論借名登記之法律行為－－以所有權歸屬為中心

The legal act of borrowing other's name for registration–Focusing on the attribution of ownership

系所名稱：法律學系 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：99年 指導教授：吳從周 借名登記契約為無名契約，基於契約自由原則及一般契約解釋原則，只要無原因不法或違背強行規定、公序良俗之情事，借名登記契約即為有效。借名登記契約之內容，於不動產與權利借名登記時應為：「當事人約定，一方（出名人）將其名義提供他方（借名人）辦理登記並受讓所有權或權利，惟對該財產之管理、使用、收益與處分均由他方（借名人）為之」；而於準不動產和動產借名登記時則為：「當事人約定，一方（出名人）單純將其名義提供他方（借名人）辦理相關登記。」 。 本文聚焦於借名登記財產所有權或權利之歸屬問題，並認為於不動產、準不動產或權利借名登記時，該財產之所有權或權利應歸屬於出名人，出名人有權處分。蓋公示外觀應獲得最大的尊重與貫徹，否則登記制度之目的形同被架空，其功能亦蕩然無存。且借名人透過借名契約獲益之同時，理應自行考量與承擔出名人違約處分財產之後果，此種不利風險不應轉嫁令第三人承擔。而在車輛等一般動產之借名登記之情形，因車輛登記僅為行政登記之一種，不涉及所有權變動，所有權人仍為借名人，故出名人逕行處分屬無權處分，如第三人符合善意受讓之要件，自可取得所有權。又關於靠行契約，本文認為其屬於借名登記契約之一種，其效力和當事人間之權利義務應與借名登記契約相同，如猶認為其屬於信託契約之見解已不合時宜。 至於借名登記之舉證責任應歸屬於借名人，其必須提出相關證據證明確有借名登記之情事，否則將招致敗訴判決。而借名人權利救濟之方式則因受侵害權利之不同以及借名人是否為所有權人或權利人而有不同救濟方式。

The contracts that the parties ‘’borrow other's names for registration’’ are kinds of atypical contract based on the principle of freedom of contract and the general principles of contract interpretation. As long as there are no reasons offending law or be contrary to public order and good morals of the circumstances, the contract shall be effective. The content and rights of these contracts concerned with real properties shall be: “The parties agree with that one of the parties provides his name for the others as the registrant and is transferred the right of ownership of properties. But the management, usage, and disposition of them are succeeded by the others”; while in the cases that concerned with quasi‐real and personal properties, it shall be: “The parties agree with that one of the parties simply provides his name to the other party for registration.”This article focuses on ownership of property or rights of ownership .In the cases of borrowing other's name for real estate (ship or right) registration, the properties or rights of ownership should belong to the registered person, and they have the right to dispose of them.Cover publicity appearance with the greatest respect should be implemented, otherwise the purpose of the registration system would be tantamount to mere figurehead, and its function would also be gone. And the name’s borrowers who benefits by the contracts should ponder and be responsible to the risks that the registered person might default the contract, and this should not be passed to the third party. In the registrations of vehicles or other movable properties cases, the registered person has no right to dispose these properties since these registrations are kinds of administration registrations and they do not involve change of ownerships, the third party can obtain ownership of these properties by the Bona Fide Acquisition. We deem License Leasing Practice is a kind of contracts that the parties borrow other's name for registration. The effect of the rights and obligations between the parties should be the same. The idea that considers it as a Trust contract is obsolete.The burden of proof of borrowing other's name for registration should belong to the name’s borrowers. The name’s borrowers must submit relevant evidence; otherwise they would lose the lawsuit. The ways of remedy for the name’s borrowers are varied from different kinds of infringements of rights and whether they have the ownership or rights of the properties.