公證制度對於不動產交易安全之保障功能

Transaction Safety Protection Function of the Notarization System in Real Estate Transaction in Taiwan

自西元1999 年修正民法債編以來，民法第166 條之1 不動產契約公證制度應否施行，一直存在著很大的爭議。本論文先介紹德國、法國、美國之不動產交易過程中，相關專業人士扮演之角色，進一步比對台灣不動產交易之過程，發現台灣不動產交易過程中欠缺法律專業人士提供法律諮詢、契約審查與解說之角色。其次，由法院針對地政士依據地政士法第26 條所負之專門職業責任案例中，發現法院將地政士所負專門職業責任之範圍，限縮於「與辦理不動產移轉登記事務相關」之事項。非辦理不動產移轉登記事務所必要之事項，如水土保持法之相關規定、價金支付風險之保障等，皆不在地政士所應告知預防之專業責任範圍之內，由此可見現行制度在對民眾法律風險之告知與預防上存在著漏洞。本文並分析律師與地政士在法律專門職業中所扮演之角色，認為與公證人之角色截然不同無法互相取代。基於上述之理由，本論文呼籲應儘速施行民法第166 條之1不動產契約公證制度，以維護當事人交易之安全，建構合理之不動產交易制度。

There have been huge controversies regarding whethernotarization should be incorporated into the procedures of realestate transactions in Taiwan according to Article 166-1 of the CivilCode of the R.O.C (Taiwan). First, I present the legal professionals’involvement in the procedures of real estate transactions inGermany, France and the United States. Comparing with Taiwan, itis clear that legal professionals’involvement in legal consulting,contract reviewing and explaining is lacking here.Second, I parsed through the court judgments regarding realestate agents’ professional malpractice cases. I found that the courtrestricted the scope of estate agents’ professional responsibility in“matters relating to real estate registrations”. Other legal risks, likeviolations of the Soil and Water Conservation Act or preventingrisks in payment default, are not included. There is clearly aloophole in terms of legal risks’ prevention in real estate transactions in Taiwan. I further assess that real estate agents orattorneys in Taiwan cannot assumea notary’s role in legal riskprevention.Based on the above-mentioned arguments, I propose thatArticle 166-1 of the Civil Code should be implemented as soon aspossible. I believe that notarization can provide better protection ofparties in terms of preventing legal risks. A more reasonable systemof real estate transaction procedures can therefore be established inTaiwan.