營建工程中建築師借牌現象的司法判決分析：以2016年台南維冠金龍大樓倒塌案為討論中心

Abstract

2016年發生之維冠金龍大樓倒塌事故，不僅為台灣史上最多人因單一建築物倒塌而罹難之事件，同時也是首次建築師因為借牌被判處最高刑期五年之業務過失致死罪。過去文獻討論之借牌多集中於營造商借牌，主要探討諸如借牌之形態、影響與產生原因。本研究以過往借牌案例為基礎，藉由刑事判決探討借牌與業務過失致死罪之關聯，並進一步分析維冠金龍大樓倒塌刑事判決確定後，營建工程業中的建築師借牌現象是否產生改變。 本研究之資料主要有司法判決書、立法院公報與媒體報導。以文獻分析法進行研究，結果發現，建築師借牌現象欲憑藉維冠金龍大樓倒塌判決結果而有所改變，其效果有限。原因包含：歷年案例皆有相異之脈絡，難有一致性之推論，使得過往類似之判決亦未能於維冠案中被採用。以及維冠案之判決敘述仍有許多爭點，再被引用的機率有限，從而難以對未來之判決產生拘束力。再加上立法、行政部門對於倒塌後之修法及制度引進至今均未有足夠動作，而建築師公會雖譴責借牌，但未採取相關進一步作法，反而關注於建築師與施工單位之責任歸屬。綜合來說，經由維冠案各方面之探索，顯示經由司法途徑改變建築師借牌之效果仍然有限。

The collapse of the Weiguan Jinlong Building in 2016 isn’t only the accident that caused the most casualties in Taiwanese history due to a collapse of a single building, but also for the first time, an architect faces a five-year-sentence for professional negligence by lending license. Past studies on license borrowing are mostly around the contractors, such as the patterns, influences, and causes after borrowing. Build upon license borrowing cases in the past, the current study examines the connection between licenses borrowing and professional negligence result of death by criminal judgment, and further analyzes if the phenomenon of architect licenses borrowing in construction engineering industry would possibly alter after the judicial decision on the case of the Weiguan Jinlong Building collapse. The current study utilizes literature analysis and collects media coverage, the Legislative Yuan Gazettes and judicial judgments. The results reveal that architect licenses borrowing can’t be changed even after the collapse of the Weiguan Jinlong Building. The possible reasons are as below. (1) The cases in the past have different backgrounds, and it’s difficult to have consistent inferences. (2) Thus, similar judgments in the past have not been adopted in the Weiguan case. (3) The verdict statements in the Weiguan case are full of suspicions and doubts. It is obvious that the verdict statements won’t be quoted again, making it difficult to constrain future verdicts. (4) In addition, the legislative and administrative departments haven’t revised the laws nor introduce new systems by far. (5) Although the Architects Association condemns license borrowing, it focuses on distinguishing the responsibility of the architects and the constructions units rather than executing relevant practices. All in all, the exploration of the Weiguan case shows that the effect of changing architect licenses borrowing through the legal system is still limited.