我國預告登記之研究

The Research on the Notice of Registration

顏碧志(PI-CHIH YEN)

指導教授 ： 黃健彰

國立臺北大學/公共事務學院/不動產與城鄉環境學系/碩士(2016年)

摘要

觀諸我國立法沿革，原將預告登記與異議登記併為規定，然於64年，為符法律保留原則，將原規定於土地登記規則之預告登記改列於土地法第79條之1，卻刪除了異議登記制度，使得原仿效德國制度，以預告登記保障債權請求權，以異議登記保障物權請求權之體系，產生缺角。然89年修正民事訴訟法時，卻又增訂類似異議登記之訴訟繫屬登記，本文比較兩者之適用範圍，雖要件寬嚴互見，然似可以訴訟繫屬登記以彌補刪除異議登記之缺口。
強制性預告登記雖經刪除，然因舊法時期，預告登記假處分之要件與民事訴訟假處分之要件並無差異，是以條文上刪除預告登記得透過假處分之方式為之規定，然仍得透過民事訴訟法上假處分制度，影響並不大。然而假處分原因之釋明，有實際之困難，德國明文規定預告登記假處分，無須釋明假處分之原因，可供我國將來修正預告登記時參酌。
至土地法第79條之1第3項排除預告登記效力之規定，以往文獻多援引比較法之規定，而認應予刪除，然忽略本條項之增訂，恐係最高法院49年台上字第24號判例之明文化。對於本條項所稱法院判決及強制執行之內涵與範圍，亦欠缺對於訴訟法、執行法甚至登記實務之分析，所得結論往往失之片斷，且與實務不合，本文參酌執行與登記實務，主張本條項所稱之法院判決，應指共有物與遺產分割等形式形成訴訟之判決及塗銷預告登記本身之判決，至於本條項所稱之強制執行，應指金錢債權之強制執行。惟立法論上，應仿民法第836條第2項及第836條之1之規定，將對價之約定及已給付之價金為登記，並於執行之際，許預告登記權利人得選擇保有預告登記之權利而提出對價，使執行債權人就該對價為執行。
除前述三者，在土地登記規則改列於現行土地法第79條之1時，為以往所忽略的，將「附有條件或將來之請求權」修正為「附條件或期限之請求權」，此項修正雖屬細微，然卻可能導致優先購買權、買回權及預約等案例適用無法設定預告登記，現行法下僅得擴張土地法第79條之1「條件」之文義，將之視為附條件之請求權而許預告登記，待日後修法時再予調整。
另本文觀察實務判決，預告登記於實務上有兩點特別須留心之處。首先，實務上往往以預告登記擔保消費借貸債權，此與預告登記用以保全物權變動之請求權之本質不符，應違反從屬性而無效。其次，登記名義人所出具同意書上記載之所欲保全之請求權，常有記載不全甚至與實體上權利關係不符之情形。法院為求當事人之公平，而認預告登記為有效，然助長登記不實，亦對登記之公示及公信制度有所戕害。

關鍵字

預告登記 ； 異議登記 ； 訴訟繫屬登記 ； 查封 ； 善意取得 ； 優先購買權

並列摘要

In view of legislation history, the notice of registration and the objection registration were originally combined in provision; nevertheless, in 1975, the original provision on notice of registration of the Land Registration Rule was in compliance with the principle of legal reservation and listed under the Article 79-1 of the Land Act; however, it deleted the objection registration system, resulting in deficiencies of the system which originally emulating the German system, which used the notice of registration guaranteeing claims, and which used the objection registration guaranteeing property. In 2000, when the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure were made, similar objection registration proceedings were added in the category of registration. The paper aims at the comparison of the applied scope of these two matters. Although each element has its degree of strictness, it seems to be able to litigation, a category of registration. It thus can make up the deficiencies of deleting the objection registration.
Although mandatory notice of registration was deleted, in the old law period, there was not much difference between the elements of the notice of registration provisional disposition and the element of provisional disposition in the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the deletion of the articles of notice of registration shall be handled in way of provisional disposition measures as provisions. It shall still go through provisional disposition system in the Code of Civil Procedure, and it has little impact. Nevertheless, there are practical difficulties in provisional disposition's interpretation of the reasons. In Germany, it is expressly stipulated that there is no need to interpret the reasons of provisional disposition in terms of notice of registration registered provisional disposition, which may serve as references for future amendments of notice of registration in Taiwan.
Concerning the exclusion of the provisions of the notice of registration effectiveness in the Paragraph 3, Article 79-1 of the Land Act, the previous literatures mostly quote the provisions of comparative law, which are considered being deleted, but they ignore the addition to this Article might be the statement of the precedent judged by the Supreme Court. For the connotation and scope of the alleged court decisions and enforcement of this Article, it also lacks of analyses of procedural law, the implementation law, even the registration practice. Besides, the conclusions drawn are often lost in pieces, inconsistent with the substandard practice. This paper refers to the implementation and registration practices, advocating that the court decision in this section should be referred to the judgments of the common estate and the partitioning of the inheritance estate and other forms of litigation judgments and the cancellation of judgment of notice of registration. Concerning the enforced enforcement mentioned in this Article shall refer to the enforced enforcement of monetary claims. Nevertheless, on the legislation, it should imitate the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 836 and Article 836-1 of the Civil Code and have the consideration agreement and paid amount registered. In addition, during the execution, notice of registration right holders shall have right to choose to keep the proposed consideration, so that concerning respect of the consideration the execution creditor should implement it.
In addition to the aforementioned three matters, when the Land Registration rules are changed to set forth in Article 79-1 of the existing Land Act, in the past it was often being ignored that the "attached conditions or future " were amended to "attached conditions or time of commencement and ending." Although such is a minor amendment, it may lead to right of preemption, repo and appointments, and other cases applicable to disability to set up notice of registration. The existing law only can expand the context of the “condition” in Article 79-1 of the Land Act, having it considered as the claims right of attached condition to allow the notice of registration, which shall then be adjusted after the amendment of the Act in the future.
This paper further observes practical judgment, there are two points that notice of registration should pay particular attention to. First, in practice, the notice of registration often tends to secure the debt right of consumer lending, which does not comply with the nature of claims of changing security property in notice of registration. The violation of such subordination shall be invalid. Second, the claims of the desired security recorded in the register’s agreement are often incomplete in records, quite in contrast with the relationship of the substantive rights. For the sake of fairness, the court thus considers the notice of registration valid. It then encourages the untrue registration, and the registration publicity and confidence in public system are also harmed.

並列關鍵字

notice of registration ； objection registration ； pending action registration ； seize ； bona fide acquisition ； right of preemption

參考文獻

劉明生（2015），〈訴訟繫屬登記、異議登記與善意取得─評最高法院一O二年度台抗字第一一一一O號裁定〉，《月旦裁判時報》，第35期，頁33-40。

羅秀園（2008），《預告登記請求權人權益保障之研究》，逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士在職專班論文。

陳明燦（2015），《土地法學》，新北：自刊。

謝哲勝（1998），〈論優先購買權〉，《中正大學法學集刊》，第1期，頁141-162。

陳明燦、何彥陞（2010），〈我國不動產法上債權物權化及其登記相關問題探討〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，第74期，頁45-107。