輔仁法學第59期

我國票據法第14條第1項明定：「以惡意或有重大過失取得票據者，不得享有票據上之權利。」此乃票據債權善意取得之規定。關於票據善意取得之保護範為並未如同民法關於動產善意取得有明文限於讓與人無處分權之情形。從理論沿革上兩者雖無不同，但在理論構成上，票據善意取得因票據債權與證券相結合，成為債權善意取得之例外規定，除了交易安全之維護外，更有促進證券流通之政策性目的，此從我國民法規範結構上之不同即可觀察出其與動產善意取得之差異性。因此，票據善意取得之保護範圍應較動產善意取得之保護範圍為廣，不限於讓與人無處分權之情形。如此解釋，更能符合現行法之規範架構，且達成促進票據流通之政策性目的。日本實務判決上關於此問題與我國實務判決相同皆以讓與人無處分權之前提作為判決基礎。學說上早期亦認為善意取得之保護範圍僅限於讓與人無處分權之情形，但近來學說有見解逐漸傾向認為善意取得之保護範圍不限於讓與人無處分權之情形，於其他票據行為瑕疵之類型上，亦有善意取得適用之可能。本文藉由與日本學說與實務進行比較法上之研究，分析其他票據行為瑕疵之類型在適用票據善意取得是否會與我國現行法規範發生衝突。若解釋上並不會與現行法規範發生衝突，則應擴大善意取得之保護範圍，強化票據使用之安全，以達促進票據流通之目的。

關鍵詞：以手護手原則、權利外觀理論、票據債權善意取得、動產善意取得、讓與人無處分權、票據流通安全

First paragraph, Article 14 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which rules “A person who acquires a negotiable instrument in bad faith or through gross negligence may not enjoy any rights in the instrument.”, is the rule of good faith of claims of negotiable instruments. The extent of protection of the rule good faith pertaining to claims of negotiable instruments is not different from a transferor without title as Civil Law stipulated pertaining to the rule of good faith acquisition of movables. Even though there are no differences between these two in the historical perspective of theory, the rule good faith of claims of negotiable instruments becomes an exception of good faith of claims of negotiable instruments in a theoretical formation manner because the combination of claims of negotiable instruments and securities, which not only protects the safety of tradement, but also achieve the policy goals of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments. In which we can observe the difference between good faith acquisition of movables and claims of negotiable instruments by the discrepancy of the normative framework of Civil Law. Thus, the extent of protection of good faith pertaining to claims of negotiable instruments should be wielder compare to the rule of good faith acquisition of movables, unlimited to a transferor without title. This interpretation should fit the current normative framework in a better manner, and achieve the policy goal of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments. Practical judgments in both Japan and Taiwan regarding above-mentioned question are setting the premise of not limiting to a transferor without title. Early arguments support the limitation to a transferor without title, but recently there’s a obvert, which regard that the rule of good faith of claims can be applied to other kinds of defective acts of negotiable instruments. This article analyzed if there will be a conflict between the application of the rule of good faith of claims to other kinds of defective acts of negotiable instruments and the current normative framework by comparing practical judgments in both Japan and Taiwan. If there won’t be a conflict by taking a interpretative approach, the extent of protection of the rule good faith then should be extended to achieve the goals of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments.

Keywords: Hand muss Hand wahren, Extenor Rights Theory, Good Faith of Claims of Negotiable Instruments, Good Faith Acquisition of Movables, Transferor without Title, Safety of Market Liquidity of Negotiable Instruments

壹、前言
貳、善意取得制度之理論沿革與依據
一、理論沿革
二、理論依據
參、債權善意取得與票據善意取得之立法目的與理論構成
一、票據善意取得之定性
二、債權善意取得
三、票據善意取得與民法債權善意取得之關聯性
四、日本法上債權與有價證券善意取得之規定與立法目的
五、票據善意取得之理論沿革與構成
肆、票據善意取得之適用前提
伍、票據善意取得治癒之瑕疵類型
一、問題意識
二、票據善意取得是否限於從無權利人取得票據之情形
三、無完全行為能力人背書之情形
四、無權代理（表）之情形
五、意思表示瑕疵之情形
六、小結
陸、結論
一、法律文義上不同
二、從理論構成與立法結構觀察
三、從立法目的觀察

共有土地分割後，由共有人原於土地上所營造之房屋，應如何處理，良非易事。當共有土地採行變價分割之方法時，如房屋所在基地歸他共有人取得者，是否即屬無權占有，而需拆屋還地。民法第425條之1之適用與否係屬重要關鍵之一，最高法院近期已逐步承認房屋或土地「共有」(如土地共有人數除與房屋相同共有人外，尚有其他共有人) 亦有其適用。於此架構下，最高法院107年度台上字第879號判決，以瑕疵擔保及分管契約終止之立論，否認該條之適用，似有未盡週延之處。民法第824條第7項之優先承買權，及為保存房屋而採原物分割優先變價分割之原則，能扮演何種補充之功能，是為本文論述之核心。

關鍵詞：共有物、變價分割、推定租賃、法定地上權、優先承買、分管契約、瑕疵擔保

When a piece of land held in indivision is partitioned, the houses originally built on top of it by the co-owners of that land become an issue to handle. Case in point, as we deal with a land held in indivision is partitioned by sale and distribution, and the base of a house is also acquired by other co-owners. Whether that house is entitled to possess attracts attentions. Does the house have to be demolished and returned to the co-owners, respectively? Whether article 425-1 of the civil law is applicable is a key factor to evaluate. The Supreme Court has recently gradually recognized that either a house or a land held in indivision can be jointly owned by applying article 425-1. (e.g.: The co-owners of the land other than those of the house are still applicable to share ownership of the house.) Nevertheless, Supreme Court’s verdict in the 107th year labeled as Tisun character the 879th seems to deny the applicability of article 425-1 by arguing the theory of the warranty of defects and the conclusion of the separate-management convent. This stance is worth further evaluating. The author argues that the principle of priority purchase right in article 824, paragraph 7, and the priority principle of partition of the thing held in indivision itself than by sale and distribution for the preservation of the house, can play a complementary function in this regard, which is the main focus of this research paper.

Keywords: The Thing Held in Indivision, Lease is Presumed, Superficies is Deemed, A First Right to Buy, Separate-Management Convent, Warranty of Defects

壹、前言
貳、法院案例事實及判決結果
一、事實摘要
二、台灣高等法院104年度重上字第560號判決
三、最高法院107年度台上字第879號判決
四、問題之提出
參、分割與分管契約之終止
一、分管契約之性質
二、分割與分管契約之關係
（一）因分割方法仍維持一部共有
（二）因共有人行使優先承買權或參與標買而形成共有
（三）因變價分割於變價拍賣程序完成前仍維持共有
肆、分割與占有權
一、基地歸他共有人取得者屬無權占有
二、屬有權占有之例外
（一）共有人另有約定
（二）基地適歸房屋所有人取得
（三）行使優先承買權
（四）適用推定租賃關係
伍、分割共有物與民法第425條之1之適用
一、共有適用之類型
（一）房屋之共有人與該房屋所座落土地之共有人皆完全相同
（二）土地共有人數除與房屋相同共有人外，尚有其他共有人
（三）房屋共有人數除與土地相同共有人外，尚有其他共有人
（四）房屋及土地各有不相同之共有人
（五）房屋及土地各有完全不相同之共有人
二、以房屋占有土地有利用權限為必要
（一）非分割讓與
（二）分割讓與
三、不成立推定租賃之商榷
（一）以瑕疵擔保為由之問題
（二）以分管契約終止為由之問題
（三）未標買或優先承買之失權效
（四）變價分割業經衡酌房屋存續
陸、結論

太陽光電發電設備，不論其為屋頂型或地面型，於設置時若非直接，亦將間接涉及特定土地之利用。然而，土地如何劃分不同利用態樣，往往涉及不同利益應如何妥適調和之問題，也因此，向來備受爭議之「假農作，真種電」情形，即可能係因在推廣與發展太陽光電發電設備之設置過程中過度追求特定目標之達成，而忽視其他利益之兼顧所致。而此等利益之調和程序與機制，乃有賴於相關土地規劃法制予以形構。本文除分析我國都市計畫法、區域計畫法、國土計畫法以及相關子法關於太陽光電發電設備等再生能源發電設備所涉及之土地利用規範外，亦將針對德國聯邦建設法中涉及再生能源土地利用之相關規範內容，乃至於彼邦相關之學理與實務見解進行說明與分析，並以此為基礎，嘗試對我國法制提出可能之修正建議。

關鍵詞：再生能源、太陽光電發電設備、太陽光電2年推動計畫、假農作、真種電、土地使用管制、國土計畫法、德國建設法

Rooftop and ground-mounted photovoltaic power-generating operations entails balancing of interests in the land use domain. The challenge is to balance government interests and needs with the aims and interests of other sectors of the economy. The controversies of solar farming under the guise of agriculture land may be caused by the government’s negligence of other interests in the extreme pursuit of specific goals during the promotion and development of photovoltaic power-generating operations. Land use laws are intended to provide a roadmap for effectively balancing these interests. In Taiwan, relevant laws that apply to photovoltaic power-generating operations are the Urban Planning Law, Regional Plan Act, and Spatial Planning Act, as well as some other photovoltaic power-generating operations-specific laws. This study assessed the efficacy of these laws and compared and contrasted them with the Federal Building Code of Germany—a country with an advanced renewable energy infrastructure and regulatory regime—to ascertain insights that could be applied in Taiwan. We propose possible amendments to Taiwanese laws on the basis of this assessment.

Keywords: Renewable Energy, Photovoltaics Systems, the Urban Planning Act, the Regional Planning Act, the Spatial Planning Act, Federal Building Code of Germany

壹、前言
貳、假農作、真種電之爭議問題
參、我國關於太陽光電發電設備設置之土地計畫與利用法制
一、都市計畫法之規定
二、區域計畫法之規定
三、農業用地內太陽光電發電設備之設置
四、我國法制之評析
肆、德國法制之借鏡
一、前言
二、德國建設規劃法制之規範體系
三、地方自治團體之規劃高權與城鄉計畫之擬定
四、城鄉計畫之功能與擬定要求
五、土地利用計畫
六、營建計畫
七、營建計畫範圍內之開發關聯區段
八、營建計畫範圍外之區域
伍、反思我國法制與建議
陸、結論與建議

刑事訴訟法就檢察官權限的行使，採法定原則，但是其仍享有相當廣泛的裁量權限。不只是立法者如此規範，從實證上的數據來看，也是如此。檢察官作為國家權力機關中之一部份，其權力行使上應遵循什麼樣的憲法界線，關鍵重要。美國法制上基於平等原則，禁止檢察官為歧視性起訴，又因著正當法律程序的要求，禁止檢察官為報復性起訴。我國憲法中同樣有著平等原則及正當法律程序的規定，檢察官起訴權限的行使也應有類似的規範。就此，美國法制的經驗、規範及判決，可供我國日後修法參考。

關鍵詞：檢察官、起訴、裁量、歧視性起訴、報復性起訴、平等原則、正當法律程序

According to the Criminal Procedure Code, the legality principle governs the authority of public prosecutors. However, they still have board discretion. Not only the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, but also the statistic shows so. Therefore, what constitutional principle public prosecutors should comply with is essential. In the United States, the equality protection clause prohibits discriminatory prosecution while the due process of law forbids vindictive prosecution. Our Constitution also has the requirement of equal protection and due process of law, which should govern public prosecutors. The legal framework, provisions, and precedents could be those lessons for the revisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Keywords: Public Prosecutors, Prosecution, Discretion, Discriminatory Prosecution, Vindictive Prosecution, the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process of Law

壹、前言
貳、檢察官在憲法及大法官解釋中的定位
參、檢察官於起訴與否及如何起訴的裁量
一、檢察官職權上的裁量
二、統計數據
三、數據分析及檢察官的裁量權限
四、事後監督與檢察官的裁量
五、小結
肆、美國法制中檢察官的歧視性起訴
一、檢察官的起訴裁量及平等原則
二、恣意分類
三、故意且蓄意（intentionally and purposely）
四、舉證責任
伍、美國法制中檢察官的報復性起訴
一、推定報復
二、實際報復
三、小結
陸、討論及建議
一、歧視性起訴及報復性起訴的異同
二、被告應有權主張歧視性起訴
（一）起訴權限應受有平等原則的規範
（二）現行法的修正及解釋適用建議
（三）舉證責任
三、制度上應承認報復性起訴的概念
（一）起訴權限的行使應遵循正當法律程序
（二）報復性起訴的審查基準
四、起訴審查（？）
五、小節與反思
柒、結論