基地租賃優先承買權之研究

基地租賃優先承買權為實務上爭議繁多之問題，然學說上之討論多廣泛就多種優先承買權為探討，而未聚焦於基地租賃優先承買權討論，對基地租賃優先承買權衍生之相關爭議亦缺乏系統性之整理。故本文透過對最高法院判決進行實證研究與分析，爬梳出重要之法律爭點，並就各個爭議要件中，對照我國學說見解進行整理，並參考德國法及瑞士法上之文獻進行討論。本文於第二章中先就基地租賃優先承買權之基本理論為介紹。其中就優先承買權之制度目的，我國向來之學說實務均認為此在促進經濟效率。本文就此參考美國法上之經濟分析文獻，認為優先承買權無助於達成經濟最有效之配置。又在我國民法第425條及民法第426條之1已足以保障房屋對基地之占有權源下，此制度之經濟效益應僅限於消除房地使用關係之交易成本，然此不必然大於其對買賣市場造成之效率損失，總體而言是否能促進經濟效率仍有疑問。故於基地租賃優先承買權之解釋適用上應採較限縮之基本態度。又優先承買權之權利性質應為債權物權化之一種，故亦須合於物權公示性原則，以具備基地上確實建有房屋為公示外觀為必要。本文第三章在處理基地租賃優先承買權之構成要件。本文認為，於基地為多人共有而部分共有人出賣應有部分時，該基地上之基地租賃契約原則上不存有優先承買權。又基地上之房屋基於使用借貸契約占有基地時，原則上得類推適用基地優先承買權之規定。就此制度中之「房屋」一要件，本文認為係指「固定於土地上具有頂蓋、樑柱或牆壁之構造物」，且於房屋不具相當價值或為違章建築時排除之。針對得使優先承買權除斥期間起算之合法通知，本文認為應以載有重要契約條件且附有權利行使教示之書面為之，且得由出賣人或買受標的之第三買受人發出。最後，本文亦認為基地租賃優先承買權得由權利人意定拋棄，且此拋棄不以權利人知悉買賣條件為前提。而於基地出賣時，不得一概認為承租人僅主張買賣不破租賃或仍繼續繳交租金係默示放棄權利。本文第四章則在處理基地租賃優先承買權之法律效果。本文認為，出賣標的為「同樣條件」之範疇，應要求優先承買權人對出賣人所出賣之全部標的為承買。又「同樣條件」不能單以約定之數額為標準，於物價飆漲之案型中應可調整價金數額。而優先承買權人行使權利後，方發生出賣人與第三買受人間所有權移轉不得對抗優先承買權人之效果，權利人此時並得本於優先承買權之規定請求塗銷該所有權移轉登記。然而第三買受人再將所有權移轉與轉得人時，轉得人有善意取得所有權之可能，惟須以轉得人有向出賣人或優先承買權人詢問是否已有放棄優先承買權之情事以判斷轉得人是否為善意。又優先承買權之行使不影響出賣人與買受人間之契約效力，故於出賣人與買受人間未約定以優先承買權行使為解除條件時，可能有瑕疵擔保及債務不履行之責任。最後，優先承買權亦有適用權利失效之可能。於判斷上，不以優先承買權人已知買賣條件為必要，惟其是否創造出其已知悉該等條件則得作為判斷信賴及狀況要素之一環，亦影響時間要素之長短。且第三買受人雖非此權利之義務人，然其亦受權利行使之影響，故亦應自第三人之角度觀察有無具備權利失效之相關要素。

關鍵字

基地租賃優先承買權；物權效力優先承買權；優先購買權；民法第426條之2 ；土地法第104條

並列摘要

While the right of first refusal in building site lease contracts is of high controversy in court decisions, scholars have yet thoroughly discuss these issues. Most relating discussions in the literature include a variety of rights of first refusal instead of focusing on those arising from building site lease contracts and thus lacks a systematic examination of the right. Therefore, this paper summarizes the critical legal disputes around the right of first refusal in building site lease contracts through imperial research of the Supreme Court's decision. This paper then discusses these disputes with reference to existing Taiwanese literature and with comparison to German and Swiss law. The second chapter of this paper first introduces the fundamental theories of the right. Regarding the purpose of the right, scholars and the courts have always pointed to enhancing economic efficiency. This paper advises American legal-economic analysis literature and deems that this right of first refusal does not contribute to reaching an efficient distribution of asset allocation. As the buildings' existence on the leased building site is protected under Article 425 and Article 426-1 of the Taiwanese Civil Code, the economic benefit of the right of first refusal is limited to eliminating the transactional costs in the building site lease contract. However, eliminating such transactional cost may not be higher than the efficiency loss that the right caused to the free market, and therefore may not enhance economic efficiency. This paper thus argues that the application and interpretation of this right should be limited. Also, this right is a kind of quasi-property right, which requires a notice of the right. In this case, such notice would be a building built on the leased building site. The third chapter of this paper deals with the elements of the right. This paper believes that when multiple co-owners own the building site, and some of them sell their part of the land, there should not be a right of first refusal in the lease contract. Also, contrary to common belief, this paper argues that the right of first refusal in building site lease contracts should be applied by analogy when the building occupies the building site under a loan for use contract. This paper also proposes a definition for the "house" element of this right and argues the houses lacking certain economic value, and the illegal structures should be excluded. Regarding what constitutes a proper notification that sets off the right's limitation of time, this paper believes that such notification should contain important clauses of the sales contract and inform the right holder about the existence of their right. Such notification can be sent by the seller and the buyer of the property alike. Finally, this paper believes that the right holder could waive the right, and this does not require their knowledge of the clauses of the sales contract. However, when the building site is sold, the lessor's claiming of the lease remaining effective does not immediately constitute their waving of the right of refusal. The fourth chapter of this article deals with the effects of the right of first refusal in building site lease contracts. This paper believes that the subjects sold are within the scope of the "same condition"; thus requiring the right holder to buy everything subject to the sales contract. Additionally, the "same condition" cannot be purely based on the agreed amount and could be adjusted according to relating circumstances. The effect that the transfer of ownership could not be held against the right holder only occurs after the right of first refusal has been exercised, and the right holder could claim to cancel the registration of said transfer of ownership accordingly. However, when the buyer then transfers the ownership to another person, the good-faith purchase doctrine applies. However, to be determined as good-faith requires duly inquiries about whether there is a still exercisable right of first refusal on the property. Moreover, exercising the right of first refusal does not impact the sales contract between the seller and the buyer. Hence, damage compensation may arise from the sales contract. Finally, the right could be subject to forfeiture. Whether the right is forfeited does not rely on the right holder's knowledge of the conditions of the sales contracts. Instead, whether the right holder has exhibited an appearance that induces the obligator or the third buyer's trust of not intending to exercise the right is more important.