監護人不得受讓受監護人財產之研究

Examining the Provision of the Civil Code that“A Guardian Shall Not Acquire the Property from His/Her Ward”

民國97年民法增訂第1098條第2項，規定監護人為利益相反等行為時，得聲請法院依受監護人之利益選任特別代理人，則現行法下，得否由特別代理人代理受監護人將其財產讓與予監護人，尚有爭議。對此，有學者將第1102條「監護人不得受讓受監護人之財產」解為特別規定，而採否定見解。本文支持之，蓋現實中的特別代理人，未必能發揮保護受監護人利益之功能，我國又無監護監督人就近督促監護人支付價金、監督監護人管理財產之狀況，因此，將第1102條解為強行規定，無論有償或無償，一律禁止監護人受讓，而使受監護人保有最終決定受讓行為效力之權，較適合我國法制之現況。
於是本文認為，法院倘遇特別代理人選任之聲請或許可代為處分不動產之聲請，當得知受讓人為監護人時，應因違反不得受讓之規定而裁定駁回。例外情形有二，①所謂受讓，倘專指因契約所為之權利移轉，則因繼承、遺贈、抵押權之實行、法院酌定報酬等而取得財產者，自不在第1102條所禁之列。②監護人與受監護人同為繼承人時，所為之遺產分割協議。因其目的在解消公同共有關係，與一般監護人受讓受監護人之財產者不同。是以，倘聲請選任特別代理人時，按監護人等所提出之遺產分割協議，受監護人所得遺產能滿足其應繼分者，則應排除第1102條不得受讓之限制。

In 2008,“where the guardian has a conflict of interest with his/her ward, an application may be made to the court for a special agent based upon the interest of the ward”was added to Article 1098-2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan. However, under the current law, whether a special agent can transfer a ward's property to their guardian on behalf of the ward remains controversial. Some scholars negatively interpret Article 1102, namely,“a guardian shall not acquire property from his/her ward,”as a special provision. This paper supports the opinion that a special agent may not protect the ward's interests. Moreover, no official supervisor ensures that guardians fulfill their financial responsibilities or adequately manage their ward’s property in Taiwan. Thus, Article 1102 shall be interpreted as a compulsory provision. A guardian is prohibited from transferring property from their ward, regardless of whether there is compensation. Therefore, the ward can retain the right to decide the effect of transfer, which is more suitable in Taiwan’s current legal context.
Based on the above, this paper suggests the following. Regarding applications to appoint a special agent or for permission to dispose of the real estate on behalf of the ward, when informed that the transferee is the guardian, the court shall make the ruling to reject the application for violating the provision that“a guardian shall not acquire the property from his/her ward,”regardless of whether there is compensation or not. There are two exceptions:①When the term“acquire”solely refers to the transfer of rights as stipulated by contract, those who acquire property through inheritance, legacy, the execution of mortgage rights, or remuneration ruling should be excluded from the prohibitions in Article 1102 at the court's discretion;②When both the guardian and the ward are heirs, the inheritance partition agreement—to dissolve co-ownership—differs from the general cases wherein a guardian acquires the property from his/her ward. Therefore, when there is a request to appoint a special agent, if the inheritance partition agreement proposed by the guardian and others can satisfy the ward’s entitled portion, the restriction in Article 1102 that prohibits a guardian from acquiring the property from his/her ward shall be excluded.