Rethinking the Nature and Legal Status of Illegal Structures in Taiwan: A Commentary on Taiwan High Court Judgment Case No. 102, Shang Zi, 1188

再思臺灣違章建築之法律性質與地位：兼評臺灣高等法院102年度上字第1188號判決

就違章建築之法律性質而言。從「法秩序一致性」原則及「違法性一致性」觀點論證，違章建築不論在行政法上或者民法上都具有違法性，違章建築是未經登記的違法建築，它是「具有違法性的工作物」，是一種性質上為「四分之三禁制物」之不應融通物。根本不應該再成為交易之客體。臺灣高等法院102年度上字第1188號判決等實務上向來認為「買受人雖知悉買賣標的物是違章建築，但並不知悉其已經被查報將命拆除，而出賣人未告知者，仍構成買賣標的物之瑕疵擔保」之見解，在本文論證基點上，不應再採用。就違章建築之法律地位而言。實務上創設違章建築具備之「事實上處分權」，性質上只是一種權宜的「殘缺所有權」或「不完整權利」，不應再考慮賦予具有完整物權地位之權利。違章建築之興建，不僅欠缺習慣法所應該具備之「共同體意思說」（被闡明的共同體普遍意思），也違反強行規定及公序良俗，更不符合法官認定與宣示其為習慣法之可能，亦無許其得適用或類推適用民法第767條規定行使物上請求權之餘地。

From the perspective of “uniformity and consistency for legal order” and “consistency of illegality”, an illegal structure is by nature illegal under both civil and administrative law. Illegal structures are unregistered constructions which are against the law, and thus shall be deemed as prohibited from being the subject of transaction. According to Taiwan High Court Judgment Case No. 102, Shang Zi, 1188 (“Case”) and other court rulings, the courts are of the opinion that, despite the buyer’s knowledge of illegal structures, he/she was not aware of the fact that such illegal structures have been reported and ordered to be demolished; seller’s failure to inform buyer of the foregoing constituted breach of guarantee of the subject of sale. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the courts’ opinion is not accepted in this article. Furthermore, the court has afforded the owner of an illegal structure “de facto right of disposal”. Such right is by nature incomplete, thus we should not even consider affording illegal structures a complete and entire right in rem. The existence of illegal structures lacks “consensus” required under customary law, and is in breach of public order and morality; as such, “de facto right of disposal” in illegal structures does not constitute customary law, meaning Article 767 of Civil Code does not apply to illegal structures mutatis mutandis