逝者的公寓大廈：靈骨塔的契約與物權安排問題

High-rise for the Dead: The Problematic Contractual and Property Arrangements Regarding Columbarium Pagoda

靈骨塔位交易的市值數百億，但消費者獲得之「（永久）使用權」究竟是什麼權利，並不清楚。本文以法經濟分析方法結合法釋義學，由解釋論與立法論雙管齊下。本文主張，消費者與靈骨塔廠商訂立者乃類似租賃之無名契約，並非買賣，解釋上應類推適用民法第425條第1項，但不以消費者已經占有為必要，因為靈骨塔交易另有其他恰當之公示方式。目前市面上靈骨塔位交易契約，無論是否包括土地或建物應有部分之買賣，往往未防堵共有物分割、拆塔還地風險；分管約定沒有登記，因此不當然拘束後手。但即令靈骨塔廠商與消費者作了現行法下容許的最佳安排，仍然面對租賃上限20年，不分割約定上限30年，但靈骨塔位使用往往約定至少50年的落差。本文提倡以區分所有形式架構靈骨塔之物權。此外，若欲自用之塔位消費者沒有忠實的繼承人可以確保實現自己的安葬意願，現行法無法給予此等塔位消費者任何幫助。探討信託法、契約法、繼承法相關之修法方案後，本文認為：以遺囑或死後委任處理遺體（有管理人沒有所有人的特別財產），不需要變動現行法，即可透過法律解釋與調整交易實踐，以實現逝者安葬的最後遺願。

Trades of columbarium pagoda niches are multi-million-dollar businesses, but it is unclear what kind of (permanent) use right consumers actually purchase. Combining economic analysis with doctrinal one, this article deals with legal issues arising under current laws and provides reform proposals. Consumers and columbarium pagoda firms enter into quasi-lease, not sale contracts. Article 425 Section 1 of the Civil Code should apply mutatis mutandis, and possession by consumers is not required, because there are other proper ways to give notice of niche transactions. The niche transaction contracts used in the market now, no matter whether sales of shares of ground land and pagodas are included, do not stop consumers from applying for real estate partition, creating risks that pagodas are torn down. In addition, covenants regarding the use of pagodas are not registered, so they do not run with shares. Nonetheless, even if columbarium pagoda firms and consumers specify the best terms allowed under current laws, there is still a huge gap between consumer needs and legal restrictions: the cap for lease terms is 20 years and the cap for no-partition covenants is 30 years, but the quasi-lease specifies a 50-year usage. This article contends that the condominium form should be used to structure the property rights of columbarium pagodas. Consumers who plan to use niches themselves now can only rely on cooperation of faithful heir, as the current law does not provide any legal tool for consumers to make sure that their wishes be fulfilled. After exploring reform proposals involving trust law, contract law, and estate law, this article argues the use of wills or post-death agency contracts to stipulate how to deal with corpses (a separate patrimony that has representatives but no owners). This way, no new law needs to be enacted, but legal interpretations of current laws and transactional practices have to be altered.