區分所有建築物特定停車位之使用權與所有權之關聯性紛爭探討－兼評最高法院102年度台上字第2118號民事判決

區分所有建物停車位使用權之歸屬判斷應注意以下三點：首先，停車空間之定性影響車位所有權得否單獨移轉與非區分所有人；其次，由於車位使用權需透過分管或規約始能具形化，故使用權與停車位所有權存在對應關係；其三，使用權買賣契約之買受人不得對抗對應關係上取得車位使用權之人。是關於處理停車位權利紛爭，宜先釐清該停車位所在空間之性質，進而探明停車空間內具形化使用權之來源，再確定停車位使用權之對應關係以判斷使用權歸屬。在此立場上，最高法院102年度台上字第2118號民事判決對於當事人就特定車位使用權之紛爭，指摘第二審法院判決有是否取得系爭車位所有權及使用權之基礎事實不明，及就使用權與所有權欠缺對應關係的闡明之瑕疵，確有發回更審之必要，僅所為廢棄之理由偏向於指摘事實的認定，對於個案之法律上判斷的指正仍有不足。

關鍵字

區分所有建物；停車位；專有；分管；規約

並列摘要

Three steps should be applied in determining the attribution of the usufruct of a specific parking space in a condominium building. First, the legal nature of a specific parking space is decisive to whether the ownership of that parking space can be legally transferred to the one with no exclusive ownership of the condominium. Second, since the legally-conceptual usufruct of a specific parking space cannot be reified unless by virtue of separate-management contract or condominium regulations, the corresponding relationship exists between the usufruct and the ownership of a parking space. Third, the purchaser of the usufruct of a specific parking space cannot take advantage of his usufruct-purchase contract as a legal defense against the one having held the usufruct of that parking space through the abovementioned corresponding relationship. Therefore, in resolving disputes regarding the attribution of above-mentioned usufruct, the court has to first define the legal nature of a specific parking space, and then clarify the source of right from which the usufruct of that parking space is reified, and the relationship to which that usufruct is corresponding. Taiwan Supreme Court Tai-Shan-Zi No. 2118 Civil Judgment (Decided Nov. 7, 2013) reversed the lower court judgment on the ground that it fails to clarify fundamental facts relevant to the acquisition of the ownership and usufruct of a specific parking space in the case, and didn't elucidate the corresponding relationship between the usufruct and ownership of that parking space. The Supreme Court did point out several factual errors for reversing and remanding; however, it lacks sufficient clarification over legal issues mentioned above.