不動產分管契約對應有部分繼受人的拘束力——以基本權之保護義務功能為中心

The Binding Force to Successors of the Real Estate Contract on Share of Use: Centering on the Protective Obligation Function of the Constitutional Rights

本諸基本權的保護義務功能，國家在私人間發生基本權衝突時須以積極的行為保護人民之權利，民法第826條之1第1項即是在處理共有物共有人之財產權，以及應有部分受讓人之私法自治與契約自由的衝突問題。而作為基本權衝突之解決規範，本條之規範目的，並非「保持原約定或決定之安定性」，而是「避免共有人之財產權受到第三人的干預」。有鑑於土地利用同時影響國家整體經濟發展的公益性質以及當事人地位的強弱有別，本條規定採取「法定契約承擔」之法律效果以保護共有人財產權，應具有正當性。至於「登記」此一要件，則是為了使本條規定對於繼受人的私法自治造成之干預，符合憲法比例原則中「必要性」之限制。 同樣基於基本權保護義務功能之要求，法院裁判時應對法律條文進行合憲解釋，並為適當的法之續造；而無論分管契約是否經登記，兩者在財產權的保障及其所蘊含的公益追求上，並無分別。並且，在受讓人對於分管契約為明知或因重大過失而不知的情形，其與已登記之不動產分管契約具有類似性，使繼受人受拘束，均不致過度侵害其私法自治。因此，本文以為，此時應類推適用民法第826條之1第1項之規定，以實踐憲法基本權保護義務功能及平等原則之誡命。

According to the protective obligation function of constitutional rights, nation has obligation to adopt measures for defending individual rights in the situation that exists conflict between the constitutional rights. Article 826-1 Paragraph 1 of the Taiwan Civil Code deals with the conflicts between the property rights of the co-owner and successor's privity of contract. As a standard for resolving conflicts of constitutional rights, the purpose of this article is not to“maintain the stability of the original agreement or decision” but to“avoid the interference of the property rights of the co-owner by a third party”. In view of the public interest nature of land use affecting the overall economic development of the country and the difference in the status of the parties, this article stipulates that the legal effect of“legal contract commitment”to protect the property rights of co-owners should be legitimate. As for the requirement of“recordation”, it is for the purpose of this article to interfere with the successor's privity of contract in compliance with the “necessity”restriction in the constitutional principle of proportionality. Also based on the protective obligation function of constitutional rights, the court should interpret the legal provisions in a constitutional manner and make the legal gap-filling in appropriate way. Regardless of whether the contract on share of use is registered or not, it has the same protection of property rights and the pursuit of public interest. In addition, when the successor is aware of the real estate contract on share of use or is ignorant of its gross negligence, it is similar to the contract, which is registered, so that the successor will be restrained without excessively infringing on the privity of contract. Therefore, this article believes that the analogy approach of Article 826-1 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code should be applied at this time in order to implement the command of protective obligation function of constitutional rights and principle of equality.