民事訴訟法第254條不動產爭議訴訟繫屬登記要件及其效力探討

A Study on Article 254 of Taiwanese Civil Procedure Act - The Requirements and Effect of Pending Action Registration of The Real Estate Dispute

林家祺(Chia-Chi Lin)

《財產法暨經濟法》 44期 (2015/12) Pp. 55-87

摘要

當事人恆定原則，係指訴訟標的之法律關係若於訴訟中移轉予第三人時，並不影響訴訟雙方之當事人適格，若依法理本條本僅應適用於訴訟標的之「法律關係」有移轉予第三人時始有適用，至於若「僅標的物」移轉予第三人時並無適用本條之餘地。然而由於最高法院61年台再字第186號判例意旨，將本條解為若原告之請求權基礎為「物權」請求權時，縱使訴訟進行中訴訟「標的物」移轉予第三人，仍有本條之適用，致使在特定情況下判決之效力仍及於該受讓標的物之第三人。為此，於89年修正民事訴訟法時，增訂254條第5項訴訟繫屬登記之規定，明定若為訴訟標的之權利，其取得，設定、喪失或變更，依法應登記者，得於起訴後將訴訟繫屬之事實登記於土地登記簿上，以為公示之方法，其修法目的係為避免擴及「標的物」之移轉予第三人仍適用本法254條，藉以保護該第三人之權益。惟該項繫屬登記之規定新增後實施十餘年以來，固然發揮部分保障第三人之功能，但同時亦有諸多第三人主張該訴訟繫屬登記侵害其所有權圓滿之狀態，為此內政部在102年發佈函釋限縮了本條訴訟繫屬登記之適用，以期能減少相關爭議。本文以法院實務見解為主，探討本條項之訴訟繫屬登記的法律性質、效力為何？該登記是否影響受讓所有權之第三人所有權圓滿狀態？該第三人對於訴訟繫屬登記應如何救濟？內政部作成限縮函釋此一作法是否妥適？法理基礎是否穩固？以期在釐清相關概念後，能釐清本條項之適用範圍與要件。

關鍵字

當事人恆定原則 ； 訴訟標的 ； 訴訟繫屬 ； 所有權 ； 登記

並列摘要

The Principle of Invariability of Parties, which means no action will be affected by the fact that the legal relation of the subject matter of the claim has been transferred to a third person pending such action. According to the intention of Supreme Court Judgment of 1972 Tai-Tsai No. 186, if the plaintiffs claims bases on the property, even though the legal relation of the subject matter of the claim has been transferred to a third person in the action, the plaintiff still can claim res judicata, and make the effect of judgment affect on the third person. So when the Civil Procedure Act as amend in 2000, adding Paragraph 5 of Article 254 to regulate pending action registration, to regulate that if to get, set, loss, alteration the right of subject matter of the claim have to register, can register the pending action on the Land register after Indicted, for the way of publicity, the amendment's purpose is to avoid the malpractice of The Principle of Invariability of Parties. the Act after amendment for 10 years, even though bring into play the function of protect the third party, but also a lot of third parties claim the registration infringe on their property, therefore Ministry of the interior realease an executive order to limit the Paragraph 5 of Article 254, to decrease the dispute. This paper base on the court opinions, to discuss the effect and nature of Paragraph 5 of Article 254. And The registration would affect the third-party ownership or not. how The third person to relief their right. Is it good for Ministry of the Interior made an executive order to narrow down the effect? After to clarify these concepts, to find out the possible solutions to resolve the dispute.

並列關鍵字

The Principle of Invariability of Parties ； Subject Matter ； Pendency of Action ； Ownership ； Registration