論公寓大廈管理條例中之秩序維持制度—以強制遷離與強制出讓為中心

Abstract

公寓大廈管理條例（下稱「本條例」）既以「管理」為名，其立法重點即不言自明。臺灣之集合式住宅逐年增多，對於住戶間錯綜且緊密之權利義務交互關係，本條例建立了一套由「規約」、「區分所有權人會議」與「管理委員會/管理負責人」組成的管理制度，在給予自治空間的同時，規範特定行為的對應處置，對於「物」與「人」進行系統化的管理。 而所謂的「秩序維持制度」，本文參考我國、日本文獻與德國法後，認為其意義為：「為維持公寓大廈之管理維護與住戶之共同利益，對違反義務者所採措施之集合」；違反秩序行為之態樣則可區分為「明顯違反義務之異常行為」及「支付義務之不履行」。針對此些行為，本條例設有諸如「應予制止」、「要求其回復原狀」等處理方式，而「強制出讓」作為我國、日本與德國皆有訂定之規範，彼此之間仍有要件差異，日本法上亦不乏設有效果較輕微之手段，得以依序適用。結論上，本條例相較日本與德國，對於違反義務行為之處置雖看似較為多樣、周全，實際上卻因條文以列舉特定違反義務行為之方式規範，難免掛一漏萬；對於其他行為，雖有強制遷離與強制出讓制度於違反行為情節重大時得利用，惟在情節尚輕時，可能有所不足。得用於補遺之規約，除「限制使用非不得設定專用之共用部分」及「其他事實行為」較無合法性疑慮外，其餘作法實務上皆尚未有穩定見解，亦恐增加管理組織運作上之障礙。因此，本文於第五章提出相關修法建議，以期完備管理之密度。 其中，強制遷離與強制出讓制度作為最嚴重之制裁手段及本文核心，本文對其立法目的、特色、要件與法律效果皆進行詳盡探討，並在分析本制度合憲性的同時以個人見解回應論者於此討論「基本權第三人效力」之必要性。比較學說見解、日本法與德國法後，亦建議可將「應分擔費用」修正為「應負擔費用」、對於被訴請遷離或出讓者應給予陳述意見之機會、可增訂「強制遷離期間」與「期間內解除事由」與限制強制出讓應買人之資格。再者，制度之討論不應脫離實務層面，因此本文針對本制度之相關裁判綜覽其運用概況，深入分析「關愛之家案」與「福懋首善社區案」（判決字號詳內文），了解實務對於規約合憲性之見解與強制出讓適用時之限縮方式。最後，本文採用實證方法中之相關分析與決策樹分析，除呈現與「判准與否」最為相關的單一變項外，更抓取出對於強制遷離判准與否整體而言最具影響力之因素—「是否影響住戶居住安寧權」（與健康權、公共安全、公共衛生之影響常伴隨發生），並指出判決中對於被遷離、出讓者權利侵害著墨不足之處，供實務參酌。

Condominium Administration Act Building Administration Division (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") is aptly named as it focuses on “management” as its purpose of statue. Due to the increasing number of Congregate housing in Taiwan, The Act established a management system consisting of “Condominium regulations”, “Unit owner assembly” and “Management committee/Manager” to address the complex and interconnected relationships of rights and obligations among inhabitants. While providing autonomy, it also regulates the corresponding handling of specific behaviors, aiming to achieve systematic management of both "property" and "people." The so-called “Order Maintenance system”, as referenced from Taiwan, Japan and German law, is understood to mean “the collective measures taken against those who violate their obligations in order to maintain the management and interests of inhabitants in a condominium.” The patterns of behavior that violate the order can be classified into “abnormal behavior that clearly violates obligations” and “non-performance of payment obligations”. In response to these behaviors, The Act provides various handling methods such as “requirement to cease”, “request for restoration”, and the “compulsory conveyance”. While the concept of “compulsory conveyance” is regulated in Taiwan, Japan, and Germany, there are differences in the specific requirements between them. In Japanese law, there are also less severe measures available that can be applied in sequence and have a less significant impact. In conclusion, compared to Japan and Germany, this regulation appears to have a more diverse and comprehensive approach to dealing with violations of obligations. However, in practice, it may still have loopholes as it specifically enumerates certain patterns of violations, leaving room for oversight. While there are provisions for compulsory eviction and conveyance in cases of significant violations, there may be limitations when the violations are less severe. Supplementary condominium regulations, except for provisions regarding “restricting the use of shared areas that are not non-designated to private areas “and “other real acts”, there are concerns in practice regarding the legality of other measures. However, the practical implementation of other measures has not yet reached a stable consensus, and there is a concern that it may create obstacles in the operation of management organizations. Therefore, this paper proposes relevant legislative amendments in Chapter 5, aiming to enhance the comprehensiveness of the management framework. Among all the measures in the order maintenance system, the compulsory eviction and conveyance serves as the most severe sanctions and is the core of this paper. The paper thoroughly examines its purpose of statue, features, requirements, and legal effects. Furthermore, while analyzing the constitutionality of this system, it responds to the necessity of discussing the “third-party effectiveness theory of basic rights” with personal insights. After comparing the perspectives of comparative legal theories, Japanese law, and German law, the following are several suggestions for amendment: 1. Revise the term “expenses to be shared” to “expenses to be shouldered”. 2. The inhabitants being sued to evict or convey shall be given the opportunity to present their statement or opinion. 3. Make an addition of legal provisions about “compulsory eviction period” and “grounds for termination within the period” 4. Restrictions on the qualifications of compulsory conveyance buyers. Furthermore, discussions on the system should not be divorced from practical considerations. Therefore, this paper focuses on the comprehensive analysis of relevant judgments regarding this system's application, delving into the specifics of the “關愛之家 case” and the “福懋首善社區 case”, Understanding the practical perspectives on the constitutionality of condominium regulations and the limitations on the application of the compulsory conveyance. Finally, this article employs correlation analysis and decision tree analysis as empirical methods. In addition to presenting individual variables most relevant to the "approval or rejection" outcome, this paper also identifies the most influential factor for the overall approval or rejection of compulsory eviction—“whether it affects inhabitants’ right to residential tranquility” (often accompanied by implications for the right to health, public safety, and public health). Furthermore, this paper points out the insufficient attention given to the infringement of the rights of the evicted and conveyed parties in the judgments for practical reference.