不動產借名登記契約有效性的檢討

A Review of Validity of the Contracts of Borrowing Other's Name for Real Estate Registration

我國目前多數最高法院判決認為不動產借名登記契約有效，除非該契約內容違反強行規定或公序良俗；然而，多數判決並未實質檢視該契約是否符合相關強行規定的意旨或公序良俗。本研究聚焦於出名人未管理、使用不動產的借名登記契約。由於討論該契約效力時常提及脫法行為與消極信託的概念，故本研究第貳及第參部分探討該等概念以及借名登記與信託的關係，特別是以比較法的觀點探討消極信託與違法信託，基於信託制度源於英美法系的考量，第參部分亦介紹該法系相關判決，並澄清美國法上土地信託與本研究定義的不動產借名登記契約並不相同。第肆部分反思我國該契約的有效性，臚列在當事人的各種借名動機下，該契約效力的判決見解並檢視之。本研究認為，未由出名人管理、使用的不動產借名登記契約常可認定是違反相關強行規定的意旨而無效；即便無法認定是違反強行規定，也將造成不動產登記失實達相當期間而有過大的外部成本，故除非能被證明有正面功能，否則應認為是違反公序良俗而仍無效。

Most decisions of the Supreme Court in Taiwan nowadays hold that the contracts of borrowing other's name for real estate registration are valid unless the content of such contracts are against compulsory provisions, public policy, or morals. However, those decisions do not review substantially whether such contracts correspond with relevant compulsory provisions, public policy or morals. This study focuses on the issue that the undersigned do not manage and use the property. Owing to facts that the concepts of evasive act and passive trust are frequently mentioned in the discussion of the validity of such contracts, Part II and III of this study explore the concepts and the relationship between borrowing other's name for registration and trust, especially the passive trust and illegal trust in view of comparative law. In light of the derivation of the system of trusts from the Anglo-American Law, Part III also introduces the related cases in the system and clarifies that land trusts in the United States are different from the contracts of borrowing other's name for real estate registration defined by this study. Part IV illustrates the validity of such contracts in Taiwan and reviews the decisions on the validity of such contracts based on different kinds of motivations of borrowing other's name of the parties. This study argues that the contracts of borrowing other's name for registration in which the undersigned do not manage and use the property are usually void because of the violation of the relevant compulsory provisions. Although such contracts do not contravene the compulsory provisions, they are still invalid as a result of the infringement of public policy or morals As well, confusion of registration inconsistency and a considerable external cost will ensue with the passage of time. Thus, these types of real estate contracts are still invalid unless positive advantages can be substantiated.