論公正轉型中光電工程契約因法令變更而終止之違約責任

Abstract

本論文旨在探討我國推動公正轉型過程中，行政機關係因實現政策目標、環境保護需求、土地空間規劃或社會輿論壓力等情，所生之法規修正與行政裁量標準調整，所導致私法上光電工程承攬契約履行之法律效果。蓋此類契約之履行基礎，實攸關政策制度之穩定性與行政裁量標準之可預測性，倘法令變動或行政處分基準發生變更，致使契約履行遭遇障礙、工期延宕或契約目的無法實現時，是否構成合法終止事由、免責抗辯或得援引民法第227條之2「情事變更原則」，於我國實務與學理中尚存諸多爭議。 首先以公正轉型之國際發展趨勢及我國能源政策演進為起點，檢視光電產業於能源轉型脈絡下所處之法制定位及其面臨之制度性風險，繼而以個案實證分析為研究核心，從契約法理與責任體系之觀點出發，進一步探究政策變遷與法規調整對契約履行基礎所造成之法律風險與履約障礙，並以民法第227條之2所揭示之「情事變更原則」為核心理論架構，透過相關文獻梳理、裁判實務見解及個案事實，研析該原則於行政風險及政策不確定性，所引致契約履行失衡之適用要件與法律效果。初步觀察我國民法第227條之2「情事變更原則」於實務裁判中之適用現況，發現儘管立法明文允許法院在特定構成要件下，得依誠信原則與衡平負擔原則調整契約內容，然實務多採取限縮解釋態度，對於因法令變更或政策導向轉變所致契約履行障礙，是否足以構成情事變更事由，仍傾向保留並普遍強調契約條款中風險分配機制之優先適用效力。此外，實務對可責性之認定尚未形成一致見解，導致當事人難以形成穩定之法律預期。 本文除建構情事變更原則具體適用要件與法理框架，並研析實務中對終止條款效力、風險分擔配置與損害歸責標準之裁量方式，進一步提出契約設計與制度規範層面的具體建議。期能回應公正轉型下，行政裁量變動對私法契約履行所造成之風險張力，並促進契約自由與法律安定性之平衡發展。最後，本文提出契約設計面與制度規範面之建議，希冀公正轉型政策推動下，行政裁量標準變動對私法契約履行所產生之制度性風險，進而實現契約自由、法律安定性與履約衡平。

This study explores the legal implications arising from regulatory amendments and administrative discretion adjustments made by Taiwanese government agencies during the implementation of "Just Transition" policies, particularly concerning the performance of photovoltaic (PV) engineering contracts governed by private law. Given that the enforceability of such contracts largely depends on the stability of policy frameworks and the predictability of administrative standards, controversies persist in both jurisprudence and doctrine as to whether changes in laws or administrative criteria-resulting in performance impediments, project delays, or the frustration of contractual purposes-may constitute grounds for lawful termination, exemption from liability, or invocation of the “doctrine of change of circumstances” under Article 227-2 of the Civil Code. Beginning with an overview of the international development of Just Transition and Taiwan's energy policy evolution, this study examines the legal position of the PV industry amid energy transition and its associated institutional risks. Adopting a case-based empirical approach, it analyzes legal risks and performance barriers caused by policy changes and regulatory shifts, framed within the theoretical structure of Article 227-2. Through doctrinal analysis, case law review, and empirical fact patterns, the study investigates the applicability and legal effects of the doctrine of change of circumstances in scenarios involving administrative risk and policy uncertainty. Preliminary observations indicate that, although the law grants courts discretionary authority to adjust contracts under principles of good faith and equitable risk-sharing, judicial practice tends toward restrictive interpretation. Courts often prioritize contractual risk allocation clauses and exhibit caution in recognizing regulatory changes as valid grounds for invoking Article 227-2. Additionally, inconsistent standards regarding fault attribution further hinder legal predictability for contracting parties. This paper not only reconstructs the doctrinal elements and legal function of the change of circumstances doctrine but also critically examines the judicial treatment of termination clauses, risk allocation, and damage attribution. It concludes with specific recommendations concerning contract design and legal frameworks to address institutional risks arising from administrative variability under Just Transition, aiming to achieve a balanced interplay between contractual autonomy, legal certainty, and equitable performance.