我國不動產證券化規範的檢討

A Review of the Law Concerning Real Estate Securitization in Taiwan

不動產證券化，顧名思義，即是將原本實體存在的不動產產權轉化為觀念上存在的證券。不動產證券化雖然有諸多優點，然就其引進我國前一直雜音不斷，顧慮到不動產證券化在我國推展可能帶來的許多問題，因此，在我國立法過程並不順利。然而，因為市場有此需求，不待立法通過，即有許多類似的案例出現，但這些案例限於法令限制，只能做到憑證化、小口化（細小化）和單位化（規格化），欠缺流動性，並非真正的不動產證券化。當時因無完備的法制，無法對投資人予以保護，亦無從監督審核業者的營運，甚至其推行本身就有違法的疑慮，也正因為如此，這些案例大多歸為失敗。2003 年7 月立法院終於通過不動產證券化條例（ 下稱「條例」），從立法通過至今即將屆滿十年，我國的不動產證券化投資業務並未因此蓬勃發展，探討其原因，固然與我國近十年的低利率有關，然而，本文認為更主要的原因是法制限制了此一業務的發展，本文即欲藉由檢討我國現行不動產證券化規範，促使不動產證券化相關法制更加妥善。本文第二部分敘述條例立法時的爭議，分析並說明此一制度在我國討論了三十年才法制化的原因；第三部分介紹條例2003年通過的主要內容及相關子法，作為之後條例修正和規範檢討的基礎；第四部分探討條例2009年修正的主要內容，作為現行規範檢討的基礎；第五部分提出現行規範的檢討，希望藉此促使條例更加妥善，而能助於不動產證券化的運用與推廣；第六部分，總結全文，提出本文結論。

Real estate securitization means transforming tangible real estate into intangible securities. Though with many merits, before adoption in Taiwan there are many opponents, cautious about its side effects. For this reason, it is not easy to enact Real Estate Securitization Act. Owing to the demand in the real estate market, nevertheless, there are many cases of quasi-real estate securitization before legislation. Due to the limitations of the concerning law, those cases are only transforming tangible real estate into certificate and unit, but lack of liquidity, and are not orthodox real estate securitization. Most of those cases failed for lacking of comprehensive regulation, protection of investors, monitoring and approving the operation of the developers, and even challenge of their legality. In July, 2003, the Legislative Yuan passed the Real Estate Securitization Act (hereafter abbreviated as the Act). The business of investment of real estate securitization is not prosperous in Taiwan for the past ten years. One of the reasons may be low interest rate; however, this article contends that the major reason is the legal restraint. This article is to review the concerning laws of real estate securitization in Taiwan for the purpose to improve them. The second part of this article firstly narrates the major issues to enact Real Estate Securitization Act. Part three introduces the major context of 2003 Real Estate Securitization Act and its by-laws. Part four explores the major context of 2009 Amendments to the Real Estate Securitization Act. Part five reviews the major issues of the current laws. Part six is the conclusion of this article.