透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.147.110.47
  • 學位論文

應有部分抵押與共有物分割-以民法第824條之1為中心

The Mortgage on the Share and the Partition of the Thing Held in Indivision: Focus on Article 824-1 of Taiwan Civil Code

指導教授 : 吳從周

摘要


自羅馬法之發展以來,共有即為特殊之所有權型態。共有人基於應有部分之權利,除為保障其他共有人之利益所必要而加以限制外,應與單獨所有權者受相等之權利保障,此並與共有人得請求分割共有物之權利,同為共有法制存在之正當化基礎,更為共有法制於現代民法之繼受所強調。 共有人依民法第819條第1項規定及司法院大法官釋字第141號解釋意旨,雖得自由以其應有部分設定抵押權,惟其權能之行使當以不妨害其他共有人之權利為前提。然而,因我國通說與民法第824條之1第1項規定於共有物分割之效力採取「移轉主義」之見解,進而認為應有部分抵押於共有物分割後當以「分散模式」移轉於各共有人分得部分,乃使非抵押人之其他共有人因分割而獲分配之物受有抵押權之負擔,並可能因強制執行而受有損害。 民法第824條之1第2項規定為緩和此等弊害,雖以抵押權人之同意或對於分割訴訟之程序保障及參與為要件,而例外以「集中模式」將應有部分抵押集中移存於抵押人因分割獲分配之部分。惟該規定以不發生權利客體變動之「分散模式」為原則,卻造成分割程序與抵押權人無法律上利害關係,因而導致相關實體法與程序法規定之法理相矛盾之問題。至於該區別「集中模式」與「分散模式」之二分法律效果,更將造成複數抵押權間複雜難解之次序問題。 此外,同以「分散模式」見解為原則之土地登記規則之規定,雖經司法院大法官釋字第671號解釋為合憲性解釋,大法官並就法無明文之轉載後應有部分抵押之實行與效果為闡釋,然該號解釋為保障非抵押人之其他共有人,提出於分割後抵押權之實行將使原共有關係回復之見解,其法理根據與妥當性均有疑義,該等見解嗣並於實務案件迭遭法院限縮與排除適用,故採取相同見解之民法第824條之1規定是否足以保障其他共有人之權利,或正當化其他共有人所受之負擔及損害,亟待檢討。 本文認為,於「分散模式」之見解下,相關問題既無法獲得妥善解決,則應有以「集中模式」處理之必要,並全面利用裁判分割之嚴謹訴訟程序與抵押物之物上代位制度,以正當化應有部分抵押就抵押人因分割獲分配之物或權利為代位物,方得平衡保障抵押權人與其他共有人之權利。

並列摘要


Since the development of Roman law, the property rights of the co-owners and the right to demand the partition of the thing held in indivision have been recognized as the fundamental of co-ownership. According to paragraph 1 of Article 819 of Taiwan Civil Code and J.Y.Interpretation No. 141, each co-owner can freely create a mortgage on his own share. But it should not impair the interest of other co-owners. However, as the majority opinion and paragraph 1 of Article 824-1 of Taiwan Civil Code adopt the view which compares the effect of the partition of the thing held in indivision to the transferral of shares among the co-owners, the mortgage on the respective share is thought to be transferred onto all the partitioned distinct parts, and make other co-owners also bear the disadvantage of the mortgage. Although the exception of paragraph 2 of Article 824-1 of Taiwan Civil Code is aimed to moderate this problem, it contradicts the statutes of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and also makes the ranks of multiple mortgages even more complicated. Furthermore, as the J.Y.Interpretation No. 671 confirmed the constitutionality of the statute of Regulations of the Land Registration which adopts the same view as Article 824-1 of Taiwan Civil Code, its reason is rather questionable and hence cannot be justified. As Article 824-1 of Taiwan Civil Code may cause the loss of other co-owners and possibly violates the requirement of Constitution, it is proper to accept another way to deal with the problem. This thesis suggests that the mortgage on the respective shares should be shifted only to the distinct part of the mortgagor. The institution of the litigation for the partition and the real subrogation of the mortgaged property can facilitate this goal. Thus, the interest of the co-owners and the mortgagees can be fully respected and protected by the law.

參考文獻


許士宦(2014)。〈命原物分配共有土地確定判決之執行力客觀範圍——最高法院96年度台抗字第472號裁定評釋〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,251期,頁49-64。
劉得寬(1973)。〈論抵押權之物上代位性〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,2卷2期,頁345-357。
楊建華(1991)。《問題研析民事訴訟法(三)》。臺北:自刊。
鄭冠宇(2010)。〈應有部分設定抵押權之共有物分割�司法院大法官會議釋字第六七一號解釋〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,154期,頁216-217。
溫豐文(2010)。〈應有部分之抵押權與共有物分割—最高法院九十七年台上字第八七五號民事判決〉,《月旦裁判時報》,6期,頁34-38。

延伸閱讀