善意承租人保護之研究──以意思表示係通謀虛偽、受詐欺脅迫為中心

The Protection of Bona Fide Lessees: Fictitious, Fraud-Procured, and Duress-Procured Expressions of Intent

意思表示係通謀虛偽或受詐欺脅迫時，通說認為受法律保護之善意第三人不包含承租人。本文從法益衡量觀點、法釋義學、比較法研究三種角度分析善意第三人是否應包含承租人。結論認為，表意人之意思表示為通謀虛偽或受詐欺脅迫時，善意第三人應包含承租人。並應視個案情形運用占有連鎖理論，使善意承租人得對租賃物所有人主張有權占有。表意人為通謀虛偽意思表示時，承租人為善意即受保護，有無過失在所不問。表意人受詐欺時，承租人須善意且無過失始受保護。表意人受脅迫而撤銷意思表示時，承租人仍不得對抗之。善意借用人因在實證上無保護交易安全之必要，故應採目的性限縮解釋，排除其為民法第87條第1項但書、民法第92條第2項所稱之第三人。

According to the exception clauses stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 87 or Paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Civil Code of Taiwan, the voidance or the revocation of an expression of intent cannot be a valid defense against the bona fide third party, which means that the third party in good faith may claim the expression of intent being valid in lawsuits related to fictitious or fraud-procured expressions of intent. Most scholars in Taiwan asserted that lessees are excluded from the scope of the bona fide third party. This article argues that bona fide lessees should be included in such scope. Furthermore, by introducing the “chained possession theory” in German law, bona fide lessees are entitled to possess leased property against owners with defective expressions under various circumstances. In addition, expressers making fictitious expressions of intent should act without prejudice to any rights of bona fide lessees, whether being negligent or not. As for the deceived expressers, bona fide lessees are protected by law only if they act without negligence. Nevertheless, when expressions of intent are procured under duress, expressers may revoke them against lessees in good faith even though lessees act without negligence. In addition, borrowers of loan for use should be excluded from the concept of the bona fide third party as mentioned above, because there is no any empirical reason to protect them.