| 英文摘要 |
As stated in Paragraph 1, Article 840 of the Civil Code, after the expiration of the superficies’duration, the superficiary is entitled to request the landowner for compensation according to the current market price of the building that once existed on the land. This article explains that the subject of the right to compensation is the superficiary, excluding the third party. However, if the third party is both the transferee of superficies and the owner of the building but failed to go through the registration of transfer of superficies, should it be recognized that the said third party has the same right to compensation? This is affirmed by the Supreme Court Judgment 109 Tai Shang Zi No. 491, which cited the legal principle of“Drittschadensliquidation”(third-party claims liquidation) created by the German Federal Court of Justice judges. The Drittschadensliquidation system was established to compensate third parties who suffer damages but have no right to claim. If the subject person has the right to claim but does not suffer any damage, such phenomenon is due to the accidental shift of the damage. Should it cause the perpetrator to be exempted from the liability for compensation, it will be unfair to the third party. Deeming the equity of the case as a continued development of law, the judge affirmed the third party’s right to compensation, with the judgment being recognized academically.
On the other hand, five types of compensation systems have been established in Germany to prevent judges from making arbitrary decisions. Yet, third-party building compensation system is outside the established systems. In this regard, is it lawful and appropriate for the Supreme Court Judgment No. 491 to cite the same Drittschadensliquidation principle and affirm that third parties have the same right to compensation for buildings as the superficiary? This article aims to examine each of the above queries through various legal methods. |
