法律學院: 法律學研究所指導教授: 詹森林楊慧娘Yang, Huei-NiangHuei-NiangYang2017-03-032018-07-052017-03-032018-07-052015http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/273240我國民法第71條規定：「法律行為，違反強制或禁止之規定者，無效。但其規定並不以之為無效者，不在此限。」對於民法第71條之適用，最高法院向來以取締規定和效力規定之區分為中心，違反取締規定之法律行為有效，違反效力規定之法律行為無效。傳統學說上亦多同此區分，認為兩者之辨別應探求規定之目的以定之，若非以違法行為之法律行為為無效，不能達其立法目的者，為效力規定，否則為取締規定。 然而最高法院之判決往往缺乏詳細論理，導致本條文之適用顯得僵化而不明確，因此本文試圖建立較為具體且有可預測性的判斷方式，並歸納較有彈性的效力類型。 民法第71條之解釋與適用難以覓得單一的、放諸四海而皆準的標準，法律解釋和法益權衡是難以避免的方法。且本條文之解釋和適用須分為兩個層次，第一是針對民法第71條本身，第二是針對個案涉及之強制或禁止規定，而本文之重心放在第一層次，只是在討論如何適用民法第71條時，會兼及第二層次。 本文在民法第71條之解釋上，首先從條文目的為維持法律之無矛盾性出發，其次探討其與公序良俗、誠信原則、脫法行為之關係，介定強制或禁止規定乃「強行規定中規範法律行為內容，強制或禁止當事人為一定行為之規範」。在適用上仍接受傳統學說和實務對效力規定和取締規定之區分，只是引入比例原則作為判斷違法行為效力之準則，並討論介於有效和無效之間：相對無效、部分無效、得撤銷、效力未定等效力類型。Article 71 Civil Code in Taiwan defines “A juridical act which violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the act is void except voidance is not implied in the provision.” The Supreme Court has always taken the standard for distinguishing “banning norms” from “rules of effectiveness”as center focus. During the practice of Article 71: when a juridical act violates a “banning norm”, it is effective; on the contrary, when a juridical act violates a “rule of effectiveness”, it is invalid. Traditional theories also support above statement. But this standard often becomes rigid and inflexible. The interpretation of law and balance of legal interest are necessary when applying Article 71. This Paper tries to build up a more concrete and flexible structure to applying this Article. Primary, when interpreting Article 71, it is important to acknowledge that the purpose of this Article is to maintain the uniformity of law. Secondly, the paper will continue to discuss the relationship between Article 71 with public orders and morals, principle of good faith and evasive acts. Finally, this Paper defines imperative or prohibitive provision as mandatory rules that force or prohibit people to do something. In practices, this Paper still accepts the way to distinguish “banning norms” from “rules of effectiveness”, but takes the principle of proportionality as a criterion to decide which section does it belongs within the spectrum of validity and invalidity, whether it is: relative invalidity, partial invalidity, revocable or uncertain validity.1570030 bytesapplication/pdf論文公開時間: 2015/3/16論文使用權限: 同意無償授權民法第71條私法自治強制規定禁止規定取締規定效力規定比例原則Article 71private autonomyimperative provisionprohibitive provisionbanning normsrules of effectivenessthe principle of proportionalitythesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/273240/1/ntu-104-R99a21042-1.pdf