；第二為依年齡區分，做得愈久，加發退養金卻領得愈少；第三為停止辦案之司法官，仍領有司法官之給與，有違公平正義原則。並以羅爾斯的正義論觀點來看司法官退養制度是否符合公平正義原則。 藉由上述研究動機及問題，本論文以文獻分析法和德菲法為研究方法，通過專家一致性意見，探討「我國司法官退養制度」之合理性議題進行問卷。經由三輪德菲法問卷結果的反覆修正，最終司法官身職定義、優遇制度、退養制度、公平正義等四個面向，探討我國司法官退養制度之合理性。最後，本論文在我國司法官退養制度之實務不合理方面，提出建議修法，以期能提供政府規劃人事制度之參考與借鑒。 關鍵詞：退養金制度、司法官、正義論 / According to article 81 of ROC Constitutional Law, Judge shall hold office for life, no judge shall be removed from office unless he has been guilty of a criminal offense or subjected to disciplinary action, or declared to be under interdiction. No judge shall, except in accordance with law, be suspended from office, transferred, or liable to salary cuts. Further according to article 41 of The Statute For Judiciary Personnel, while substantive judge is conform to Civil Service Retirement Act and retire voluntarily, in addition to pension, also added retirement pension; such regulation may be issued by an order of Judicial Yuan jointly with Examination Yuan and Executive Yuan. Again, according to Regulations For Judge Retirement Pension, 5% for those who under 60-year-old. 10% for those who above 60-year-old and under 65-year-old. However, those who have a failure in health, therefore, are not qualified for this position, 60% for those who have obtained the public hospital certificate.140% for those who above 65-year-old and under 70-year-old. 5% for those who above 70%. According to The Statue For Judiciary Personnel and Regulations of Pension for Judges, judges should cease to handle cases after he or she arrives 70 years old. Judges who apply for retirement between 60 and 70 years old are eligible to have 140% pension scheme. 5% pension scheme is issued to those who choose to retire after 70. Meanwhile, based on the rules of Civil Service Retirement Act, officers volunteer to retire will be issued an amount of pension either once and for all or on a monthly basis. Apart from this, it is ruled by Regulations of Pension of Judges, pension scheme should be issued once and for all or on a monthly basis, plus 140% pension scheme, whenever possible. However, currently pension schemes for judges are different from retirement ages, instead of seniority since it might fail to meet constitutional requirements such as the principle of equality.also highlighted three questions appeared in our judge retirement system, first is the equity and reason of judge retirement system; the second is distinguishing from age, the longer of the employment is, the less of retirement pension get; the third is judge suspending case, still have judge payment, against the principle of equity and justice. And at the point of Theory of Justice of John Rawls, whether Judge Retirement system is conform to justice and reason principle. By way of the abovementioned research motive and question, the research method of this thesis is based on documentary analysis method and Delphi Technique, through unity opinion of expert, probe into the reasonable topic of “judge retirement system of our country” and to proceed questionnaire. After repeatedly amendment of three run Delphi method questionnaire result, finally, four directions of definition of judge holding office for life、system of treating with preference、retirement system、reason and justice, etc., to probe into the reason of judge retirement system of our country. Finally, this thesis raises law amendment suggestion at the aspect of unreasonable practice of judge retirement system of our country, and expect may provide reference and example to government regarding planning personnel system. Key words: Retirement Pension System、Judge、Theory of Justice

我國目前採取混合式遺產稅制，遺產稅被定位為財產稅，邊際稅率最高卻達50％，且其罰鍰亦高，因而引起遺產稅之改革、甚至廢除之聲浪；目前提案遺產稅之修正目標多以促進經濟發展為首要目的，主張廢除遺產稅者亦不乏以遺產稅有礙資本累積為由者；實則最初遺產稅立法時，立法者即已於立法理由中揭示，遺產稅並非以獲取財政收入為主要目的，其課徵目的係在於平均財富。 / 我國憲法保障財產權、私有財產制及經濟自由，並以租稅做為保障之對價；憲法對於財產保障之範圍隨著社會交易型態而由具體所有權擴及至抽象財產價值，繼承制度與繼承權亦為國家保障財產權內涵之ㄧ部分，是以國家以租稅做為保障財產權之對價，便已經將繼承制度及繼承權之保障含括在內；再者，我國憲法既宣示我國為社會法治國家，亦賦予財產權一定之社會義務性，國家自得對人民財產權為限縮，限制之方式亦包含以課徵租稅使得人民整體財產之抽象價值減少；惟國家保障財產權既然已將繼承制度及繼承權含括在內，課徵遺產稅即非係國家保障繼承制度及繼承權之對價；毋寧認為遺產稅之課徵係出自社會法治國家對於正義之要求，透過財產權之社會義務性對人民之整體財產價值為限縮，從而達到平均財富分配之正義要求。 / 惟何謂租稅公平、租稅正義、應以何種標準做為衡量是否公平正義之準繩，至今仍無定論；本文認為租稅公平、租稅正義係憲法內蘊之正義理念在租稅法領域之展現，其內涵並不僅有量能課稅原則，尚包含需要／功績原則及實用性原則；惟若藉由羅爾斯的正義論觀點，對於租稅正義之要求則有別於前；羅爾斯並未對特定稅制、稅基或稅率結構有所偏好，只要租稅不違反其提出之正義原則要求，亦即：確保每人皆有平等的基本權利自由，以及保障人民平等地參與經濟之機會、且此機會於每個世代皆被更新，則此等租稅即可被認為符合羅爾斯的理想稅制。惟遺產稅之課徵有別於其他租稅，其課徵目的係在於更新每個世代參與政治之機會，係出自確保每人皆有平等基本自由權利之要求，惟有在滿足此一前提條件下，方有其他調整社會經濟收益之可能；據此觀之，主張廢除遺產稅之論點，依羅爾斯之觀點來看是違反正義的。 / 最後，本文認為，基於正義之要求，遺產稅可以修改，卻不應被廢除；遺產稅之課徵目的既在於調整社會貧富差距，其他出於促進經濟之目的所為之遺產稅改革，如有違反遺產稅課徵目的者，皆應退讓並以遺產稅之課徵目的達成為優先，而以其他政策手段促進經濟發展。

我國行政機關工程獎金制度肇始於民國60年間，時值政府積極推動經濟計畫，籌建各項重要基礎工程建設，為鼓勵各機關辦理各項建設工程，提高工作效能，發展工程技術，行政院爰函頒相關工程獎金支給規定據以實施。嗣因時空環境變遷及政府待遇政策轉型，時至今日，現存的工程獎金支給規定，包括「中央政府各工程機關員工工程獎金發給要點」、「中央各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」及「地方各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」等3項規定，此外，配合機關組織調整實際需要，另發展出「經濟部水利署及內政部營建署城鄉發展分署之工程獎金支給模式」，共計4套支給規定。 鑒於「平等」、「正義」為世人論事用法之基本原則，亦係檢驗社會制度良善與否之首要價值，因此，公部門待遇之規劃與給與自應符合是項原則與價值體系，惟現行工程獎金制度存有4套支給規定，於適用對象、獎金發給種類、經費提撥方式等相關規定均有所差異，造成相同層級並從事相同工程業務者，卻支領不同額度之工程獎金，不僅引發各機關之質疑與批評，亦有違公平正義原則。 本研究採用文獻分析法及深度訪談法，以羅爾斯的正義論為立基及思考角度，檢視現行工程獎金制度之規劃與給與是否符合正義原則，並輔以嫻熟工程獎金制度實務運作之中央及地方機關之政策利害關係人，以及法制主管機關行政院人事行政總處之業管科長，進行深度訪談及綜合分析，進而分別從法制面及實務面提出研究發現與建議，以期提供政府檢討、評估與修正工程獎金制度缺失及規劃其他各項獎金制度之參考。 / The engineering bonus system for the administrative agencies in Taiwan started from 1970s, when the government was actively involved in the promotion of economic plans and the construction of major infrastructures. In order to encourage the government agencies to undertake various engineering projects, increasing efficiency at work and developing engineering techniques, the Executive Yuan issued relevant engineering bonus systems so that each government agency has a practical stipulation to abide by. Due to the temporal and spatial vicissitudes and the transformation of policies on government compensation, we have currently enforced three engineering bonus systems, including “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in each Construction Agency of Central Government”, “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in Central Government Agencies” and “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in local Government Agencies”. Moreover, in compatibility with the demand for the actual adjustment of government agencies, we also contrived the fourth engineering bonus system, “Modes of Engineering Bonus System for Water Resource Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior.” In light of equality and justice, considered not only the basic standards the public rely on while negotiating and dealing with matters but also the primary values to examine whether the social systems are conducive or not, thus, the planning of the government compensation should correspond to these standards and value systems. However, the current four engineering bonus systems vary in their targets, bonus types, and allotments, leading to a plight where there emerges to be a disparity of bonus pay among dealers at the same level engaging in the same engineering projects, which causes doubts and criticisms among government agencies, and violates the principles of equality and justice as well. Adopting citation analysis and depth interview and basing itself on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, this research inspects whether the planning and implementation of the current engineering bonus system corresponds to justice principle. Moreover, it is also coupled with meta-analysis and in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders in local and central organizations who are familiar with the functioning of the engineering bonus system and the section chief of the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration. Then, research findings and suggestions will be proposed from a legal and practical perspectives in the hope of providing our government with the review, assessment and correction of drawbacks of the current engineering bonus systems and planning other bonus systems for reference.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(法学) / 乙第12796号 / 論法博第180号 / 新制||法||146(附属図書館) / 80840 / 京都大学大学院法学研究科公法専攻 / (主査)教授 土井 真一, 教授 毛利 透, 教授 大石 眞 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM