英文摘要 |
This article reviews the court’s judgments in the past 20 years, sorting out and summarizing the court’s central opinions so far. It is believed that the term“haunted house”should be transformed from a general term in folk Feng Shui into a“legal term”. It can be described as the following three main characteristics: 1.“Inside the building”(“exclusive part of the building”) , 2.“Unnatural death’’ (“unnatural death accidents such as homicide, suicide or accidental death”) and 3. Those who“create the fear of revenge and intrusion by the souls of wronged persons”. If a haunted house is acquired at auction and the court fails to bulletin that“there is an unnatural death in the building or other special circumstances that may affect the transaction,”its behavior violates the principle of good faith in procedural law. It should be possible to claim according to Article 88 of the Taiwan Civil Code and apply to cancel the auction contract. . Regarding the dispute over compensation for suicide in a haunted house, which makes the rented house a haunted house, the Supreme Court clearly adopted the negative view of applying or analogy applying Article 432 of the Taiwan Civil Code in the beginning case, and the conclusion is worthy of agreement. In the most controversial issue of suicide that turns someone else’s house into a haunted house, whether the lessor can claim losses from the decrease in the price of the house based on tortious acts. This article hopes to show a new approach and proposes that suicide is an“legal-free space”behavior. We should give up the evaluation of suicide behavior. It should fall outside the dichotomy of“illegality model”and“legitimacy model”, and each should give in. The“Third Way: Neither Forbidden nor Permissible”model. According to this, the haunted house should not have the key illegality among the elements of infringement, so it naturally does not constitute an infringement. |