| 英文摘要 |
In the past, under the legal system in Taiwan which allowed the independent application for the recordation of superficies and sustainability of superficies, even though the applications for the recordation of superficies were often excessive, it was still hard to retrieve land for landowners and their successors. We could say that the scales of law was inclined to protect the owner of superficies. For example, if the building was loss or destruct, or unable to reside in while the owner of superficies was not using the land actively or already moved away, the existence of the superficies would hinder the use of the land resources that failed to complete the use of the land. In light of the fact, the Civil code article 833-1 (hereafter refer to “the rule of contend”) was legislated in 2010. Civil code article 833-1 was based on economic utility to protect both landowner and owner of superficies. This rule authorized the court extensive of discretion to balance the benefit of landowner and owner of superficies through investigation and judgment. In the past five years, after the legislation of the Civil code 833-1 was announced, several controversial issues arose such as lacking the compensation clause, and whether the “rule of contend” complying property rights protected under the constitution. These issues need further consideration. This article discusses the history, purposes of regulations, bibliographic and my personal observation and viewpoint. |
