不動產租賃押租金之研究

押租金為我國不動產租賃中最常見的擔保方式，其目的主要在擔保租賃關係所生之債務，並於租賃關係消滅後以押租金作為租賃債務的清償。不過，基於契約自由，當事人對於押租金之約定不盡相同，而發展出除了單純擔保租賃債務目的外，兼具給付租金性質者，以符合實際上之需要。而就押租金的法律性質，我國實務及學說上雖已有相當之討論，惟並未有統一之見解，且多半僅涉及單純擔保租賃債務目的之押租金約款，對於兼有給付租金性質者，則缺乏深入的分析，因此，本文擬將實務上常見的押租金約款歸納為: 「擔保租賃債務之押租金約款」、「預付租金之押租金約款」，以及「以息抵租之押租金約款」，並分別討論其法律性質，以釐清押租金於現階段下之法律適用。就押租金之返還義務，亦為實務上長久以來面臨之問題，亦即租賃物所有權移轉時，究由原出租人，抑或新出租人負返還押租金之責任。押租金雖為當事人間得自行約定之事項，然而，若未約定押租金如何返還，此時押租金之法律性質顯得更為重要，於確認其法律性質後，始能較準確地處理義務歸屬。最後，於2018年6月27日開始施行之租賃住宅市場發展及管理條例，其中有關押租金之定義、押租金擔保債務之範圍，以及出租人終止租約之限制等，與現行法之規定有所不同，因此押租金於各法規間究竟該如何適用，亦為未來實務上無可避免之問題，有關於此，本文將於押租金效力與限制之部分討論。

關鍵字

押租金；租賃；押租金返還；信託讓與擔保；習慣物權；終止租約限制

並列摘要

Security deposit is the most commonly used method of securing landlord’s right when tenancy debts occur. However, the content of security deposit may differ from case to case due to freedom of contract. Thus, a security deposit may not only be considered as a secure method, but as a payment method of rent if parties have an agreement so as to meet their interests. As for the legal nature of security deposit, although it has been discussed both in practice and academia, but still controversial until this day. This thesis attempts to summarize three different kinds of security deposit and to analyze its legal nature respectively. In the case of tenants in situ, namely a property is transferred to a buyer and the tenant is still living there, but what happens to the security deposit when changing landlords? If parties have an agreement on it, the problem would be solved. Otherwise, is the previous landlord security deposit still responsible for the return of the security deposit? Or will the new landlord take on the liability? To solve this issue, based on the above, we must identify the legal nature of security deposit. Finally, the Rental Housing Market Development and Regulation Act took effect on June 27, 2018. This act stipulates the definition of security deposit, and how it affects landlord if he or she wants to terminate the tenancy. The interaction between security deposit and restriction of the landlord’s power of terminating the tenancy will be a challenge in the future.