論拆屋還地案與民法第425條之1及權利濫用禁止原則之關聯－－兼評最高法院104年度台上字第1477號民事裁定

土地與房屋非同屬一人所有而讓與其一時，將發生得否以非租賃之土地使用債權關係，向土地受讓人主張正當占有權源之問題，就類推適用民法第425條之1而言，本文透過法學方法之推演，認土地與房屋同屬一人所有之要件應屬於立法者有意之區分，非法律漏洞而不得類推適用；而土地受讓人之權利行使是否構成權利濫用則仰賴個案中法院之具體衡量判斷，本文分析歷年來法院衡量之參考因素，正面列舉出肯定構成權利濫用之判斷因素為何，並區分為主觀與客觀因素，試圖架構出各因素間之強弱與關聯，冀能使權利濫用成立與否在個案中獲得更高之可預測性，並透過最高法院104年度台上字第1477號民事裁定之簡評，以期有具體之說明與操作。

關鍵字

拆屋還地；所有物返還請求權；類推適用；民法第425條之1 ；權利濫用；誠信原則

並列摘要

When the land and the house attached on it belong to different persons, and the ownership of either was transferred, will raise the dispute whether the owner of the building can claim his original creditor's rights other than the lease relationship on the same land to the transferee of the land. Regarding the analogy of Civil Code Article 425-1, the author, through the analyzing of methodology of law, holds that ＂the land and the house on such land belong to one person＂ stipulated is an intentional distinction by the legislator, that is to say, there is no legal loophole which must be eliminated by analogy. As to the claim that the exertion of right of the transferee is an abuse of right, it is up to the judgement of the court case by case. This article analyzes the factors in the judgements over the years, trying to fi nd out which may makes the exertion of right prohibitive, to classify these factors into subjective or objective one and frame the inter-factor relationship. Hopefully this article will enhance the predictability of this kind of case. Also a brief comment on the Supreme Court Tai-Shang-Zi No. 1477 (2015) Decision is made herein to supplement the elaboration.