司法公信力指標之建構－以臺中高等行政法院稅捐訴訟案件為例

A Study on the Indicators Construction of Judicial Confidence-Cases Analysis of Tax Litigation for Taichung High Administrative Court

10.6635/cpar.202206_28(2).0004

陳衍宏(Yen-Hung Chen)；林昱妏(Yu-Wun Lin)

司法公信力 ； 稅捐訴訟事件 ； 社會資本 ； 德菲法 ； Judicial Confidence ； Tax Litigation Case ； Social capital ； Delphi Method

中國行政評論

28卷2期（2022 / 06 / 15）

73 - 102

繁體中文

鑑於所有公民都渴望增強國家的司法信心，本文旨在解決這個複雜的問題，以臺中高等行政法院的稅務訴訟為例，並以社會資本作為構建司法信心的指示性基礎。藉由德爾菲法用於收集訴訟專家的意見，以實現三個主要目標：了解司法信心的結構屬性、內容和指標；通過收集和分析專家證言，獲得客觀可行的司法信任指標，以提升司法公信力。依文獻回顧社會信任、機構信任及其內涵，彙整、建構出司法公信力六大構面：一致性、公平、正直、效率、適任、親近性並經二回合專家意見發展出24項指標。研究發現：研究建立的指標架構，指標內涵廣泛，司法公信力是落實、程度專家意見有不一致情況；專家認同研究者提出的指標題項，且評定指標重要性偏高；依二維矩陣法分析發現：指標重要性高，但落實程度不高者有：法院對類似事件應相同對待、法官值得信賴。法官具正確判斷力。建議應列為優先改善的項目。

As all citizens eagerly wish to strengthen the nation's judicial confidence, this study aims to tackle this complex issue by looking at the tax litigation for Taichung High Administrative Court and will use social capital as the indicative basis to construct judicial confidence. The Delphi method is employed in collecting testimonies from litigation experts to accomplish three main goals: to understand the structural attributes, contents, and indicators for judicial confidence; to obtain objective and feasible indicators for judicial confidence through gathering and analyzing expert testimonies; and to propose concrete proposals to strengthen the nation's judicial confidence. The study is founded on six aspects: consistency, fairness, honesty, efficiency, aptitude, amicability, and then subdivided into 24 indicators. The findings can be categorized in three main areas. First, the indicative structure founded in this study is comprehensive in scope, resulting in differences between expectation and reality concerning the actual implementation of the proposals to strengthen judicial confidence and the degree to which the proposals are practiced. The differences also include conflicts among expert testimonies, rendering a consensus highly unlikely. Second, experts all agree to the indicators brought up in this study, consenting on the equal importance across the complicated indicators. This poses great significance for the eclectic and meticulous nature of all the indicators for judicial confidence. Third, according to the two-dimensional array analysis, three indicators whose significance has been highlighted but whose implementation is found to be unsatisfactory are: the court should treat similar incidents with equal measures; the judges should be trustworthy; and the judges should possess accurate judgement. The study thereby proposes these three points at the top priority for further improvement.

1. 吳重禮(2008)。司法與公共支持：台灣民眾對於司法體系的比較評價。臺灣政治學刊，12(2)，15-66。
   連結：
2. 黃國昌,陳恭平,林常青(2017)。台灣人民對法院的信任支持及觀感 ── 以對法官判決之公正性及對法院表現的滿意度為中心。台灣政治學刊，21(1)，51-112。
   連結：
3. 黃義良(2005)。國中小學校行銷指標與行銷運作之研究。師大學報，50(2)，139-158。
   連結：
4. Anderson, J. C.,Narus, J. A.(1990).A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnership.Journal of Marketing,54(1),42-58.
5. Bachman, Reinhard(ed.),Zaheer, Akbar(ed.)(2006).Handbook of Trust Research.Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar.
6. Barnes, J. G.(2001).Excretes of Customer Relationship Management: It’s all about how you make them feel.New York:McGraw-Hill.
7. Caldeira, G. A.,Gibson, L. J.(1992).The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.American Journal of Political Science,36(3),635-664.
8. Cazier, J. A.,Shao, B. B.,St. Louis, R. D.(2007).Sharing Information and Building Trust through Value Congruence.Information Systems Frontiers,9,515-529.
9. Coleman, James S.(1990).Foundations of Social Theory.Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Doney, P. M,Cannon, J. P.(1997).An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships.Journal of Marketing,61(2),35-51.
11. Hasson, F.,Keeney, S.,McJenna, H.(2000).Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.Journal of Advanced Nursing,32,1008-1015.
12. Hughes, D.(1999).Applying the Delphi Technique in a study of GDPs’ information requirements.Health and Social Care in the Community,7(3),198-205.
13. Luhamann, Niklas(ed.)(1980).Trust and Power.New York:Wiley.
14. Martilla, J. A.,James, J. C.(1977).Importance-performance analysis.Journal of Marketing,41,77-79.
15. Mayer, R. C.,Davis, J. H.,Schoorman, F. D.(1995).An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.Academy of Management Review,20,709-734.
16. Putnam, Robert D.(1993).Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press.
17. Richardson, John G.(ed)(1986).Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.New York:Greenwood Press.
18. Robbins, G. B.(2012).Institutional Quality and Generalized Trust: A Nonrecursive Causal Model.Social Indicators Research,107,235-258.
19. Shieh, J. I.,Wu, H. H.(2009).Applying importance-performance analysis to comparethe changes of a convenient store.Quality and Quantity,43(3),391-400.
20. Tan, H.,Lim, A.(2009).Trust in co-workers and trust in organizations.The Journal of Psychology,143(1),45-66.
21. Walker, D.(1977).Citizens Contact and Legal System Support.Social Science Quarterly,58,3-14.
22. Walter, A.,Muller, T. A.,Helfert, G.(2003).Functions of Industrial Supplier Relationships and Their Impact on Relationship Quality.Industrial Marketing Management,32(2),159-169.
23. Yankelovich, Skelley,White, Inc(1978).Highlights of a National Survey of the General Public, Judges, and Community Leaders.Paper prepared for the National Center for States, State Courts: A Blueprint for the Future
24. 胡龍朝(2012)。義守大學管理學院商業及管理學門。
25. 胡龍朝,楊東震(2013)。臺灣司法信任指標之建構與評估。經營管理學刊，7-8
26. 張苙雲(1998)。從不穩定的口碑到主要的求醫場所，台灣西醫的制度信任建構。人文及社會科學研究會刊，8，163-183。
27. 張苙雲(2000)。制度信任及其行為意涵。台灣社會學刊，23，179-182。
28. 陳欽春,王中天(2008)。行政院研究發展考核委員會九十六年度委託研究案行政院研究發展考核委員會九十六年度委託研究案,行政院研究發展考核委員會。
29. 黃瑞華(2006)。國立臺灣大學高階公共管理組。
30. 劉幸義(1998)。法官不語與司法公信力。司法改革雜誌，17，23-25。
31. 鄧振源,曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與分析運用（上）。中國統計學報，27(6)，5-22。
32. 瞿海源,鄭宏文(2000)。司法重塑：民間司法改革研討會論文集（一）司法信賴的調查，臺北:
33. 顏厥安,陳忠五,李立如,陳昭如,廖培珊,陳婉琪(2009)。,臺北:中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心。
34. 顧忠華(1999)。,臺北:國立政治大學社會學系。