論法律解釋、契約解釋與誠信原則的方法論於土地法第104條之應用──以最高法院106年度台上字第2335號民事判決為中心

The Application of the Interpretation of Law, of Contract, and the Principle of Good Faith in Article 104 of the Land Act : Focusing on Supreme Court Judgment Case No.106, Tai Shang Zi, 2335

土地法第104條就基地租賃之優先承買權，於實務上產生諸多問題。本文以最高法院106年度台上字第2335號判決出發，探討於該案中所產生而於實務上有重要性之問題。本文所探討之問題包含：於租賃基地所興建者為違章建築時，承租人是否仍享有優先承買權？於租賃基地所建之建物僅位於該基地之一部之上時，得優先承買之範圍為何？若僅得承買土地之一部時，價金應如何計算？以及若僅得承買土地之一部，是否得請求分割該部分之土地？上開問題均為實務上重要之問題，且於個案中影響甚鉅，惟學說及實務上對此等問題均仍未有統一之見解。本文爰整理學說及實務相關見解，並從法學方法論出發，透過法律解釋、契約解釋及誠信原則，分析土地法第104條，對上開問題進行討論並提出見解。

The right of first refusal of the leased building sites in Article 104 of the Land Act has raised a lot of problems in practice. This paper starts from the decision of Supreme Court Judgment Case No.106, Tai Shang Zi, 2335, and goes on to discuss the issues in this case, which are important in practice. The issues concerned includes: Is there a right of first refusal when the building built on the leased land is an illegal structure? When the built structure only remains on a part of the land, then does the right of first refusal exist on the whole plot of land or only the part that there the building is on? If the right of first refusal only exist on part of the land, then how should the buying price be calculated? And if it only exists on part of the land, then could the right holder demand a land division? These are the issues that plays an important role in applying Article 104 of the Land Act in practice, but there is no consensus on these issues. Therefore, this paper reviews concerned literature and decisions of the Supreme Court, and starts from legal methodology, using the interpretation of the Law, of Contract, and the principle of good faith to discuss the above questions and offers its viewpoint.