| 摘要註: |
不動產優先購買權之法律規定分布在民法、土地法以及其相關特別條例內不一而足,如共有人之優先購買權、租地建屋承租人之優先購買權、耕地承租人之優先購買權、典物典權人之優先購買權、區分所有建物基地應有部分優先購買權、區分所有建物專有部分優先購買權、永佃權人優先購買權、未依都市計畫使用土地優先購買權、毗連耕地之現耕所有權人等優先購買權⋯等。然而以土地法第34條之1之規定而言,旨在限制共有人數的增加,簡化共有關係,使土地為單獨所有,提高不動產的使用效率;又土地法第104條第1項及民法第462之2 的相關規定,旨在促使基地與其上之房屋所有權合歸於一人所有,以顯土地使用之經濟效益並使法律關係簡化;而至於農地重劃條例第5條之規定係在擴大農地經營規模,維護農地重劃結果,也因為如此,除優先購買規定外,尚有規定優先購買權之順序,以達成上開立法意旨。但有優先承買權之人,通常可能因為出賣人出賣不動產時,因為故意或者是不諳法律規定未通知優先購買權人,而導致優先購買權人不能依法行使優先承買權,出賣人因而將不動產之所有權移轉登記與第三人,使得不動產的使用關係不能如立法意旨所期盼歸於簡單或是利用效率提高,反而更趨於複雜。故法律規定出賣人違反關於優先購買規定時,賦予應回復登記或是應賠償予優先購買權人之法律效果。但同樣是違反優先購買權之規定,學說以及實務卻因為法律用語不一致,而將其解釋為法律效果不相同,如分為物權效力與債權效力,差別在於以訴訟而為請求,前者塗銷係出賣人與第三人間不動產之移轉登記,並登記為優先購買權人所有,後者卻只能請求損害賠償,作如此區別是否有實益,有待探討。另外,在法院執行變價拍賣共有人之不動產時,法院之拍賣程序性質不同於私人間買賣的性質,雖然最高法院認為法院之強制執行拍賣程序時,亦須遵守上開法律通知優先購買權人之規定,使共有人能實行優先購買權,但如執行法院未能依程序通知共有人或者共有人因故不能行使其優先購買權,導致共有人之權利受有損害,則共有人應如何救濟?因而本文將先從法律規定優先購買權以及共有人之優先購買權之種類、性質以及義務人未通知權利人之法律效果談起,再接續討論於共有人變價拍賣共有物於執行程序時不能實行優先購買權時之救濟。 Preemption of real estate dispersion in civil law, the Land Law and related special regulations, as co-owner preemption of real estate, rent land for housing preemption, the first refusal of arable land, preemption of dian-holder, the preemption of distinguish between all constructional base of co-owner, the preemption of distinguish between all constructional of co-owner, emphyteusis of pre-emption, Preemption of Failing urban planning land use, the preemption of adjacent to the existing arable farming land and other pre-emptive rights ... etc. However, with the provisions of Article of the Land Act 34-1 of the terms, intended to limit the total number of people increased, simplifying total relationship, so that the land was all alone to improve efficiency in the use of real estate, and the Land Law Article 104, paragraph 1, and the Civil Law Act 462-2 of the relevant provisions, aimed at promoting home ownership thereof on the base all the people together under one head, significant economic benefits to the land-use and simplify legal relations; and as for agricultural land reclassified provisions of Act 5 tie in expanding agricultural land management scale, maintaining agricultural land reclassified the results, but also because of this, In addition to the terms of preemption, there are provisions of the order of preemption, in order to reach the above legislative intent. But people who have the preemption, usually because the co-owner or owner may sell real estate, intentionally or not know the terms did not notice them, which led to preemption people unable to exercise the preemption to buy the right to priority support according to law, and therefore the seller the transfer of ownership of immovable property registered with a third person, so that the relationship can not use the real estate as the legislative intent expect attributed to efficiency or the use of simple, but tends to be more complex. It is a breach of the law when the seller did not notice the preemption, should give the legal effect for Registration back to the original owners or be compensated to the preemption, however, the same preemption violations, it was inconsistent of legal interpretation between the theory and the practice, led to different legal effect. The effect in on property is different from claims. The difference between the ways is the lawsuit type the former can ask the seller and the buyer into the legal effect for Registration back to the original owners, the latter can only claim damages. Where the interests of distinction? It is interesting to be explored. In addition, the court forced implementation the real estate of the co-owner, it is also different from private trading, although the Supreme Court considered the forced implementation also subject to preemption of people's legal notice regulations, the people of preemption can exercise the preemption.But if court didn't notice the people of preemption, how dose the preemption people claim for his damage? Thus we will start with the kind of preemption and co-owner of the preemption, it continue the discussion the legal effect in the execution of the program while the co-owner can not to exercise the preemption. |