- 學位論文
債權物權化之實證研究：以拆屋還地訴訟為對象
An Empirical Study of "Verdinglichung Obligatorischer Rechte": Focus on the Court Cases of Eviction
摘要
利用一定債權關係於他人土地上建築地上物後，倘土地或地上物發生移轉之情事，基於債之相對性，受讓人原不得主張原債權關係或不受該債權關係所拘束。在債權關係係租賃之類型，由於民法第425條與第426條之1規定之存在，使得地上物得免受拆屋還地之累，然於其餘之債權關係（如買賣、使用借貸、合建或其餘無名契約等）即非如此。此種「不動產債權利用關係」成為近幾年來實務上爭議問題。法釋義學對此問題之研究相當豐富，是否類推適用民法第425條、第426條之1、第425條之1或第876條規定，均有主張及反對者；實務上則以誠信原則或創設所謂「債權物權化公式」藉以限制土地所有權之行使，終究未能形成穩定見解，顯見此一問題困難之程度。 不同於先前之文獻，本文嘗試以量化統計之方法分析此一問題。透過觀察2016至2021各地方法院之第一審裁判，本文發現實務上主要之案型乃土地側發生移轉者，而超過七成之法院判決毋庸拆屋還地，主要考量之因素包括：地上物占用土地面積之比例、地上物之材質、地上物之利用方式、地上物之取得方式、地上物是否由建商起造、地上物之樓層數、地上物是否與其他部分相連動、土地之轉手次數、債權契約當事人間是否有親屬關係、原告是否知悉地上物存在或其占有權源、地上物存在之時間長短、以及債權契約是否係有償契約等。其中，最重要之因素係「地上物存續期間」以及「原告知悉占有現況或占有權源」，在前者若逾30年，法院傾向判決拆除；在後者若為肯定，法院傾向判決不拆除。 此一研究結果顯示，現行民法採取債之相對性原則與房地分離主義之立法政策已不敷實用，致使第一線接觸個案事證之實務法院因在心證上欲保留地上物，故以誠信原則、契約目的、知悉或債權物權化等其他論理迴避債之相對性原則。立法上應有必要增修若干規定以回應實務現況，促進裁判安定性與個案妥適性。本文主張，為調和地上物與基地之所有權之關係，民法相鄰關係之規定中應增訂第800條之2：「除法律另有規定外，有償利用基地建築之房屋或其他工作物，縱基地所有人將所有權讓與第三人，仍得繼續占有基地。但有下列各款情形之一者，不在此限：一、房屋或其他工作物存續期間已逾三十年者。二、房屋或其他工作物係無償取得者。三、有其他情事足認房屋或其他工作物無相當之價值或效用，或基地受讓人所受損害過鉅者（第1項）。房屋或其他工作物依前項規定得繼續占有基地者，房屋或其他工作物所有人對於基地受讓人所受之損害，應支付償金（第2項）。前二項規定，於使用借貸及其他無償利用基地建築之房屋或其他工作物，以其契約經公證者為限，準用之（第3項）。」，統一解決此類「不動產債權利用關係」所生爭議。
並列摘要
When constructing buildings on another's land based on a certain contract, if the land or the buildings are transferred, the transferee, according to the rule of “privity of contract,” cannot assert contractual rights or be bound by contractual obligations. Taiwan Civil Code Articles 425 and 426-1 allow the buildings constructed on another's land based on a lease contract to avoid being evicted. However, this is not the case for other contracts, such as sale, loan for use, joint construction, or other unnamed contracts. This issue of "use contract for real estate" has become a contentious problem in recent years. Studies from the view of legal hermeneutics on this issue are quite rich, with arguments regarding the analogous application of Taiwan Civil Code Articles 425, 426-1, 425-1, or 876. In practice, it is observed that the claim of eviction is often dismissed by the principle of good faith and the so-called "Verdinglichung Obligatorischer Rechte Formula.” However, no stable consensus has been formed, highlighting the complexity of this issue. Contrary to previous studies, this paper attempts to analyze the issue using statistics. By analyzing the first instance judgments from local courts in Taiwan from 2016 to 2021, this paper finds that in practice, the majority of cases involve the transfer of land. Over seventy percent of court judgments dismiss the claim of eviction. Key factors considered by the court include the proportion of land occupied by the buildings, the materials and usage of the buildings, whether the acquiring of the buildings was gratuitous, whether the buildings were constructed by developers, the number of floors in the buildings, whether the buildings are connected with other parts, the frequency of land transfers, any familial relationships between parties to the contract, whether the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the buildings or the contracts, the duration of the buildings' existence, and whether the contract was gratuitous. Among these, the most critical factors are the "duration of the buildings’ existence" and "whether the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the buildings or the contracts." If the former exceeds 30 years, the courts tend to rule for the eviction; if the latter is affirmative, the courts tend to overrule the eviction. The results of this study indicate that the rules adopted by Taiwan Civil Code, including “privity of contract” and the separation of ownership of land and buildings, has no longer adequately met practical needs. This has led the court, in cases where they wish to retain buildings, to circumvent the rule of “privity of contract” by using reasons such as the principles of good faith, the purpose of the contract, aware of the existence of the buildings or the contracts, or “Verdinglichung Obligatorischer Rechte.” Legislative amendments are necessary to respond to these practical realities, promoting stability and suitability in judicial rulings. In order to harmonize the relationship between buildings and land ownership, this paper advocates for adding Article 800-2 to Taiwan Civil Code: "Unless otherwise provided by the act, a house or other work built on land based on a gratuitous contract may continue to occupy the land even if the ownership of the land has been transferred to a third party, except any of the following cases: 1. The period of existence of the house or other work exceeds thirty years. 2. The house or other work was acquired without consideration. 3. There are other conditions sufficient to prove that the house or other work lacks equivalent value or utility, or causes significant damage to the transferee of the land (Paragraph 1). In cases where the house or other work may continue to occupy the land according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the owner of the house or other work shall make compensation for any injury caused to the transferee of the land (Paragraph 2). A house or other construction built on land based on a non-gratuitous contract applies the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs only when the contract has been notarized (Paragraph 3)." This proposal aims to comprehensively resolve disputes arising from such issue of "use contract for real estate."