透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.220.41.140
  • 學位論文

耕地三七五減租條例終止租約與補償費爭議之研究

A Study on Lease Termination and Compensation Controversies in the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act

指導教授 : 姚志明
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


光復初期租佃制度承襲日制,租佃問題日益嚴重,民國(以下同)37年陳誠接掌台灣省政府,推動「二五減租」,38年4月17日訂頒「臺灣省私有耕地租用辦法」及其施行細則後實施,40年6月7日制定「耕地三七五減租條例」,在缺乏掌握實際租佃租率的情況下,「三七五減租」是便宜行事之計,顯然欠缺考慮土地或佃農經濟條件之差異,也忽略實施耕地三七五減條例後,租佃關係之改變,顯然已剝奪或限制土地所有權人財產權及訂定契約之自由,依該條例所成立之耕地租約,對佃農而言較有保障,並使當時社會得以安定,然而,事後修法增訂佃農補償,嚴重引發地主所不滿,認為財產權已受到侵害。 在當時時空背景之下,三七五減租衍然成為一項價格管制之措施,最後竟然變成長久法律之規定,讓土地的租佃市場受到嚴重扭曲,然而這項法律規定居然實施超過數十年,現因社會經濟情勢變更,佃農是否還需要再受政府保護,其「耕地三七五減租條例」已有再檢視之必要。 大法官釋字580號解釋指出,耕地三七五減租條例是否違憲;減租條例第17條第2項第3款補償額度一概為三分之一之規定應儘速予以檢討修正;租約期滿以擴大家庭農場經營規模收回耕地,需補償承租人三分之一地價補償之規定違憲,由於地主之耕地所有權及佃農之佃耕權皆屬財產權之範圍,故本研究係以終止租約與補償費爭議做為本文理論之基礎,來探討耕地三七五租約是否過度保護佃農,強制地主補償佃農三分之一地價之合法性,就終止耕地三七五租約補償之問題,先分析終止耕地租約之態樣,並可歸責於終止租約者負擔佃農補償,期使地主與佃農皆能受益而圓滿終止租約,為農業發展與國家經濟再創新局。 關鍵字;耕地三七五減租條例、終止租約、補償費爭議、平均地權條例、土地法

並列摘要


ABSTRACT As the Japanese tenant farming system continued to be in effect after the retrocession of Taiwan, rent issues had worsened. In 1948, Chen Cheng became head of the Taiwan provincial government and implemented a 25% rent reduction, with the enactment of the “Regulations Governing the Leasing of Arable Lands in Taiwan Province” and its enforcement rules on April 17, 1949. On June 7, 1951, the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act was announced. Without adequate knowledge of actual rent rates, the “37.5% rent reduction” was a careless measure with a clear disregard of the differences among land conditions and the economic conditions of the tenant farmers. Also overlooked was the change in leasing structure after the 37.5% arable rent reduction was implemented, which clearly deprived or restricted the property rights and freedom of contract of landowners. Arable land lease contracts based on this Act favors the tenant farmers and stabilized the society of the time. However, the compensation to tenant farmers in the amendment to the Act caused grievance among landowners, who believed that their property rights were infringed. During its time, the 37.5% rent reduction was a price control measure. However, as a long-standing law, it has severely distorted the tenant farming market. It is hard to believe that this law has been in effect for decades. As socioeconomic conditions have changed, the question of whether tenant farmers still require protection from the government makes it necessary to reexamine the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act. Shi No. 580 of Constitutional Interpretation of the Supreme Court clarified the constitutionality of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act as follows. The one-third compensation amount in Article 17 Paragraph 2 Subparagraph 3 shall be reviewed and corrected promptly. It was deemed unconstitutional that at the termination of a lease, repossessing arable land to expand the operation of a family farm requires one third of the land value paid to the tenant as compensation, the reason being that the landowner’s ownership right and the tenant’s tenant right are both property rights. Therefore, based on the controversies of lease termination and compensation, this study investigates whether the 37.5% rent reduction is overprotection of tenant farmers and the legality of mandatory compensation of one third of land value from the landowner to the tenant. With a focus on the issue of compensation at the end of a 37.5% arable land lease, this study first analyzes the patterns of the termination of arable land leases and then assigns the responsibility to compensate tenant farmers to the attributable terminating party of the lease, which can help terminate leases while benefiting both the landowner and the tenant and bring a better future to agricultural development and national economy. Keyword:37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act、Lease Termination、Compensation Controversies、The Equalization of Land Rights Act、Land Act

參考文獻


一、專書著作(依姓氏筆劃排列)
1.王文甲,中國土地制度史,中正書局,2版,1988年1月。
2.王澤鑑,民法物權,三民書局,增訂2版,2016年3月。
3.吳啟賓,租賃法論,五南圖書出版,初版1刷,1998年2月。
4.吳庚,行政法之理論與實用,三民書局,11版2刷,2010年10月。

延伸閱讀