摘要：

为了配合“解决行政争议”的立法目的，2014年修改后的《行政诉讼法》对变更判决作出调整。以行政处罚“明显不当”取代“显失公正”，虽未扩大该判决的适用范围，但因撤销判决的审查标准新增“明显不当”，故在体系解释下对变更判决中“明显不当”的理解也受到影响。“明显不当”属实质合法性审查的范畴，其适用范围应限于行政行为的处理结果（法律效果），并应以理智公民所能感受的“明显”为准。变更判决适用范围之扩大，反映在“其他行政行为涉及对款额的确定、认定确有错误”也“可以判决变更”。“对款额的确定、认定确有错误”除包含学理上的显然错误外，也包含因与款额相关之事实或法律的认定或适用错误而引发的结果错误；“可以判决变更”除赋予法院选择变更判决或撤销判决的空间外，也面临给付判决与变更判决竞合时的选择问题。变更判决的适用范围存在两个限度：被告裁量权缩减至零与禁止不利变更原则。而“‘行政处罚明显不当’仅适用于财产罚”“变更判决仅限于法定幅度内的变更”之观点，不应作为该判决的适用限度。

关键词: 变更判决, 明显不当, 显然错误, 裁量缩减至零, 禁止不利变更

Abstract:

In order to cooperate with the legislative purpose of“resolving administrative disputes”，the revised Administrative Litigation Law in 2014 makes adjustments to the changing judgment.Although replacing the“obviously unfair”with administrative penalties'“clearly improper”has not expanded the scope of application of the changing judgment，the“clearly improper”has been added to the review criteria of revoking judgment，so the understanding of“clearly improper”in changing judgment has been affected under the system interpretation.The“clearly improper”belongs to substantive legality review，and its scope of application should be limited to the processing results(legal effects)of administrative actions.Furthermore，the“clearly improper”should be based on the“obvious”that reasonable citizens can feel.The expansion of the scope of application about the changing judgment is reflected in that“other administrative actions involve the determination of money is indeed wrong”can also use the changing judgment.The“indeed wrong”includes not only obviously wrong such as pure miscalculation and miswriting，but also result wrong which is caused by errors of facts' determination or errors of legal's application that related to the money.In addition to giving the court an option between the changing judgment and the revoking judgment，“can use the changing judgment”is also faced with the problem of choice when the payment judgment and the changing judgment are competing.There are two limits to the scope of application of the changing judgment：the defendant's discretion is reduced to zero and the principle of prohibiting adverse changes.The notions that administrative penalties'“clearly improper”only apply to property penalties and the changing judgment are limited to change within the statutory range，should not be regarded as the limits of the changing judgment.

Key words: Changing Judgment, Clearly Improper, Obviously Wrong, Discretion Is Reduced to Zero, Prohibiting Adverse Changes