區分所有建築物外牆之所有權歸屬秩序——以最高法院110年度台上字第2964號民事判決為實例

The Ownership Order of Exterior Walls in Condominium Buildings: A Case Study of the Civil Judgment of the Supreme Court (110) Tai-Shang Tzu No. 2964

本文以最高法院110年度台上字第2964號民事判決為實例──法之適用之探討素材，以「裁判評析」之典範為之開啟思索，藉由方法思維之導入為之形塑問題意識，開展法律文化之觀察，並為妥適性之論證。尤以聚焦於四個論題：1.系爭大廈於公寓大廈管理條例施行前即興建完成，如何適用法律之爭議？2.區分所有建築物外牆所有權之歸屬關係為何？（外牆之性質屬於「共有部分」，理由如何形成？）3.民法第767條第1項中段「所有權妨害除去請求權」，其應具備之要件與法律效果為何？（何謂所有權之「妨害」？）4.所有權人行使「所有權妨害除去請求權」之邊界，於「法學方法論」之視角下，是否構成「權利濫用」？
區分所有建築物外牆之所有權歸屬關係，常致生所有權妨害之紛擾，而本件司法裁判即為外牆使用未經全體區分所有權人同意，因外牆性質為共有部分，就共有部分之使用，構成對於區分所有權之妨害。本文對於妨害之意義重新加以詮釋，認為妨害係以任何方式客觀不法侵害他人所有權之圓滿狀態，無論以任何形式妨害所有權之行使，不限於占有或其他方式，所有權人皆得以行使所有權妨害除去請求權；本文並指出妨害除去之範圍（效果），除了將妨害狀態排除外，更須回復所有權至原本未被侵害之圓滿狀態；本文就所有權妨害除去請求權之行使與權利濫用禁止之衡平，進而為之分析涉及利益法學（利益衡量論）、價值法學（合目的性判斷）之方法操作。

This paper uses the Civil Judgment of the Supreme Court (110) Tai-Shang Tzu No. 2964 as an example to explore the application of the law. It adopts the“case analysis”framework to initiate reflection, introduces methodological thinking to shape problem awareness, and observes legal culture to provide appropriate argumentation. It focuses on four topics: (1) How should the law be applied when the disputed building was constructed before the Condominium Administration Act Building Administration Division? (2) What is the ownership relationship of the Exterior Wall of the Condominium Buildings? (What is the rationale for considering the Exterior Wall a“common part”?) (3) What are the requirements and legal consequences of the“Right of Claim for Abating Ownership”under Article 767(1) of the Civil Code? (What constitutes an“infringement”of ownership?) (4) From the perspective of the“Methodology of Jurisprudence”, does the exercise of the“Right of Claim for Abating Ownership”by the owner constitute an“Abuse of Rights”?
The ownership relationship of the Exterior Wall of Condominium Buildings often leads to disputes over the infringement of ownership. In this case, the judicial ruling found that the use of the Exterior Wall without the consent of all the co-owners constitutes an infringement of the ownership rights, as the Exterior Wall is a common part. This paper reinterprets the meaning of“infringement”, suggesting that infringement refers to any objective and unlawful violation of the complete state of another’s ownership, regardless of the form. The owner may exercise the Right of Claim for Abating Ownership not only to exclude the infringing state but also to restore the ownership to its original unimpaired condition. The article further analyzes the balance between the exercise of the Right of Claim for Abating Ownership and the Prohibition of the Abuse of Rights in consideration of the involved, methodological operations of interest jurisprudence (balancing of interests) and evaluation jurisprudence (teleological assessment).