法國民法第1384 條第1 項規定了侵權責任三大類型，其中「為他人行為負責」之類型，係學說及實務上困難之問題，而「為他人行為負責」體系中，同條第5 項受僱人執行職務要件之判斷，尤其為問題之核心。本文從比較法觀點，分析民法第1384 條第5 項中「其受託職務執行中」在法國法之發展。首先，法條文字「其受託職務執行中」，在學說及實務眼中，最重要在於如
何認定「職務濫用」之情形，而「職務濫用」在學說及實務之定位，有其「多重意義」，在「構成要件」上係僱用人責任之「免責事由」，應由僱用人負舉證責任。在「法律效果」上，則涉及受僱人有無「物之管領人」之責任適格，及僱用人得否向受僱人「求償」之理由。再者，「職務濫用」在學說上意見分歧，主要在於學者間對於僱用人負責任之依據，有不同解讀。其次，實務發展上，更是多采多姿，廢棄法院透過五個指標性判決（一個聯合庭務會議及四個全院聯席會之判決），逐漸累積形成「職務濫用」概念之操作標準，確立了受僱人行為必須在「未經授權」、「與授權目的不符」且屬「職務外行為」三要件均具備時，僱用人責任始得免除。其「從嚴」認定「職務濫用」之成立，對被害人保護，有其貢獻。此外，自1988 年全院聯席會確立前開見解後，廢棄法院刑事庭及民事第二庭間，就第三要件「職務外行為」仍各自有若干精彩見解出現，在理論上亦富具研究饒味，但最終趨勢則相同，均採取「客觀標準」，亦即以受僱人執行職務之時間、地點及工具，而不論受僱人行為之利益歸屬及目的。最後，廢棄法院及學說也提出另一種觀點，亦即在契約領域上，必須參酌受僱人行為之「外觀」及「被害人之合理信賴」為標準，當受僱人之行為，「外觀上」足以使被害人「明知」或「可得而知」該行為非屬職務行為，則被害人既無「合理信賴」，即不得主張該行為係職務行為，此項見解對於被害人主觀上之惡性加以排除，使不值得保護之被害人，甚至與受僱人幾近共謀之被害人，排除於損害賠償請求權之外，一方面落實僱用人責任保護被害人之制度功能，使損害賠償請求權歸於真正值得保護之被害人，他方面亦可避免不肖之被害人與受僱人之共謀，以保障僱用人之自由，此見解確值得參考，本文誠贊同之。

According to Art.1384 of France Civil Code, there are three types of tort liability, and being “responsible for the acts of others” is very important and hard to judge.This research tries to explore the conditions and standards in France. From a comparative law point of view, this study analyze Art.1384 V of France Civil Code in item of the “out of execution of duties” in the development of France law.First, the text “out of execution of duties” in the theory and judgment, the most important is how to recognize the “abuse of duties”.According to the theory and judgment, there are three conditions: “without authorization”、
“not conform to the purpose of authorization”、“out of duties”. Since then, the focus is how to analyze “out of duties”. There are two different standards. The objective standard is to carry out the duties of the servant of the time, place and tools, regardless of the interests of servant behavior and purpose of attribution.Finally, the Court and the doctrine are also putting forward another point of view, that
is in the case of contracts, we must take into account the appearance of the acts. When the acts “look like” a standard” or the victims have reasonable reliance, the acts should be considered as “no out of duties”. Otherwise, when the victims don’t have “reasonable reliance”, the victims are not worth the protection. The victims can not claim damages.The standard can protect the victims when they are innocent, and can exclude the damages claim when the victims are not worth protecting. This view is indeed worth considering and the study adopts it.