以「建築物存在」作為基地地上權人、承租人先買權要件的探討

An Exploration of the Existing of Buildings as the Requisites of Rights of First Refusal of the Superficiary and the Tenant of the Building Site

土地法第104條、民法第426-2條關於基地地上權人、承租人的先買權是否以有建築物存在為前提，是有爭論的問題。且由於此為物權效力先買權，其存否對相關當事人的權利義務關係影響甚大。本文先依序整理實務見解、學說見解，再提出筆者見解。本文以為，該等條文的基地地上權人、承租人之先買權原則上以有建築物存在為前提，但在「基地甫經設定地上權、出租，並由地上權人、承租人占有中，基地所有人即將基地出賣」或「意定地上權人、承租人的建築物甫滅失，基地所有人即將基地出賣」的例外情形，即便基地出賣時並無建築物存在，基地地上權人、承租人仍有先買權。

There is a controversy about the existing of buildings as the requisites of rights of first refusal of the superficiary and the tenant of Article 104 of the Land Act and Article 426-2 of the Civil Code. In addition, they arein rem rights of first refusal and have great impact on relative parties. This study lists practice and doctrine in turn and then proposes the viewpoint. This study holds that the existing of buildingsis the requisite of rights of first refusal of the superficiary and the tenant of the said provisions in principle. However, under some exceptional circumstances, the superficiary and the tenant still have rights of first refusal even though there is no building when the building site is sold.