受讓地上權建築物第三人之損失補償請求權──從概念法學到正義衡平

On the Third-Party Transferee of Superficies’Right to Compensation for Damage: From Jurisprudence of Concepts to Equity

民法第840條第1項地上權存續期間屆滿後，地上權人得請求土地所有人按時價補償建築物。本條權利主體，不包括第三人。第三人如受讓地上權且為建築物所有人，因未辦理地上權移轉登記，要否承認有相同補償權。最高法院109年度臺上字第491號民事判決援引德國聯邦最高法院法官創造「第三人損害補償制度」法理，予肯定。該補償制度創設，係填補第三人受有損害，卻無請求權；有損害賠償請求權者未受到損害，其現象係因損害偶然因素偏移造成，加害人如因此免責，對第三人顯失公平，法官因個案衡平為法之續造，並獲學說肯認。為防法官恣意，德國已建立五種類型，但無第三人建築物補償制度。我國最高法院援引肯定此類型之補償權，是否妥適？

As stated in Paragraph 1, Article 840 of the Civil Code, after the expiration of the superficies’duration, the superficiary is entitled to request the landowner for compensation according to the current market price of the building that once existed on the land. This article explains that the subject of the right to compensation is the superficiary, excluding the third party. However, if the third party is both the transferee of superficies and the owner of the building but failed to go through the registration of transfer of superficies, should it be recognized that the said third party has the same right to compensation? This is affirmed by the Supreme Court Judgment 109 Tai Shang Zi No. 491, which cited the legal principle of“Drittschadensliquidation”(third-party claims liquidation) created by the German Federal Court of Justice judges. The Drittschadensliquidation system was established to compensate third parties who suffer damages but have no right to claim. If the subject person has the right to claim but does not suffer any damage, such phenomenon is due to the accidental shift of the damage. Should it cause the perpetrator to be exempted from the liability for compensation, it will be unfair to the third party. Deeming the equity of the case as a continued development of law, the judge affirmed the third party’s right to compensation, with the judgment being recognized academically.
On the other hand, five types of compensation systems have been established in Germany to prevent judges from making arbitrary decisions. Yet, third-party building compensation system is outside the established systems. In this regard, is it lawful and appropriate for the Supreme Court Judgment No. 491 to cite the same Drittschadensliquidation principle and affirm that third parties have the same right to compensation for buildings as the superficiary? This article aims to examine each of the above queries through various legal methods.