區分地上權之適用探討

Exploring the Applicability of Dividing the Surface Rights

早先於實務已多見區分地上權之蹤影，屆民國99年增修民法第841條之1至民法第841條之6區分地上權，將民法物權推進更符合現行實際之土地利用需求，該增訂實堪肯定。惟新增之法規內容是否已溱完備，有無再修飾之必要等，容有討論空間，本文爰先為區分地上權之新修評析，以民法第841條之4及民法第841條之5為中心討論之。再者，依現行土地登記規則，測量係區分地上權登記之必要前置措施，實務上應如何進行區分地上權之測量，現行之登記法規是否足以因應等議題，深刻影響區分地上權制度之運作。復以，因區分地上權之立體空間劃分特性，於經濟角度上，區分地上權之權利價值如何評定，各評定方法之優劣與合理性，亦有加以介紹討論之實益。此外，民國99年區分地上權制定前，空間權是否屬於我國所承認之財產權、國家使用私人土地之上下空間是否屬應予損失補償、補償之法理基礎為何等問題尚有爭議，故此修法前既有見存於其他公共、交通建設相關法規中之補償辦法似有認為區分地上權非屬財產權者，逾99年民法增修後，該等法規是否仍為妥適，亦有討論之空間。本文針對上開四大議題論證並提出具體建議，期望對於我國區分地上權制度之完備有所裨益。

As there are already signs of dividing the surface rights in earlier practical implementation, by 2010 the dividing of the surface has been appended through the amendment of article 841-1 to Article 841-6 of the Civil Code to bridge the Civil Code’s property right to better meet the existing actual land utilization needs, an appendage that truly warrants recognition. And as there is room for discussion in terms of whether the content newly appended legislative regulation has been perfected, and whether there is a necessity to further fine-tune the provision, the thesis, in a bid to first evaluate and analyze the new amendment on the dividing of the rights, has thus focused on the discussion on article 841-4 and article 841-5 of the Civil Code. Moreover, per the existing land registration regulation, as surveying remains a requisite measure in the surface rights subdivision registration, yet subjects, such as how to conduct the survey in dividing the surface rights in practical implementation, and whether the existing registration laws and regulations suffice to respond to the change, all have a profound impact on how the surface subdivision system is implemented. Furthermore, in light that the surface rights subdivision is characterized by a three dimensional spatial division, there are also factual beneficial grounds to introduce and discuss, from the economic angle, how the entitlement value in the surface rights subdivision will be evaluated, and the rationality and superiority/inferiority of the various evaluation methods. In addition, as questions concerning whether the spatial right falls under the property right the Republic of China recognizes prior to the induction of the 2010 surface subdivision legislation, and whether the state utilizing the space above and below a private property calls for a loss compensation, and what legal basis justifies the compensation, remain controversial, thus prior to the legislative amendment, it can be found that the compensation measures that exist in other peripheral public, transportation development-related laws and regulations seem to reckon that the surface rights subdivision does not fall under the property claim, and after the 2010 appendage amended to the Civil Code, it also leaves room for discussion whether such laws and regulations are still pertinent. The thesis asserts theoretical validation by focusing on the foresaid four major subjects and also presents tangible recommendations, in anticipation to contribute to perfecting the country’s surface rights subdivision system.