訴訟繫屬登記中之「物權關係」與詐害行為回復請求

Notice of Lis Pendens and Revocatory Action for Fraudulent Transfer

我國民事訴訟法上之訴訟繫屬登記制度（民事訴訟法第254條第5項）之規範目的有二：其一係作為特殊保全制度，維護原告實體法上物權人地位於訴訟進行中之安定性；其二係以公示方法揭露訴訟繫屬之資訊，使欲受讓系爭不動產之第三人得以知悉訴訟風險並避免損害之發生。且自2017年修法後，立法者進一步將適用範圍限縮於「訴訟標的基於物權關係者」，故訴訟標的為債權關係者，於新法下已為立法政策所排除，自無訴訟繫屬登記制度之適用。
於債權人依民法第244條第1項、第2項訴請法院撤銷債務人之詐害債權行為時，同條第4項規定即賦予債權人得「同時」、「無時差地」請求法院命受益人或轉得人回復原狀，此種回復原狀請求權，要件上與民法第767條之物上請求權有別，性質上為獨立之「債權」請求權，自無適用訴訟繫屬登記制度之餘地。最高法院於該院110年度台抗字第642號民事裁定充分運用法學方法，確認民事訴訟法第254條第5項於此情形並不存在法律漏洞，結論上誠值贊同。

The system functions of the notice of lis pendens under our Code of Civil Procedure (Article 254, Paragraph 5) can be categorized into two aspects. Firstly, it serves as a special protective measure to maintain the stability of the plaintiff's substantive legal status as a property rights holder during the course of litigation. Secondly, it discloses the information regarding lawsuit jurisdiction publicly, allowing parties to be informed of litigation risks and to prevent harm. Since the amendment in 2017, the legislature further narrowed the scope of application to“parties whose claims are based on property rights relationships”. Therefore, for parties whose claims are based on debt relationships, they are explicitly excluded from the application of the notice of lis pendens.
When a creditor files a lawsuit under Article 244, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Civil Code to request the court to revoke the debtor's fraudulent transfer of property, Article 244, Paragraph 4 allows the creditor to simultaneously and without delay request the court to restore the property to the beneficiary or the recipient. This right to request restoration of the property is distinct from the right to request property restitution under Article 767 of the Civil Code. It is an independent“creditor”claim and is not subject to the notice of lis pendens. The Supreme Court, in its Civil Judgement 110 Tai-Kang-Zi No. 642 (2021), applied legal analysis comprehensively and confirmed that there is no legal loophole in Article 254, Paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such circumstances. The conclusion is indeed commendable.