國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 = A Study on Controv...

國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班

共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 = A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order.
作者:	李翔,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	高雄市
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2016[民105]
面頁冊數:	128面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	優先購買權
標題:	right of prioritized purchase
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/29419933042954564211
附註:	106年4月25日公開
附註:	參考書目: 面117-119
摘要註:	「共有」為我國所有權持有之形態之一，按民法第 819 條第 2 項之規定「共有物之處分、變更及設定負擔，應得共有人全體之同意」。惟政府為便於土地充分利用，避免共有一物所有權之共有人，因意見不一而無法使土地有效利用，遂制定「土地法第三十四條之一」，以實現「地盡其利」、「地利共享」，貫徹「平均地權」之目標。然實施至今，因立法之不嚴謹，以致於實務運用上之問題層出不窮。　　「土地法第三十四條之一」為共有土地或建築改良物強制處分規定，只要符合「共有人數超過二分之一且其持有土地權利超過二分之一」或「土地權利超過三分之二，人數即可不予計算」二者門檻之一，即可針對該筆土地之全部予以強制處分，這也使得學術及實務界，大多對該條文冠以「大欺小」、「強凌弱」的別稱，然事實並非全然如此，於實務的操作上，「小制大」的比例顯然要多於「大欺小」，諸君不聞於強制處分關係中漫天要價之「釘子戶」即是一例。　　　　法律訂定之目的，旨在解決問題，少數人的權利（利益）需要保護，多數人的權利（利益）亦相對的要保障之，兩者間應如何取得衡平，又同時能達到促進土地有效利用的原始立法初衷，才是立法者未來修訂「土地法第三十四條之一」應努力之方向。再者，主管機關就「土地法第三十四條之一」實施疑義所為之行政解釋而彙整訂頒「土地法第三十四條之一執行要點」，其經 16 次修正，難免陷入「頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳」之泥沼，是否應回歸「法律保留原則」較為妥切。　　本文以實務之角度出發，期能將運作上常見之問題真實反應，以期助立法者能更周延的解決長久以來困擾強制處分土地於實務上運行之不合理現象。“CO-ownership” is one of the forms of ownership that people hold in Taiwan. Ac-cording to paragraph 2 of Article 819 of the Civil Code, “The disposition of, the alteration of and the creation of an encumbrance over a thing held in co-ownership shall only be made with the consent of all the co-owners.” Nevertheless,for the sake of better use of land, and in order to avoid failure of effective land use caused by diverse opinions of co-owners co-owning a piece of land,the government formulated “Article 34-1 of Land Act” in order to realize 3 goals, “making the best use of land,” “sharing the land profits” and “evenly dividing land ownership.” However, since formulation of thisarticle was considered not a rigorous legislation, a great variety of problems have been emerging in an endless stream ever since practical implementation of this article.　　“Article 34-1 of Land Act” prescribes forced disposition of co-owned land or constructional improvements. As long as there is “the consent of more than half of the co-owners whose holding of ownership is more than half of the total hare,” or “if the holding of ownership is more than two thirds, the number of consenting co-owners needs not be taken into account,” under one of the above two thresholds could forced disposition of the entire piece of land be carried out. For this part, most of the people in the theory and practice fields think of this article as “the big bullying the small,” and “ the strong bullying the weak.” Actually, the fact is not completely like that. In times of practical operation, the proportion of cases with “the small controlling the big” is apparently greater than those with “the big bullying the small.” One good example commonly heard by us is those “nail house owners” who claim for extremely expensive compensation during forced disposition of houses.　　Formulation of laws aims to solve problens for people.While the rights (benefits)of a minority of people need to be protected, the rights (benefits) of a majority of people also relatively need to be protected.How to achieve a balance in between, and at the same time meet the original legislation intention of this article , to facilitate effective land use, is the direction that legislators should put efforts on revising “Article 34-1 of Land Act” in the future.Furthermore, after collation of the administrative interpretations of the queries over implementation of “Article 34-1 of Land Act,” the competent authorities promulgated “Implementation Guidelines for Article 34-1 of Land Act.”The Guidelines had been revised successively for 16 times, so that they are inevitably falling into a practice of “treating the symptoms, not the cause” again and again. Thus, it is more appropriate to think about whether we should go back to pursue the “principle of legal reservation.”　　The discussions in the paper are made from practical viewpoint. It is hoped that the problems commonly appeared during operation can be authentically reflected. We expect that legislators can more comprehensively solve the long existed unreasonable situations, which frequently occur during practical implementation of forced disposition of land.

共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 = A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order.
李, 翔

共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 = A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order. / 李翔撰 - 高雄市 : 撰者, 2016[民105]. - 128面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
106年4月25日公開參考書目: 面117-119.
優先購買權right of prioritized purchase

共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 = A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order.
LDR:06427pam0a2200277 450 001 496603
005 20170505090114.0
010 0 $b 平裝
010 0 $b 精裝
100 $a 20170406d2016 k y0chiy50 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 共有土地強制處分爭議問題之研究 $d A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order. $z eng $f 李翔撰
210 $a 高雄市 $c 撰者 $d 2016[民105]
215 0 $a 128面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 106年4月25日公開
300 $a 參考書目: 面117-119
314 $a 指導教授: 姚志明博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學法律學系碩士班
330 $a 「共有」為我國所有權持有之形態之一，按民法第 819 條第 2 項之規定「共有物之處分、變更及設定負擔，應得共有人全體之同意」。惟政府為便於土地充分利用，避免共有一物所有權之共有人，因意見不一而無法使土地有效利用，遂制定「土地法第三十四條之一」，以實現「地盡其利」、「地利共享」，貫徹「平均地權」之目標。然實施至今，因立法之不嚴謹，以致於實務運用上之問題層出不窮。　　「土地法第三十四條之一」為共有土地或建築改良物強制處分規定，只要符合「共有人數超過二分之一且其持有土地權利超過二分之一」或「土地權利超過三分之二，人數即可不予計算」二者門檻之一，即可針對該筆土地之全部予以強制處分，這也使得學術及實務界，大多對該條文冠以「大欺小」、「強凌弱」的別稱，然事實並非全然如此，於實務的操作上，「小制大」的比例顯然要多於「大欺小」，諸君不聞於強制處分關係中漫天要價之「釘子戶」即是一例。　　　　法律訂定之目的，旨在解決問題，少數人的權利（利益）需要保護，多數人的權利（利益）亦相對的要保障之，兩者間應如何取得衡平，又同時能達到促進土地有效利用的原始立法初衷，才是立法者未來修訂「土地法第三十四條之一」應努力之方向。再者，主管機關就「土地法第三十四條之一」實施疑義所為之行政解釋而彙整訂頒「土地法第三十四條之一執行要點」，其經 16 次修正，難免陷入「頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳」之泥沼，是否應回歸「法律保留原則」較為妥切。　　本文以實務之角度出發，期能將運作上常見之問題真實反應，以期助立法者能更周延的解決長久以來困擾強制處分土地於實務上運行之不合理現象。“CO-ownership” is one of the forms of ownership that people hold in Taiwan. Ac-cording to paragraph 2 of Article 819 of the Civil Code, “The disposition of, the alteration of and the creation of an encumbrance over a thing held in co-ownership shall only be made with the consent of all the co-owners.” Nevertheless,for the sake of better use of land, and in order to avoid failure of effective land use caused by diverse opinions of co-owners co-owning a piece of land,the government formulated “Article 34-1 of Land Act” in order to realize 3 goals, “making the best use of land,” “sharing the land profits” and “evenly dividing land ownership.” However, since formulation of thisarticle was considered not a rigorous legislation, a great variety of problems have been emerging in an endless stream ever since practical implementation of this article.　　“Article 34-1 of Land Act” prescribes forced disposition of co-owned land or constructional improvements. As long as there is “the consent of more than half of the co-owners whose holding of ownership is more than half of the total hare,” or “if the holding of ownership is more than two thirds, the number of consenting co-owners needs not be taken into account,” under one of the above two thresholds could forced disposition of the entire piece of land be carried out. For this part, most of the people in the theory and practice fields think of this article as “the big bullying the small,” and “ the strong bullying the weak.” Actually, the fact is not completely like that. In times of practical operation, the proportion of cases with “the small controlling the big” is apparently greater than those with “the big bullying the small.” One good example commonly heard by us is those “nail house owners” who claim for extremely expensive compensation during forced disposition of houses.　　Formulation of laws aims to solve problens for people.While the rights (benefits)of a minority of people need to be protected, the rights (benefits) of a majority of people also relatively need to be protected.How to achieve a balance in between, and at the same time meet the original legislation intention of this article , to facilitate effective land use, is the direction that legislators should put efforts on revising “Article 34-1 of Land Act” in the future.Furthermore, after collation of the administrative interpretations of the queries over implementation of “Article 34-1 of Land Act,” the competent authorities promulgated “Implementation Guidelines for Article 34-1 of Land Act.”The Guidelines had been revised successively for 16 times, so that they are inevitably falling into a practice of “treating the symptoms, not the cause” again and again. Thus, it is more appropriate to think about whether we should go back to pursue the “principle of legal reservation.”　　The discussions in the paper are made from practical viewpoint. It is hoped that the problems commonly appeared during operation can be authentically reflected. We expect that legislators can more comprehensively solve the long existed unreasonable situations, which frequently occur during practical implementation of forced disposition of land.
510 1 $a A Study on Controversial Issues of Co-owned Land of Prosecutor's Order $z eng
610 0 $a 優先購買權 $a 強制處分 $a 公同共有 $a 共有 $a 土地法第三十四條之一
610 1 $a right of prioritized purchase $a forced disposition $a co-owning $a co-ownership $a Article 34-1 of Land Act
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 380101 4087 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 李 $b 翔 $4 撰 $3 26123
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 法律學系碩士班 $3 166036
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20170406 $g CCR
856 7 # $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/29419933042954564211 $z 電子資源 $2 http