本文係以建築法為主要範疇，探討秩序行政法上行為責任與狀態責任之區辨問題。包括建築法在內的秩序行政法領域，其法定義務之內涵與義務人之認定，均與行政法上義務之屬性有密切關係。立法者之所以課予特定人行政法上義務，究其緣由，不外是因人之行為所生之行為責任，或是以物之狀態為中心的狀態責任。區辨此兩種義務屬性，有助於行政法上具體義務內涵之釐清與個案中之具體義務人之判定。就建築法而言，建築法的規範架構，可區分為對建築實施行為之管制，以及對建築物本身之管制，其所課予之義務，即分屬行為責任範疇與狀態責任範疇。建築實施階段主要的義務人是建築物起造人、設計人、承造人、監造人、以及申請許可或申報義務人，其所承擔之義務應屬於行為責任性質，並非狀態責任性質。另建築物應依使用類組而使用，以及建築物之所有人與使用人應維護建築物之合法使用與其構造設備之安全等義務，均屬直接針對建築物之狀態所為義務之課予，乃屬狀態責任屬性之義務，因此，承擔義務者，須為對物有所有權或事實上管領力者，不及於無法有效支配建築物之人。

This article aims at examining the distinctions between the responsibility that arises from the obligor's conduct and the responsibility that arises from the condition of the property in the context of the Building Act. In terms of the law regarding administrative intervention, which includes the Building Act, determining both the obligor and the contents of a legal obligation is closely related to the nature of the obligation in administrative law. The main reason why the legislators would impose obligation on a specific person or specific persons is that the responsibility that arises from the obligor's conduct or the responsibility that arises from the condition of the property. Distinguishing the nature of these two types of responsibilities will facilitate the specification of the concrete contents of administrative obligations and the obligor(s) in each case. As far as the Building Act is concerned, it frames out the control of the works relevant to the building and the control toward the building itself, and the respective imposed obligations are the responsibility that arises from the obligor's conduct and the responsibility that arises from the condition of the property. At the construction stage, the main obligors are the proprietor of the building, the building's designer, supervisor, constructor, and the applicant for the construction approval or the applicant that is responsible to report to the authorities concerned. They should bear the responsibility that arises from the obligor's conduct instead of the responsibility that arises from the condition of the property. In contrast, in the provisions that buildings shall be used according to the approved usage classification, and that the ownership holder and the user of a building shall maintain the legal usage as well as the structure and equipment safety of the building, for instance, these obligations are imposed directly upon the condition of the building, which are in the category of the responsibility that arises from the condition of the property. Therefore, an obligor of such has to be the person who has the ownership or the controlling power de facto over the property, and this does not include those who cannot effectively exercise such right or power over the property.