債權物權化之理論重構

Abstract

本論文為債權物權化之研究。依本文第二章所見，所謂「債權物權化」，並非指涉債權變成了物權，而是「債權契約」上所生之權利獲得一部分的「物權效力」。債權物權化，是債之相對性的例外，但非唯一例外。債權契約效力之擴張，並非債權物權化。契約對第三人發生效力，不一定和債權物權化有關。 本論文第三章主張，具「物權效力」之優先承買權以及「經登記之不動產分管契約」所生權利，由於未具備全部的物權效力，故仍屬於一種「債權物權化」。 本論文第四章，就不動產租賃以PECL、DCFR、英美法、德國法、法國法、瑞士法、荷蘭法、日本法、中國法、南韓法為中心，進行比較法研究。結論認為，我國無須為解決房地分離難題而改制為房地合一政策、或立法將租賃變成物權。惟就得以物權化之不動產租賃，其公示外觀仍有待檢討。 本論文第五章，則探討不動產使用借貸對第三人效力之爭議。結論認為，當事人雖不得任意將債權物權化，但法院得在一定情形擴大債權物權化之適用範圍，亦即進行法之續造。如借地建屋之當事人分別將房地轉讓，嗣後土地所有人對房屋所有人主張物上請求權，應得視情形分別類推適用民法第425條第1項以及民法第426條之1，讓既有的基地利用關係對土地或房屋受讓人繼續存在，較符合立法者之價值選擇。惟在法定契約承擔之效果下，強要土地所有人容忍不具特定關係之他人無償使用土地，對其顯失公平。故應得進一步適用情事變更原則，將無償之使用借貸變更為租賃關係，較能衡平雙方利益。抑有進者，若借地建屋或租地建屋關係終止時，當事人未就房屋去留另有安排或協議不成，應容許房屋所有人類推適用民法第840條，請求土地所有人依照時價購買房屋，以終局解決房地分離紛爭，並促使物盡其用。退步言之，論者如堅持以使用借貸為無償為由，主張不應類推適用民法第425條第1項或民法第426條之1，則應重新省思保障不動產「有償利用關係」之必要性。 此外，本文並於第二章附論地上權得否類推適用民法第451條租約法定默示更新之爭議，結論係採取肯定見解。在第五章，亦觸及不動產「買賣契約」以及「互易契約」得否物權化之爭議，本文認為，如買賣契約或互易契約未經預告登記，尚難賦予其任何物權效力，應以誠信原則或權利濫用於個案中具體規制，較為妥適。惟法院於前開個案中，自應詳細說理論證不動產受讓人行使物上請求權有何違反誠信原則或權利濫用之處，受讓人知悉前手與他人之間的債之關係，並非唯一判斷標準。

This thesis mainly focuses on the “reified contractual rights”. The definition of “reified contractual rights” is the contractual rights are endowed with partial characteristics of the rights in rem. “Reified contractual rights are not the only exception of privity of contract. The contractual rights expand its power over third parties are irrelevant to reified contractual rights. Based on the definition of reified contractual rights, I consider both “reified preemptions” (Article 426-2 of Civil Code) and “registered covenants to use immoveable co-owned property” (Article 826-1 I of Civil Code) are one of “reified contractual rights”. Using comparative research of law, I suggest that since the immoveable lease in Taiwan would continue to exist to the transferee notwithstanding the lessor transfers the ownership of the thing leased to a third party in some cases, it is necessary to legislate an efficient way of notice to avoid the increasing transaction costs between dealing parties and the imposing enormous information costs on third parties. In Taiwanese civil law, the ownership of the land and the house are separated. If the land owner delivers the land to the other, gratuitously for constructing the house, then subsequently transfers the ownership of land to the third party, or the house owner transfers the ownership of house to another third party, under “the privity of contract”, the land loan for construction should not shift to the transferee of the land. Besides, the transferee of the house cannot claim that the land loan for construction continues to exist to himself unless with the recognition of land borrower. When the land owner claims that the house should be dismantled on the basis of ownership, it may cause a controversial issue that “Should we allow the land owner demolishes the house with great economic value?” To solve this difficult problem, the Supreme Court of Taiwan and many scholars have proposed various solutions. Nevertheless, in my opinion, Article 425 I of Civil Code and Article 426-1 of Civil Code should apply mutatis mutandis to the land loan for construction by analogy. After the land loan for construction continues to exist to the transferee of land or house, the court may apply Article 227-2 of Civil Code to the land loan for construction, which means that the court can alter the original gratuitous contract to become land lease for building a house. Moreover, when the land loan for construction is expired, I propose that Article 840 of Civil Code should apply mutatis mutandis to land loan or land lease for building a house by analogy, so as to the land and the house would belong to the single owner. Consequently, the disputes in such cases may draw to an end. In addition, in the second chapter of this thesis, I argue that Article 451 of Civil Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to the superficies by analogy. In the fifth chapter, I propose that 'contract of sale' and 'contract of exchange' should not be “reified” without any registration. To solve related disputes, the court should seriously examine whether the immoveable transferees claim the rights stipulated in Article 767 of Civil Code is a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of right. The plaintiffs who are the immoveable transferees acknowledged that the immoveable transferor constitute 'contract of sale' or 'contract of exchange' with the defendants before transference is not the only judging criteria of the court.