從物盡其用的觀點論抵押權與用益權的相容、衝突與調和-以民法第八六六條及第八七七條第二項規定為中心

Abstract

「物盡其用」是物權法之基本思想，而以抵押權為箇中代表，而表現在將物區分為使用價值與交換價值，而做分別的利用。就使用價值部分，亦即，就物的實體為用益；而就交換價值部分，則做為擔保物權之用。然而，並非如此規定即代表現行制度已達物盡其用之理想。倘若抵押權與用益權發生衝突時，法制上卻沒有給予抵押權或用益權充分的保護，如何能有誘因使抵押權人或用益權人做到充分的利用，而能達到物盡其用的理想。因此本文即是在以此種想法，分兩部分，從時間的觀點及現行法體系的觀點檢視現行制度。 第一部分(本文第二章及第三章)，本文觀察現行制度的演變，當抵押權發生在先，而用益權發生在後時，採取客觀的觀點，以抵押權優先於用益權保護為其基本架構，通說之理由在於物權優先效力原則。然而，以物權優先效力原則為理由是否正確，頗令人質疑，而有通說自我矛盾的情形。反觀，若由當事人主觀理性的規劃形成決定，所產生的各種行為組合模式的觀點思考，這些行為模式的組合亦非現行制度所能完全涵蓋，因此亦彰顯現行制度有問題之處。 第二部分(本文第四章及第五章)，本文以現行法體系為觀察之標的。民法第八六六條及第八七七條之規定並非解決抵押權與用益權衝突制度之全部，尚有諸多方法足以解決此問題，然而問題在於，雖然這些方式，例如強制管理、債權人承受抵押物、抵押權人與抵押人約定不能用益或約定使第三人用益應得抵押權人同意或抵押權人的保全權等，均為可能解決抵押權與用益權的衝突者，但對於用益權人權利之保護卻無甚助益，因為用益權人只能仰慕抵押權人或法院採取這些行為，而沒有主動保護自己權利的機會。且若從憲法之觀點觀察除去權利與併付拍賣制度，亦有不合於比例原則之處。 所以本文認為現行制度無法達到物盡其用的理想，而有修正的需要。因此於本文最後一章，提出本文關於衝突解決制度應如何設計的想法及建議修正條文。

How to demonstrate things to their extent is the theme of this thesis. From this point of view, this thesis centers on the discussion about whether that could Taiwan Civil Code article 866 and article 877 paragraph 2 offer the proper circumstances for mortgagees and the third parties of usufruct to demonstrate the mortgaged property to its extent. Before probing into the main question above, there is one concept we should know first: The goal of demonstrating things to their extent is built on sufficient protection for the rights of mortgagee and the person of usufruct, because, without this kind of protection as the inducement, it is hard for parties to try their best to use the mortgaged property. In terms of the main question with the basis of the previous understanding, it can be analyzed in two different aspects. The first part is from the dimension of time. In this part (chapter two and three of this thesis), the discourse rivets on the evolvement of the regulation which sets forth to appease the confrontation between mortgage and usufruct, the reasons why the regulation changed and the ideas that made it change. The second part is from the dimension of the jurisprudence. In this part (chapter four and five of this thesis), what Civil Code article 866 and 877 paragraph 2 weighs in the jurisprudence would be evaluated. With the discussion of the relationships between this regulation and other methods which as well have the capability to solve the confrontation between mortgage and usufruct, a combination, if there is one, which might be beneficial to the present system, would be considered whether an adequate potency to protect rights exists or not. Besides, the inspection of the constitutionality of the regulations is undoubtedly necessary in the field of jurisprudence. Finally, besides of the disadvantage that the confrontation-solving system is built on the premise that mortgage has the priority to usufruct because the latter was legislated relatively late, other regulations are unable to offer sufficient protection for the usufruct based on the discussion above. Therefore, it is genuinely suggested that the Civil Code article 866 and 877 paragraph 2 should be amended to demonstrate the mortgaged property to its extent and the writer’s version of amendment would be stated in the last chapter.