三七五租約耕地收回相關法律爭議之研究

A study on the disputes of termination on the 37.5% Rent Reduction Contract

許時華(SHIH-HUA HSU)

指導教授 ： 郭介恒

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2016年)

摘要

耕地三七五減租政策自民國38年施行台灣省私有耕地租用辦法，至民國40年制定條例施行至今，已逾60餘載，其內容雖經3次修正，惟其透過限制地主財產權之手段，藉以達成保護佃農生存權目的之主要精神並未改變。

在現行規定下，地主若欲收回耕地，須符合一定要件始得為之，惟近年來多數佃農之經濟狀況已有所提升，此些規定是否仍具備合憲性，則有疑問。本文認為耕地收回之規定，過度限制地主財產權，實有違憲疑慮。而該等規定自民國72年以後，即未見修正，在立法者未有及時回應之情況下，面對此等不合時宜之規定時，其法律之解釋與適用，應如何考量，亦有疑問。

根據本文觀察行政及司法實務之運作情況，其除了對於耕地收回規定要件之解釋寬嚴不一，造成租佃雙方無所適從外，對於以擴大家庭農場經營規模為由收回耕地所生之補償費爭議，應適用何種救濟途徑亦有不同見解，不僅延宕人民適時獲得救濟之權，行政機關亦有過度介入人民私權關係之嫌。本文認為在法律有違憲疑慮又尚未修正時，行政機關及法院在適用時，應儘量朝向有利於人民之方向解釋，故對於耕地收回規定之要件，應採取較為寬鬆之審查，以免過度侵害地主之財產權，僅在佃農之經濟地位仍處於弱勢的情況下，宜作較為嚴格之認定，藉以保障佃農權利；而就補償費爭議，應回歸由負責處理私權爭執之民事法院審判。

最後，若欲讓減租條例退場，應實質衡量佃農之經濟狀況，對於仍處於經濟弱勢之佃農，應補償其租賃權之損失，惟不宜將補償義務加諸於地主，以免過度侵害其財產權。

關鍵字

財產權 ； 減租條例

並列摘要

Since its inception in 1949 with the implementation of the Regulations Governing Leasing of Private Farmland in Taiwan to its enactment of implementation regulation in 1951, the 37.5% Rent Reduction Act has been in force for over 60 years. Notwithstanding that its contents have been revised thrice, its main spirit of attaining the goal of protecting tenants’ right to live through limiting the property rights of landowners has remained unchanged.

Under the existing provisions, the landowners must meet certain conditions before they are allowed to repossess their lands. However, the economic conditions of most tenants have improved immensely, thus casts into doubt the constitutionality of these provisions. This study holds that the provisions governing the repossessing of farmland by the landowners unduly limit their property rights, which smacks of being unconstitutional. These provisions have not been revised since 1983; given that the legislators have not promptly responded to such a situation, based on the fact of these outdated provisions, there is also doubt as to how their legal interpretation and application should be considered. According to the observation of the operation of the administrative and judicial practices in this study, besides lacking uniformity in their interpretations of the provisions for the conditions of land resumption, which makes both landowners and tenants at a loss as to what to do, they have also given rise to different opinions as to what remedies are applicable in the disputes over compensation resulting from the repossession of farmland on the ground of expanding the scale of operation of family farms; this delays the right of people to timely remedies, and the administrative agencies are suspicious of excessively intervening in the relations of people’s private rights.

This study considers that in the case of the constitutionality is in question and the law has not yet been revised, its interpretation should be made in favor of the landowner to the largest extent. Hence, a more lenient approach should be adopted in reviewing the conditions of farmland repossession to avoid any undue infringement of the property rights of the landowners. Only if tenants remain in a poor economic position, should a stricter scrutiny be needed in order to protect their rental contract. As to the issues which arose from compensation should be the civil court’s duty to decide disputes between two contractor’s rights.

Finally, substantively assessing the economic conditions of the tenants is required to repeal from the rent reduction act. Those who are still in a poor position should be compensated for the loss due to a termination of tenancy by the government, instead of placing the obligation of compensation on the landowners to avoid unduly infringing their property rights.

並列關鍵字

37.5% Rent Reduction Act ； Property Right

參考文獻

廖義男，行政法之基本建制，三民書局，2003年6月。

吳啟賓，淺論耕地租用，法令月刊，50卷10期，1999年10月。

陳明燦，耕地三七五減租條例第十六條之釋析─兼評最高法院九十六年台上字第二六七五號判決，法令月刊，第60卷第3期，2009年5月。

陳聰富，契約自由之限制：國家政策或契約正義？，臺大法學論叢，第32卷第1期，2003年1月。

賴恆盈，論行政訴訟之裁判基準時，政大法學評論，201106，第121期。