類型化思維下之名實不符法律關係

Abstract

就動產以占有，不動產以登記名義作為法定公示外觀之我國法下，仍不斷出現真正所有權人，與所有權權利外觀取得人不同之名實不符之狀況。而我國實務上多區分內部關係，以及外部關係，藉以處理名實不符之相關爭議。 觀察實務見解，其在名實不符案例問題的解決，多以個案認定之方式，判斷此時當事人間得以主張之權利，以及表見所有權人對外得以主張之權利。而本文以為，既然此種案例同樣具有真正所有權人，以及表見所有權人不同之特性，應有以統一之判斷基準，解決相關問題之可能性。 基此，在遇到名實不符案例之相關問題時，本文嘗試區分內部關係，以及外部關係，並透過不同之分類基準，藉以類型化名實不符之案例。並在各類型之下，判斷此時當事人對內，以及其對外得以主張之權利。換言之，透過類型化之結果，不僅整合目前我國法上所出現之名實不符相關案例，亦得以具有系統性地解決相關爭議，避免當事人在各案例中，無得預見其得以主張之權利，亦得更有效率地解決，未來可能出現之其他名實不符相關案例。

Under our law, the real owner of movable property is in possession and the real property is in registered name as the legal public appearance, but there is still the situation that the real owner is different from the legal public appearance acquirer (formal owner). In our practice, we often distinguish between internal relationship and external relationship in order to deal with the disputes related to the discrepancy of name. In the case of a discrepancy in the name, the case is usually resolved by determining the rights that can be asserted between the parties and the rights that can be asserted by the formal owner to the outside. In this paper, we believe that since such cases have the characteristics of both true ownership and formal ownership, we should use a unified judgment basis to resolve the relevant issues. Therefore, this paper attempts to differentiate between internal and external relationships when encountering problems related to cases of misrepresentation, and uses different classification bases to type the cases of misrepresentation. Under each type, we will determine the rights that the parties can assert internally and externally. In other words, the result of the typing not only integrates the cases of misrepresentation that currently appear in our law, but also allows us to systematically resolve the relevant disputes, so that the parties can avoid not foreseeing their rights to assert in each case, and to more efficiently resolve other cases of misrepresentation that may appear in the future.