第一章 緒論 本章主要論述本文之研究動機、方法及略述各章之要點。章內就各章主要論述重點先予以顯明。 第二章 汽車交通事故侵權行為與強制汽車責任保險 本章說明侵權行為歸責基礎之意義及歸責基礎在侵權行為法中之地位。復述論汽車交通事故侵權行為之發展及責任保險制度對侵權行為法之影響，並就各保險先進國所採之強制汽車責任保險制度作一簡要之介紹。 第三章 補償制度制系 本章主要述論補償制度之特質，並比較補償制度與侵權行為損害賠償制度之異同。另分析補償給付與侵權行為損害賠償競合時，所採取之各種解決模式，最後介紹我國補償制度體系，期能透過補償與賠償之比較，對我國保障汽車交通事故受害人立法模式之選擇，提供一個思考之起點。 第四章 無過失保險制度 本章著眼於無過失保險之演進及其主要內容；又無過失保險常遭誤認為「無過失責任保險」或「傷害保險」，本章特別說明無過失保險與責任保險、傷害保險之本質上區別，期能釐清三種制度間之差異。 第五章 強制汽車責任保險法之基本架構與定位 本章由強制汽車責任保險法理與無過失保險理論二種不同角度，解析本法第七條給付要件之規定、第二十七條給付內容之規定及被保險人、加害人、受害人及請求權人規定等關於本法基本體例之重要規範，期能掌握本法基本架構與定位錯亂、矛盾爭議之全貌。 第六章 本法基本架構重要條文之修正建議—代結論 由於自強制汽車責任保險法理之角度對本法提出批判及修正建議之學術論著非常之多，本章乃從無過失保險理論，就本法關於基本架構之重要條文，提出修正建議。

簡單來說：憲法—是否及如何，適用或影響—私法關係？亦即，私法關係是否應該受到合憲控制？如果是，應該限於什麼範圍，受到什麼程度的合憲控制？而民事法院的法官又應該如何操作合憲控制？對此，目前為止的相關文獻固然已經大致確立了以間接影響說為主軸的通說論述，然而，仍然留有「理論基礎」、「射程範圍」、「操作方法」及「操作示範」等問題尚未解決。 著眼於以上的問題意識，本文首先針對「理論基礎」的問題，回顧關於私法關係合憲控制的重要理論，釐清其中一些曖昧不明的說法，並且嘗試對於「憲法是否適用或影響私法關係？」這個根本的問題，尋找一個比較站得住腳的立論基礎，也替之後的討論勾勒出一個基本輪廓。其次針對「射程範圍」的問題，本文嘗試界定私法關係合憲控制的射程範圍，包括憲法規定的範圍，以及媒介規範的範圍，目的在於劃定私法關係合憲控制的外部界限。接著針對「操作方法」的問題，本文設法提出一個可供民事法院操作的合憲控制方法，目的在於把討論至今的抽象理論進一步加以具體化，並且建立私法關係合憲控制的內部流程。最後針對「操作示範」的問題，本文以再興社區訴關愛之家案為例，進行私法關係合憲控制的操作示範，希望能夠作為我國實務將來在處理案例時的參考。在結論上，本文雖然仍以多數意見所採取的間接影響說為基調，但是希望透過對於理論基礎的明確化、射程範圍的細緻化及操作方法的具體化，能夠重新構成間接影響說的理論及實務。 關鍵詞：基本權第三人效力、基本權保護義務、合憲性解釋、間接適用說、關愛之家案。

台灣社會瀰漫一股不信任、不滿電視新聞的氣氛，但為什麼不見民眾起身改革電視新聞呢？循著此問題意識，本論文擬定兩個研究目的：「瞭解台灣閱聽人改革電視新聞的態勢與情況」與「探究何種因素影響閱聽人改革電視新聞」。根據過去媒介改革運動發展和媒介素養的相關文獻，並考量研究資源的限制，本研究選定「社區大學」作為研究樣本，並於全台各地16所社區大學發放問卷，共獲得有效問卷552份。 研究結果發現，實際參與電視新聞改革行動（投書報章雜誌、上網留言批評、向電視台反應、參與社會團體）的受訪者人數稀少，改革電視新聞意願低落。 本研究尋找影響民眾參與改革行動因素時，發現「使用與滿足」、「媒介懷疑」和「無力感」無法預測民眾改革電視新聞行動。雖然我們從台灣社會與調查結果觀察到民眾對於電視新聞的不滿、不信任、懷疑、和對電視新聞改革的無力感，但這些負面認知並沒有影響民眾參與電視新聞改革的可能性。 本研究發現「第一人效果認知」與「媒介公民素養」為預測台灣民眾改革電視新聞行動的顯著因子。首先「第一人效果認知」與改革電視新聞行動的發現，證實唯有當民眾認為電視新聞對自己產生影響時，才願意起身改革電視新聞。此項實證結果挑戰了「第三人效果認知」中行動成分的假說。 其次「媒介公民素養」越高的民眾，參與電視新聞改革行動的機率也越高。此發現鼓勵社區大學與媒介改革運動人士持續開設「媒介公民素養」相關課程，藉由課程培養民眾參與電視新聞改革、關心電視新聞內容品質的意願和動力。

大法官在釋字第689號解釋中，首次在解釋文中引進美國法上的「合理隱私期待」概念，以作為人民是否受到憲法隱私權保障的判定標準。事實上，「合理隱私期待」的概念在我國法上並不令人感到陌生。例如，通訊保障及監察法第3條第2項即明確規定：「前項所稱之通訊，以有事實足認受監察人對其通訊內容有『隱私或秘密之合理期待』者為限」。 除了尾隨、全天候視覺監控等類似的古老方法，隨著科技的進步，諸如以衛星為基礎的汽車導航系統、以基地台為基礎的行動電話定位服務等低成本、高效率的定位科技，可以更輕易且嚴重地侵害我們的私生活及隱私。當定位科技成為我們每天生活的一部分時，如何在這樣的脈絡下正確地操作「合理隱私期待」概念，已成為一項重要的議題。 惟國內學術文獻對於如何正確地操作「合理隱私期待」，似乎欠缺全面性地研究。為了填補國內的空白，本文進行了美國及台灣案例法之深入比較分析，尤其是關於合理隱私期待及定位裝置的判決。本文指出了以往我國及美國法院判決的問題，以及邏輯矛盾之處。為了達到更加一致、正確的判決結果，本文認為，在操作合理隱私期望概念時，法院應著重於四個因素，其分別是：「資訊的性質」、「侵害的手段」、「侵害的場所」及「第三人原則」。 / In J.Y. Interpretation No. 689, the Constitutional Court , for the first time, employs the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, originated from the United States, in order to determine whether an individual enjoys a constitutionally protected right to privacy. The concept, however, is not new to our legal system. For example, Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Communication Protection and Surveillance Act provides: “The communications referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be limited to those for which there is an adequate showing of facts that a person subject to surveillance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality with respect to the content of the communications.” In addition to tailing, around the clock visual surveillance and similar old-fashioned methods, with the advance in technology, our private life and privacy could be more easily and greatly intruded by low-cost, high-efficiency location positioning technology, such as satellite-based car navigation system and cell sites-based cellphone positioning service. When location positioning technology becomes part of our everyday life, how to properly apply the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in this context has also become an important issue. So far, there seems to lack a comprehensive study on the aforementioned issue in domestic academic literature. To fill the gap, this thesis conducts an in-depth comparative analysis of both U.S. and Taiwan case law, especially those involving reasonable expectation of privacy and location positioning devices. This thesis points out the problems and logical inconsistencies in past decisions in both jurisdictions. In order to reach a more consistent and appropriate result, this thesis argues that when applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, courts should focus on four factors which are: “nature of information,” “measure of infringement,” “the place where the intrusion happens,” and “third party doctrine.”

懲罰性賠償金係透過課予加害人超出被害人損害之賠償，達成制裁加害人，並嚇阻加害人以及其他行為人從事相類行為。該制度係源自於英國，並自英國傳遞自美國，並於美國廣泛盛行。懲罰性賠償金制度具有懲罰、嚇阻、設立典範之功能、執行法律等功能，惟其係私法下之概念，卻帶有懲罰目的之公法性質，跨越兩種領域使其極具爭議性。 消費者保護法第51條將英美法之懲罰性賠償金制度引進，致使我國民刑分立之法體系產生模糊地帶。關於我國實務對於懲罰性賠償金之態度，得以自其就消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋觀察。然實務就要件之解釋未盡統一，如此將導致當事人無所適從。 2015年6月17日修正之消費者保護法第51條，明確將「重大過失」納入規定，顯見立法者對於企業經營者採取更為嚴格之態度。如此修正固解決長久以來「過失」是否應限縮於「重大過失」之爭議，惟關於消費者保護法第51條其他要件之解釋，仍有尚未解決之問題。 觀諸消費者保護法第51條之要件，「依本法所提之訴訟」於「本法」及「訴訟」即存在寬嚴不同之解釋。另關於該條文之責任主體，企業經營者是否就其受僱人之懲罰性賠償金責任負責，又企業經營者間之責任關係為何，皆有釐清之必要。請求權主體之部分，消費者保護法第7條規定之「第三人」並未出現於第51條懲罰性賠償金之規定中，產生消費者以外之「第三人」是否為請求權主體之爭議。另外，被害人死亡時懲罰性賠償金之歸屬，亦為立法者制定該條文規定時，未審慎思考致生之法律漏洞。究竟被害人死亡時，應由間接被害人抑或繼承人請求懲罰性賠償金，無論如何結論之擇採，皆有賴縝密之法律邏輯推演。最後於懲罰性賠償金之計算，2015年6月17日明確懲罰輕過失行為以及提高倍數上限之修正，其妥適性為何；又消費者保護法第51條規定之計算基礎「損害額」之意義、計算時酌定之因素、與有過失之考量等，皆有待解決。本文以整理消費者保護法第51條懲罰性賠償金適用上之爭議，並嘗試透過學說及實務見解之分析歸納出合理之結論，並就結論之推演，參考部分日本法學說，期能對於消費者保護法第51條要件之解釋提供另一種思考方向。 / Punitive damages are extra monetary burdens which make the offender to pay more than those the injured has lost, in order to deter the offender and other offenders from behaving the same. The doctrine of punitive damages is originated from England and swept America. Punitive damages have the functions of punishment, deterrence, setting examples to the society, law enforcement and so on. However, it is controversial that the doctrine of punitive damages is the concept under civil law, but with the function of punishment, which makes the doctrine in the borderland between public and private law. Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act is the doctrine of punitive damages in Taiwan, which causes a gray area among the separation of civil law and criminal law, and makes Art. 51 controversial. It is not difficult to know the attitude of the judges toward punitive damages by understanding the explanation of Art. 51. But there is no consistency in the explanation of each element of Art. 51, which makes the Article bewildering. On June 17, 2015, gross negligence has been added to the amended Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, which shows the strict attitude of the legislators toward the business operators. This amendment solves the problem that whether negligence should be limited to gross negligence or not, but there still are other issues about Art. 51 Which should be solved. Among Art. 51, “this law” and “litigation” in the element of “in a litigation brought in accordance with this law” are explained in both strict and easing ways. About the subject of the legal responsibility of Art. 51, whether the business operators should be responsible for the act of their employees, and whether business operators should be jointly and severally liable for punitive damages are issues should be discussed. About the claimers of Art. 51, comparing Art. 7 to Art. 51, we can find that “third party” isn’t showed in Art. 51, which brings up to the issue that whether third party other than consumer can claim for punitive damages. Also, who can claim for punitive damages when the victim dies is an important issue. The legislators did not think of this kind of situation, which caused legislation imperfection among Art. 51. Whether the indirect victim or the successor should be the claimer of punitive damages in this kind of situation should be explained carefully and logically. Last but not least, in related to the calculation of punitive damages, the amendment of Art. 51 in June, 17, 2015 specifies that objective negligence and subjective negligence should be punished and the maximum limit on the amount of damages has been raised. Whether the amendment is proper or not, and whether “the amount of damages” should be confined to “property damages” should be clarified. It is also necessary to figure out the considerations of determination of the amount. Whether comparative negligence should be considered while deciding the amount of punitive damages is also controversial, which should be investigated prudently. This thesis will focus on Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act and the issues about it. This thesis will analyze those issues according to the theories and opinions of practice in Taiwan. American theories and Japanese theories will also be discussed in this thesis in order to solve the problems, and to provide a different view of Article 51 of the Consumer Protection Act.

我國已於2009年透過制定施行法的方式將兩公約內國法化，正式引進適足居住權，然而多年來嚴重違反本權利要求的迫遷案件依然不斷上演，衝擊人民基本權利與臺灣在國際社會上的人權信用甚鉅。由於司法部門係確認適足居住權定位並確保其實踐的關鍵角色，本文乃以居住議題相關的司法裁判為核心，探討在我國究應如何透過司法途徑建構及落實適足居住權。 經爬梳聯合國針對此議題作成的權威文件，本文整理出適足居住權的形成、發展、監督落實機制、內涵、以及締約國應負擔的國家義務等內容，勾勒出對我國而言尚屬陌生的適足居住權形貌。在我國採取接納說的一元論架構下，兩公約於經批准後即容納為我國法律體系的一部，其規範效力並非取決於《兩公約施行法》；屬強行國際法性質的人權條款具有憲法位階的高度，其餘則為法律位階，並得在系爭人權規定提升為基本人權層級後，與包含一般性意見在內的國際人權文件共同作為具體明確的違憲審查指標。而為了盡可能消弭經社文公約上的適足居住權規定與我國憲法基本權間的落差，本文檢驗了若干基本權條款，認為居住自由、遷徙自由、生存權、財產權、文化權及環境權可共同承接適足居住權的內涵，使適足居住權得以提升至憲法位階，作為一項獨立的基本權，並指出過往與居住議題相關的大法官解釋審查依據應有疏漏。 確立憲法層次的適足居住權後，本文全面檢視我國涉及適足居住權的裁判並深入分析其中六則個案，嘗試歸納我國司法部門看待及操作適足居住權的模式，再指出引進適足居住權的意義——適足居住權不因屬經社文權利即不具備可司法性，司法者毋寧應於審理裁判時妥適運用合憲、合公約的法律解釋方法，甚至在系爭個案為消極抵禦侵害、不涉有賴立法與行政兩大政治部門定奪的資源分配事宜時，賦予公約條文直接適用的可能性。若衝突明確，無法透過解釋方式排除國內法律與公約牴觸的疑義，大法官在釋憲時亦應充分衡量適足居住權的各該憲法規範依據。 本文最後並提醒，政治部門同樣必須承擔實踐適足居住權的國家義務，不論是與居住相關的法令及行政措施的檢討改進、抑或政策及法令的制定，均有待其積極作為，始能在實害發生前即充分滿足適足居住權的保障，避免事後救濟的緩不濟急。

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.

本研究是國內第一個以「警政負面新聞」為主題的研究，希望藉由第三人效果的認知假設，探討警政負面新聞的影響。除了探討警察人員對警政負面新聞是否存在所謂的第三人效果之外；並分別從人口變項、議題涉入感、社會距離、職業認同感等變項，探究對警政負面新聞的認知影響，同時也進一步就行為層面上的關係加以剖析。 本研究以服務於全國二十三縣市警察局之現職警察為目標，採用問卷調查法為主，回收並取得八百四十六份有效問卷。資料分析顯示，警政負面新聞對警察人員產生第一人和第三人的效果，受訪警察認為警政負面新聞對於自己的影響大於一般警察，即呈現了所謂的第一人效果；同時又普遍認為警政負面新聞對於一般民眾會產生更大的負面影響，呈現非常明顯的第三人效果。就社會距離而言，警政負面新聞對於一般警察和一般民眾的影響，會隨著與受訪者之間的距離增加而增加。這種社會距離的形成，肇因於不同團體之間的異質性和不確定感。 對於警政議題涉入感方面，研究證實受訪者對警政新聞議題涉入愈高者，普遍認為對自己、一般警察、一般民眾愈會造成負面影響。本研究同時發現警察的職業認同感維持在中度以上，結果顯示職業認同感可以正面預測「對自己的影響」、「對一般警察的影響」、「對一般民眾的影響」三者，即警察的職業認同感愈高，愈傾向認為警政負面新聞的負面影響愈大。受訪者認為警政負面新聞的影響愈大，愈傾向支持媒介限制行動。總的來說，警政負面新聞「對自己的影響」、「對一般警察的影響」、「對一般民眾的影響」等變項，均是預測支持警政機關採取媒介限制行為的顯著變項。 / This thesis is the first study in Taiwan focusing on “negative police news”, attempting to apply the third person effect theory to study the possible impact of negative news coverage of police. This research furthermore investigates several variables, including demographic variables, issue involvement, social distance, and professional identification, and their influence on the perception of negative police news. A relationship of exposure of negative news and support of media regulation is analyzed at the same time. A survey of 846 incumbent officers from twenty-three metropolitan police agencies in Taiwan was conducted. Results show that negative news coverage of police has both first and third person effects on police officers. Officers consider that effects of negative police news have stronger impact on themselves than on other officers. They generally consider that negative police news has more negative influence on the general public. From a viewpoint of social distance, an attitude formed through heterogeneity and uncertainty among different social groups, this study found that effects of exposure to negative police news upon perception of the effect on other officers were more limited than on the general public. From the aspect of issue involvement, the more the officers were involved in negative news issues, the more they consider negative police news has negative effects upon themselves, other officers and the general public. This study also concluded that the higher the professional identification a police officer held, the more she/he tended to consider that negative police news had a stronger impact. We also found that there was a tendency that police officers were more likely to support media regulation. Effects upon oneself, effects upon other police officers, and effects upon the general public of negative news coverage of police, were all variables significantly predicting the support of media regulation.

近年來公司財報不實之案件屢見不鮮，如美國的安隆(Enron)、世界通訊(WorldCom)、全錄(Xerox)、默克藥廠(Merck)等一連串公司爆發財報不實之情形，二○○四年日本的西武鐵道、日本テレビ放送網公司也傳出財務報表虛偽記載的消息，而我國從早期的丸億案到近期引起軒然大波的博達案，也都涉及到虛飾財務報表以掩飾公司財務狀況不佳的問題。鑑於公司董事依公司法第228條為財報之編製主體，其能否善盡其職責攸關財報之正確性與否。復考量到相較於刑事責任，民事責任之成立與否與廣大投資人求償的可能性較具關連，故本文限縮研究重心於公開發行公司董事就財報不實應負之民事責任。 由於我國證交法或公司法上關於公開發行公司董事財報不實之民事責任規定，多係參考美國法或日本法之規定，故本文於架構上於第二章及第三章部分先行探討美國法、日本法上董事財報不實之民事責任規定，最後再藉比較法觀點，於第四章部分檢討我國現行公開發行公司董事財報不實之民事責任規定。 本文以為我國法上公開發行公司財報不實董事之民事責任，可分為第三人責任與對公司責任兩個面向予以觀察。就對於第三人責任，主要規範於證交法第20條第1項證券詐欺規定、同條第2項資訊不實規定，以及第32條公開說明書不實規定。惟此等規定賠償義務人範圍、主觀要件、請求權人、適用範圍，甚至是請求賠償時之因果關係證明及損害賠償範圍，學說及實務判決上常有不同看法，應有確立該等規定構成要件內涵之必要性。另外公司法第23條第2項公司負責人之侵權行為責任、民法第28條法人之侵權行為責任規定，亦涉及董事於財報不實時對第三人之責任。 董事於財報不實時對公司之責任方面，主要檢討董事有無違反公司法第23條第1項善良管理人之注意義務。此外，關於美國、日本法上之董事責任減免機制，我國法上僅有公司法第231條股東會承認會計表冊規定及董事責任保險制度較為相關。惟本文以為在現行股東代位訴訟制度尚未修正前，並無引進與其配套之董事責任減免機制之必要。 至於獨立董事與內部董事責任應否區分?本文考量到獨立董事依公司法規定仍為執行業務者，且獨立董事與內部董事現實運作上難以劃定責任區分之標準，認為於我國現行法下，獨立董事與內部董事就財報不實所負之民事責任並無區分之必要。

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。