十八世紀的工業發展富裕了人類的物質生活，生態環境卻也逐遭破壞 ；人們因科技文明引發的現代風險的多樣性、全球性、不易衡量與不易預 測性，遂將傳統注重資源分配的「階級社會」帶領到新的注重風險如何在 社會中平等並合法分配的「風險社會」(Risk society) (Beck,1992)，社 會風險概念乃應運而生。從社會文明演進來看，現代風險與過去風險在本 質上有著極大差異，過去風險多以自然災害的威脅為主，而現代風險則以 科技進步帶來的威亦即公害佔多數，綜言之為風險的不確定性、風險承擔 的不公平性、影響的遲延性與風險產生的社會妥當性。也因如此風險管理 則具相當的「利益衡量」與「政策決擇」色彩，風險溝通遂乃成為有效風 險管理的主要因素，成為綜合其他風險議題如風險認知、風險評估、風險 管理等的橋樑。風險溝通與其他溝通議題的最大差別，前者尤強調人文層 面因素重於科學分析結果。建立一個合理可接受的風險水準與風險認知息 息相關，專家的科學分析結果固然重要，民眾對風險的了解卻多以一般知 識與過去生活經驗認知，再加上現代風險多涉及高度的科技性，專業術語 常令民眾產生距離與不信任感，在公害問題上糾紛多因而產生。風險溝通 除了儘量降低衝突外，更積極地為建立風險的正確認知，加強自我防禦機 能，故公共介入、民眾的參與對於事前與事後溝通的成效，可避免糾紛爭 端的發生。 從７０年代起公害糾紛屢見不鮮，抗議者手段皆多由緩和 後因意見得不到適切回應始引發衝突性高的行動；抗爭者與被抗議者亦多 有組織化趨勢；不管是「事前預防型」或「事後補救型」活動，政府的溝 通方式多仍停留在技術層面單向說服性的宣導亦多為被動；反觀國外對溝 通的努力較為積極，坦誠公開的溝通態度，重視一致、簡明的訊息揭露， 並考慮到居民心理壓力的疏解，強調風險溝通的地方時效性，這是國內糾 紛處理不足之處。由於糾紛事件中多有金錢賠償、健康檢查之訴求，故糾 紛處理與公害賠償制度在事後溝通上就佔極重要角色。日本的公害糾處理 與健康受害補償制度是除了民事訟訴外另闢之行政救濟管道，為衝突解決 與公害損害補償提供了訊速有效的溝通管道。我國有關公害糾紛處理已於 ８２年二月完成立法，至於公害補償卻散見於法令中，盼儘快建立污染者 付費原則、賠償基金的設立及加強公害保險功能，健全風險溝通的角色。

本研究之目的係探討國家賠償法於軍事機關之運作，從公務員執行職務行使公權力致生損害之國家賠償責任（即人的責任）與公有公共設施設置或管理欠缺致生損害之國家賠償責任（即物的責任）之兩大主軸討論，並比較日本裁判所之判決與我國對類似案件相關爭點判斷之異同，據以建構軍事機關國家賠償責任之類型，減少可能發生國家賠償責任之爭議。 全文共分為五章：第一章為緒論，說明本研究之動機與目的、研究範圍與限制、研究架構與方法。第二章為國家賠償制度概述，就國家賠償責任之定義及類型、適用之限制、國家賠償責任制度之發展過程、國家賠償責任之理論、公務員責任與國家賠償責任之關係予以討論，藉以確立國家賠償責任認定之法理基礎；並探討日本國家賠償責任成立之案件與我國國賠法制之異同處，藉以參酌我國同類案件之分析與比較。第三章研析闡述特別權力關係之起源、內涵、變遷等，探討公務員、學生、受刑人、軍人在此關係下基本權利之限制與保護。第四章為軍事機關與國家賠償之分析，以第二章國家賠償制度之法理為基礎，彙整相關法令規範，配合相關之法院國家賠償案例，檢討軍事機關公權力行為致生國賠責任之法理與探討軍事設施設置、軍事設施管理造成人民財產之侵害與救濟賠償之認定，並分析軍人撫卹與國家賠償競合之問題。第五章為結論與建議。本章分別就各章之內容總結，具以建立完整之軍事機關國家賠償責任體系，俾提供軍中處理國家賠償案件時之參考；另就研究發現予以歸納評析，並提出建議，例如建立軍事機關公權力行為之行政程序、確實督導軍事設施之設置管理程序，以減少軍中公權力行為之侵權情事，強化其保護照顧義務等等，希冀今後軍事機關對人及對物之管理，能符合依法行政原理之要求。 / This study aims at discussing the State Compensation Law in military authority from two perspectives, including the liability for damages arising from the act of employees of the government acting within the scope of their office (the liability of people), and from a defect in the installation or management of government-owned public facility (the liability of objects). A case study comparison was done between the court of Japan and Taiwan, where the verdicts from both courts were compared so as to construct a pattern for state’s liability in military compensation. We hope that in this way, controversy over state compensation liability could be controlled. The essay is divided into five chapters: the first is introduction, illustrating the motive and purpose, scope and limitation, and structure and method of this study. In chapter two, we will outline the state compensation system, with regard to its definition, classification, applicability, development, theory, and the relationship between the liability of state and public servants, in order to establish a jurisprudential foundation. Then, we will discuss the differences and similarities between the compensation claims in Japan and our country’s State Compensation Law, while analyzing similar cases in Taiwan. The origin, content, changes of special power relation will be examined in chapter three, where the limitation and protection of basic rights of public servants, students, prison inmates, and soldiers are discussed. In chapter four, we will use the jurisprudential foundation stated in chapter two to analyze the military authority and state compensation. By compiling relevant regulations and state compensation claims, we will do a judicial review on the state compensation claims as a result of military authority, the definition of compensation and damages arising from the installation or management of military facility, and the competition between military indemnity and state compensation. Chapter five will be conclusion and suggestion, containing appraisal of each chapter and constructing a system of complete state compensation liability in military authority, as a reference for future claims. In addition, important remarks and suggestion will be provided, such as to establish administrative procedure for military authority and management procedure of military facility. This is to prevent the violation of right from the military, and enhance their obligation to protect and attend, hoping the military could build the rule of law when managing objects and actions of people.

本研究探討損害賠償計算方法理論對請求金額與判賠金額間差距幅度之影響。本研究以請求金額與判賠金額的差距幅度作為應變數，以三大損害賠償計算方法作為解釋變數，並設定三大群組變數作為控制變數。本研究之樣本為智財法院所審理之專利侵權求償判決，樣本期間為2008年9月至2010年9月。 本研究所建立之回歸模型解釋該差距幅度的變異量達45.1%。實證結果顯示，我國專利侵權損害賠償訴訟之差距幅度，顯著地受到總利益說及總銷售額說之兩種損害賠償計算方法的影響，但受合理權利金說之影響並不顯著。該等實證結果指出，總利益說的採用對於縮短請求差距幅度的影響能力，優於總銷售額說，代表著專利權人於訴訟中應詳盡地提出損害賠償相關事證，以獲得較高的賠償救濟。 / This research explores the association of the patent-damage calculation theories with the Variance between the amount of damage claimed and that awarded. Specifically, it tests the relationship between the Variance and three explanatory variables, namely, patent-damage calculation theories based on the profit, sales, and reasonable royalty, along with control variables including the case specifics, patents-at-issue, and litigants information. Its sample includes 186 patent infringement cases decided in Taiwan Intellectual Property Court from 2008/9 to 2010/9. The empirical regression model explains 45.1% of the variation in the Variance. The results show significance associations of the Variance with the profit approach and the sales approach, but not with the reasonable royalty approach. Such findings point out that the profit approach is more successful at reducing the Variance, implying that the patentee should present more detailed evidence during litigation to get more awards.

第一章緒論，旨在解明本論文之研究動機及論文架構。 第二章舉證責任分配體系與損害賠償數額之確定，旨在解明舉證責任分配之概念、舉證責任分配法則、舉證責任分配原則之體系建構，並在本章當中，將說明「損害賠償數額之確定」此一舉證責任減輕機制於舉證責任分配體系中之體系定位。 第三章損害賠償數額之確定之立法旨趣，旨在解明我國民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之立法旨趣，本文將先就外國法之相關規定及其立法旨趣加以解明，次針對民國八十九年所制訂民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之立法旨趣從立法資料、學理上、實務上之看法加以解明其立法旨趣之所在。 第四章損害賠償數額之確定之適用範圍，旨在解明此一制度的適用範圍，針對因果關係、損害賠償請求權、損害賠償請求權之包括或(及)一律請求、與有過失等是否有此一制度之適用，將於本章加以解明。此外，針對學理上所提出之可能類推適用此一制度之事項，本章亦將一併予以討論說明。 第五章損害賠償數額之確定之構成要件，本章將先就法條之構成要件與德國法上之差異處加以解明，次就民事訴訟法第二二二條第二項之法文構成要件加以說明，末針對相關聯之制度亦一併於本章加以檢討分析。 第六章損害賠償數額之確定之法律效果，本章將就學理上所提出之證明度降低說、衡平裁量說、折衷說等三說加以說明分析，並對於我國實務上之看法整理分析。 第七章回顧與展望，係本論文對於損害賠償數額之確定此一制度所提出看法之整體性回顧，以俾讀者迅速地掌握本文對於損害賠償數額之確定之法理論、要件論、效果論之看法。

我國公開收購之審議委員會制度，已實施約5年，規定審議委員會應審議收購案，並建議股東是否應賣。迄今（民國106年6月5日）應設置審議委員會之案件共計55起，其中有36起揭露股份轉讓合約，合約記載與該次收購相關之合約條款，為審議委員會於審議過程可得之資訊。合約約定之內容，將影響簽約雙方承擔之風險，過去亦有案例，顯示合約內容之重要性。透過分析36份股份轉讓合約及5起發生於國內之個案，本研究試圖瞭解合約之違約賠償條款如何影響審議委員會做成建議，以及標的公司之審議委員會及股東於收購案應注意之風險。本研究之結論有二：第一，當股份轉讓合約之違約賠償條款，能夠對風險做出因應時，審議委員會應表示正面意見。第二，標的公司之審議委員會及股東應注意之風險事項，計10項： 1. 公開收購說明書是否有揭露股份轉讓合約。 2. 股份轉讓合約是否有約定違約賠償條款。 3. 違約賠償條款之約定，是否能因應風險。 4. 標的公司之股權結構，是否過於分散或集中。 5. 公開收購人之真實身分，以及其是否與具爭議性人物有關係。 6. 公開收購人與標的公司經營理念之差異。 7. 若收購案牽涉其他主管機關核准，應考量主管機關核准時程。 8. 外界對於收購案之傳聞。 9. 公開收購案之性質，係水平、垂直或多角化經營；是否為跨國案件。 10. 公司過去營運事項及管理階層所作決策或提案，是否有不合理情事。 / The new system of review committee of every public company shall under takes the responsibility to recommend to shareholders about whether to sell their shares in a tender offer has been implemented in Taiwan for five years. The review committee is comprise of all independent directors, they should investigate and review the tender offer before they make their suggestions: positive, negative, or netural. Up to now (June 5, 2017), 55 tender offer cases involve the suggestion from review committee. Among these 55 cases, 36 cases have disclosured share transfer contracts, the terms of the contract were available for the review committee and this research. The terms of the contract affect heavily the risks taken and return awarded by both parties, merit a thorough research but seldom done by previous research.The purpose of this thesis is to find out how the terms of contract affect the review committee’s recommendations. The term studied is damage for breach, this term is selected because its importance, it impact seriously the risks of the acquired company and its shareholders’ wealth.This study starts from analyzing 36 share transfer contracts and 5 tender offer cases in Taiwan, two observations obtain. First, the review committee should express positive recommedation when the terms of damage for breach of contract could response the risk. Second, the 10 risks the acquired company’s review committee and shareholders should pay attention are: 1. Whether the tender offer prospectus disclose the share transfer contract. 2. Whether the share transfer contracts have the terms of damage for breach of contract. 3. Whether the terms of damage for breach of contract could response the risks. 4. Whether the acquired company’s ownership structure is too fragmented or concentrated. 5. Whether the tender offeror is related to a controversial person and its real identity. 6. The different business philosophy between the tender offeror and the acquired company. 7. If the tender offer involves the approval of relevant competent authorities, the processing time of the approval should be concerned. 8. The rumors of the tender offer. 9. The nature of the tender offer is horizontal, vertical or diversified; whether it is a transnational case. 10. Whether both company's past operations and management decisions are unreasonable.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(法学) / 乙第12977号 / 論法博第187号 / 新制||法||153(附属図書館) / 32447 / 京都大学大学院法学研究科公法専攻 / (主査)教授 酒井 啓亘, 教授 濵本 正太郎, 教授 中西 寛 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第21514号 / 法博第231号 / 新制||法||165(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 愛知 靖之, 教授 川濵 昇, 教授 吉政 知広 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

本文主要就懲罰性賠償金制度所產生之法律爭議及企業經營者、使用他人智慧財產權者等應採行之風險管理措施作一研究。 懲罰性賠償金雖源自於英國，但在美國蓬勃發展，故本文首先就美國懲罰性賠償金制度之內容及其發展過程中所衍生之爭論加以探討；其次，再將我國懲罰性賠償金制度予以定位，並對目前之相關立法加以說明，最後再就該制度實施後所引發之法律爭議---是否違憲？是否造成民事法與刑事法體制之紊亂？過失行為得否課與懲罰性賠償金？懲罰性賠償金是否具可保性等問題加以討論。 懲罰性賠償金制度雖基於保障消費者、智慧財產權所有者、投資大眾、防杜內部交易並確保公平競爭，而對於不法行為人課與懲罰性賠償金，來達到懲罰及嚇阻之效果，但此亦加重了企業經營者或其他個體之責任風險；因此，本文依循風險管理之步驟，逐一就我國現行懲罰性賠償金之立法提出損害防阻、損失抑制及風險理財等風險管理措施以資因應。

近年來，病人自主權意識高漲，醫療糾紛頻傳，每個醫師無不戒慎恐懼，而醫療爭議之處理模式與醫師專門職業之道德責任都受到社會高度的檢視及廣泛的討論。事實上，醫學的進步需要依賴不斷地創新與大膽地試驗研究，因此人體試驗相關的問題也受到大眾的關注。 由於人體試驗所面對的是複雜而變化多端的情境，所以參與人體試驗之受試者將會面對甚而遭到危險或傷害。我國人體試驗的相關法規，多散置於醫療法、醫師法、藥事法、藥品優良臨床試驗準則、藥品優良臨床試驗規範等，除了無整體之法規範外，且多為行政法令，在法律位階上均較低，加上衛生署主管機關無法落實對試驗過程中之管理與監控，因此參與人體試驗之受試者往往會受到損害而無法得到應有的保障。因為人體試驗的特殊性與常規醫療是不同的，如果僅由既有的傳統醫療糾紛處理方式，如醫療契約於受試者的關係、侵權行為於違反保護他人法律的標準、醫療倫理不傷害原則於人體試驗規範等，這些恐怕都是必須的，但是仍嫌不足。 本文參考國外人體試驗規範包括紐倫堡法則、赫爾辛基宣言、美國貝爾蒙特報告、美國聯邦法規、CIOMS國際生物醫學研究人體試驗倫理準則、國際醫藥法規協和會之優良人體臨床試驗準則等等，然後針對個別議題如受試者保護之告知後同意，受試者權益之醫療契約關係及侵權行為責任，受試者受傷害之損害賠償責任，作一整理分析與檢討，並進一步配合我國現行法律制度與社會倫理規範做出建議。 本文共分為七章，分別為「序論」、「人體試驗」、「人體試驗告知後同意法則」、「國外人體試驗之民事責任」、「我國人體試驗之民事責任」、「人體試驗之賠償責任及機制」及「結論」。 / In recent years, patients’ consciousness of self-determination has raised and many medical disputes occurred; doctors feel discomfort and developed the high intensity of self-defense. The solution of medical malpractice and professional liability of doctors have became the major public issues and received many discussions. We are quite sure that the medical progress is based on innovative and intensive clinical study on human subjects. Under this background, the topics on human subject research have been attracted more attention than ever. Since the situations in human research are complex and variable. If relative clinical standards and legal protections are not adequately provided, the human subjects involved in clinical researches may face many risks and even injured. In Taiwan, we don’t have a systemic regulations on human subject research, all regulations are distributed in different code, act, proceeding, and agreement. Furthermore, the government does not have enough resource and manpower to monitor or inspect the processes of human research, the issues of protection of human rights and benefits of testee has raised serious concern. The human subject research is not exactly the same as the clinical medical treatment, it’s impossible for legislators or institutions to regulate research through traditional medical regulations such as medical ethics doctor-involved informed consent, medical agreement (contract), tort laws, and compensation for injury. In this thesis, firstly, I reviewed the most important publications related to human subject research include Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, USA’s Belmont Report and Code of Federal Regulations, CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and ICH-GCP; secondly, focus on each specific topics especially the value of informed consent, the importance of medical agreement, the liabilities of torts and the policy of compensation for injury. Finally, I’ll make my comments and suggestions to the health care authorities to update and implement new regulating policies to protect human rights of subjects involved in clinical researches. My thesis is restricted to discuss the impact of civil liability on human subjects research focus on drug clinical trial and divided into seven chapters as follows: “Introduction”, “Human subject research”, “Principles of informed consent”, “International liability of civil law on human subject research”, “Liability of Taiwan civil law on human subject research”, “Policy of compensation for injured human research subject” and “Conclusion”.

本文將負面醫療結果(醫療傷害)統稱為醫療事故(medical incident)，而醫療事故中又分為醫療過失(medical negligence)、醫療不幸（medical mishap，又名醫療災禍）及醫療意外(medical accident)三種情況。造成醫療傷害可能是因為醫療的過失責任，也可能是無醫療過失責任，本文特意將無醫療過失責任再細分為無過失責任、非過失責任與無法律責任（自然死亡或自然病程）三種，並將「無過失責任」no fault liability一詞泛以「無關過失責任」稱之；醫療行為中可預知的合併症與副作用的「醫療不幸」及不可預知、不可抗力的「醫療意外」屬非過失責任範疇，而不可避免性的自然死亡及自然病程，則屬無法律責任的範疇。 責任負擔可分為賠償、補償、救濟三種。賠償者，以不法之侵權行為，致使他人受損害時，因而填補其所受之損害，謂之賠償，英文為indemnity。補償者，指根據該法所指定的人員敲定的額度提供的金錢補助，而不是指針對不法行為或違反契約依法起訴所獲得的補償性賠償金，英文為compensation。救濟者，特別指由國家向貧困者提供的財政幫助，英文為relief。 過失責任的歸責原因是醫療疏失，所以是以損害填補原則及不當得利禁止原則，以填補受害者所受損害及所失利益；因此，過失責任要負的是損害「賠償責任」。非過失責任的歸責原因包括醫療不幸（即副作用、合併症）與醫療意外兩種，因為醫師客觀上已盡注意義務，不論有無結果預知義務或結果迴避義務，醫師已盡力防阻，仍不免發生醫療傷害，故並無醫療疏失可言，應由國家社會對受害者予以救濟；因此，非過失責任理應由福利國家的救濟制度來負責。無關過失責任no fault liability的歸責原因是危險責任，針對所有醫療事故，不論對錯無關過失下，只要有了醫療傷害，加害人就予以被害人限額補償的基本保障。因為醫師身為危險責任主體，依報償責任理論（利之所存，險之所擔）、危險控制理論及危險分擔理論下必須承擔危險責任，因以，無關過失責任應負醫療事故補償責任。 賠償、補償、救濟三種責任負擔都可以分別採用基金模式或保險模式來解決；本文則認為，醫療過失責任宜採取醫師專業責任保險，予受害人損害賠償。醫療無關過失責任宜採取醫事人員強制責任保險，輔以醫療事故特別補償基金，予受害人基本保障補償。醫療非過失責任宜採取醫療風險救濟基金，予受害人風險救濟，急難救助。 故本文結論提出事故補償、風險救濟、損害賠償三階層的保險與基金制度架構，以解決醫療糾紛民事責任問題即；第一層事故補償—針對醫療事故，以醫事人員強制責任保險無關過失，限額補償；第二層風險救濟—針對醫療意外，整合醫療風險救濟基金定額救濟；第三層損害賠償—針對過失責任，以醫師責任保險損害填補。 / In this paper, we study negative outcomes associated with the delivery health care, which are collectively referred to as “medical incident”. This is further divided into “medical negligence”, “medical mishap” (also known as “medical disaster”), and “medical accidents”. Medical injuries may be in consequence of medical negligence or otherwise, that is they may be with fault or without fault. In this paper we further medical injuries without fault into three categories: (1) liability regardless of fault, (2) liability without fault, and (3) no legal liability. Notably, we refer to “no-fault liability” as “liability regardless of fault” to better distinguish its legal implications with respect to other kinds of medical injuries without fault. Predictable complications and side effects of medical treatments are considered “medical mishap”; unavoidable natural death or nature course of disease have “no legal liability”. The burden of duty can be divided into three categories: indemnity, compensation, and relief. Indemnity is secondary to the violation of rights leading to injury and damages. Compensation is set by appointed experts and given in direct consequence of the occurrence of the injury, and is independently of the determination of legality and contract fulfillment. Relief specifically refers to financial assistance given by government entities to those in need. At-fault liability follows medical negligence, and as such indemnity is given for reparation of damages and the prohibition of gains from the provision of negligent medical care. Causes of liability with no fault include medical mishaps and medical accidents. In these cases, the physician has fulfilled duties as medical professionals and in so doing have done their best to prevent medical incidents. Nevertheless due to circumstances beyond control, medical injuries occur. Because there is no negligence on the part of the physician, these losses are ideally dealt with by the governmental agencies. Liability regardless of fault attributes liability based on risk alone. Under this system, for all medical incidents, whether or not they are the consequence of negligence, the victim receives relief at a pre-determined amount. This relief serves as the basic protection of patients. Since the physician as the chief medical care provider is also at the center of medical risk, by principles of risk management, liability regardless of fault should in addition be organized as medical incidents compensation. The three forms of duty burden–indemnity, compensation, and relief–can be organized either as foundations or as insurances. We argue that duty burden for medical negligence is best managed by professional liability insurance to provide compensation to the victims. Medical liability regardless of fault is best managed by compulsory medical provider liability insurance with additional medical incidence compensation fund to provide at least a basic level of compensation to the victims. Medical liability without fault is best managed by medical risk relief fund for assistance for the victims. In conclusion, in this paper we analyze various forms of liability and management of medical risks, and propose the use of professional liability insurance for medical injuries with fault, compulsory liability insurance for liability without fault, and relief fund for liability regardless of fault, in the setting of medical incidence. This provides a comprehensive, three-layered solution to the emerging problem of proliferation of medical incident cases in the courts. The first layer is incidence compensation, directed at all medical incidents, via compulsory medical personnel liability insurance regardless of fault. The second layer is risk relief, directed at medical mishaps and medical accidents, via risk relief funds. The third layer is damage indemnity, directed at at-fault liability, via physician professional liability insurance, to fulfill the victims’ damages.