金融實務上強制執行違章建築之研究

Abstract

本文從存在於台灣歷史悠久且數量甚夥之「違章建築」，探討實務上其在我國民事執行上可以成為強制執行之標的，債權人可藉由查封拍賣債務人之違章建築以獲得價金以滿足債權，並聚焦在銀行實務案例探討，從各審級法院為數眾多之裁判書，將其區分行為原始起造人、買受人及第三人等之債權人實施強制執行三種類型，歸納分析法院實務上對於何人得提起第三人異議之訴之見解，以供銀行業授信人員辦理有關違章建築之押品時應予徵取之相關書類有所依循，及催收人員面對強制執行違章建築，若有第三人提出異議之訴時，能立於有利之地位主張權利，順利獲取價金以滿足債權。 綜合實務見解結果，從利益衡量之角度加以觀察，可以發現：所有人之債權人實為最大之贏家！銀行的角色係屬所有人之債權人，從實務見解來看雖屬最大之贏家，惟為避免進行司法拍賣執行程序時第三人提起異議之訴，影響拍賣程序之延宕與困擾或終無法取得優先分配權，於辦理放款進行不動產擔保評估徵信時應注意確認該違章建築是否確屬借款人(或擔保物提供人)所有。經閱讀諸多判決，可整理以下爭點為違章建築常見的攻防判決見解，一、違章建築是否具有使用上及構造上之獨立性，有學者認為有獨立出入門戶之增建物，亦非主建物之從物，倘未設定抵押權，則非抵押權效力所及，抵押權人無優先受償之權利，二、房屋稅籍登記人僅係以納稅義務人名義，盡其公法上之義務，不得以之為私權訟爭之客體，亦不得就此論斷該登記人即為該設稅籍房屋之所有人，三、違章建築之用電記載名義人，依法院之認為僅為繳納費用之便宜措施，不能據以認定該用電記載名義人為建物之所有人。

This study discusses how illegal constructions, which have been long pre-existing and are still large in numbers in Taiwan, can be enforceable during civil compulsory enforcement proceedings in practice, where creditors can obtain payments and satisfaction of their claims through the seizure and auction of illegal constructions. The paper studies cases from banks and verdicts from courts of different levels, dividing the cases into three types based on the party against whom the enforcement action was taken (the builder, the buyer and the third-party), and analyzes the courts’ opinions on who can exercise dissent rights. The paper aims to provide references and basis for loan departments when accepting illegal constructions as collateral and for debt collection departments to better secure claims if a third party exercises dissent. The study shows that the creditors of the proprietors were the big winners from a profiting point of view. While the banks are the creditors of the proprietors, during appraisal, whether the constructions indeed belong to the borrowers (or the collateral providers) should be verified with caution to prevent a third party from exercising its dissent right and prolong the legal process, or causing the banks’ failure to obtain the right of priority. From the many verdicts, the following are key points that are common in such legal dispute: a) whether the illegal construction is functionally and structurally independentfrom the original construction. Some scholars believe that an additional construction with independent doorways is not an appendage to the main construction. If it is not registered as a pledge separately, the lender does not have the right of priority; b) the person whom the property tax is registered under is only a taxpayer who fulfills his/her lawful duty and not to be inferred as an object in a civil lawsuit nor the proprietor; c) to whom the utility are billed is considered by the courts a matter of convenience, thus the name of the utility account cannot be used as a way to determine the owner.