民法第425條之1之研究

Abstract

在我國地狹人稠之情況下，房地關係之互動為重要問題。在允許房屋分別交易之情形，在房屋土地所有人不同時，無論是拆屋還地抑或是賦予房屋利用權，結果均對於社會經濟影響甚鉅。 在我國規範體系下，立法者於調和房地之利用關係大致上可以區分成「事前防免」以及「事後預防」兩個面向，本文所欲研究之範圍為「事後預防」面向之民法第425條之1之推定租賃規定。 主要之研究主軸有三，其一，此類法律擬制（或推定）法律關係與債權物權化之差異為何，本文除透過傳統學說上之見解區分作為基礎外，亦試藉由法律經濟分析之觀點，藉由兩者交易成本之不同將兩規範間予以分析。其二，本條構成要件上之分析，本文統整實務上針對本條「房屋」、「相當經濟價值」之認定，並介紹學說上之討論，本文並試以「土地使用效率觀點」分析本條之適用；另外，針對該條所謂之「房屋土地同屬於一人」之意涵為何，實務常基於個案需求而擴大本條之適用，本文將類型化成三種類型，分別為「房地實質上同屬於一人類型」、「特殊關連案件類型」以及「共有類型」，而此是否合適，本文將一一分析。其三，為本條之法律效果上，就本條法律效果之部分，本條之法律效果為「推定租賃」，而法定地上權之效果為「視為地上權」，本文試從構成要件以及制度目的分析是否有區隔「推定」以及「視為」法律效果之必要及正當化基礎。希冀能透過本條之分析提供將來立法或法院處理此類案件時有更多之觀點。

In cases where the ownership of a building and the land on which it stands is held by different parties, whether the issue concerns the demolition of the structure and restitution of the land, or the conferral of rights to use the building, the resulting legal and economic implications are substantial and far-reaching. Within the framework of Taiwan's legal system, legislative responses to the tension between building and land usage can be broadly categorized into two dimensions: ex-ante prevention and ex-post regulation. The present study focuses on the latter, specifically examining the presumed lease provision under Article 425-1 of the Civil Code. This research is structured around three core inquiries: 1. The distinction between legal presumptions (or legal fictions) and the transformation of obligations into real rights: Beyond engaging with conventional doctrinal analyses, this study incorporates insights from law and economics. It contrasts the two legal constructs through the lens of transaction cost theory, thereby offering a functional differentiation between them. 2. An analytical assessment of the constitutive elements of Article 425-1: This section synthesizes judicial practices concerning the interpretation of terms such as “building” and “reasonable economic value,” while also incorporating scholarly debates on these criteria. Furthermore, it introduces an evaluative framework grounded in land-use efficiency to examine the provision’s applicability. Particular attention is given to the statutory requirement that the building and the land be "owned by the same person." In practice, courts have frequently broadened the scope of this provision based on the specificities of individual cases. This study categorizes such expanded applications into three distinct types: (1) Substantive unity of ownership, (2) Cases involving special affiliations, and (3) Co-ownership scenarios. The appropriateness and legal soundness of such categorizations are critically examined. 3. The legal consequences of Article 425-1: The provision establishes a presumed lease, whereas the effect of a statutory superficies is to deem the existence of a superficies right. This section explores the doctrinal and functional justifications for maintaining a distinction between "presumption" and "deeming" within legal effect, with reference to both the constitutive requirements and the normative objectives of the respective legal mechanisms. Through this multi-faceted inquiry, the study aims to contribute to ongoing discussions concerning legislative refinement and judicial application of Article 425-1, offering a framework that may inform both legal reform and adjudication in related disputes.