土地面積登記錯誤損害賠償範圍之研究

Study on the Scope of Compensation for Errors in Land Area Registration

土地面積為登記簿之核心記載事項，對土地價值有重大影響，須經由專門技術與專業儀器進行量測，故交易土地之雙方通常約定以登記簿所載面積為計價準據。如因面積登記錯誤而受有損害，自應由國家進行賠償。
土地法第68條為國家賠償之特別規定，因登記錯誤、遺漏或虛偽而受有損害時，由地政機關負損害賠償責任，並於同條第2項規範賠償範圍「不得超過受損害時之價值」，現學說與實務見解多將其解釋為「僅賠償所受損害，不賠償所失利益」。本文欲探究此條文限制賠償範圍之緣由，並與其他無過失責任法條進行比對分析，探討究竟該如何解釋「不得超過受損害時之價值」，並蒐集整理土地面積登記錯誤相關判決，分析法院就該情事如何進行審理及最後之判賠範圍為何，探討受害人之權益是否足夠被保障。
本文認為該條文並非對賠償種類進行限制，而是就賠償數額訂一上限，即損害賠償範圍通常應包含所受損害及所失利益，惟賠償總額不得超過土地受損害時之價值，如此解釋亦較符土地法第68條保護受害人之立法目的。
本文認為於土地面積登記錯誤時，應擴張解釋土地法第68條之損害賠償範圍，因損害賠償制度以保護受害人為目的，並以完全賠償為原則，例外則有明文規定進行限額賠償等，主因為保護受害人之同時兼顧加害人之財務狀況，使其不致因賠償而倒閉。惟土地登記損害賠償之賠償金非由國家編列預算，而是由民眾繳納之登記費提撥而成、專款專用之登記儲金，擴張解釋土地法第68條之賠償範圍並非即對地政機關造成不利益。

The land area is a core recoded matter in the land register, and has a significant impact on land value. It needs to be measured by using specialized techniques and professional instruments. Therefore, people involved in a land transaction usually agree to use the recording area in the land register as the basis for valuation. If damage occurs due to registration errors in the area, compensation should be provided by the state.
Article 68 of the Land Law provides special provisions for state compensation. The land office should take the liability for damages which are incurred due to error, omission or fraud in registration. The scope of compensation is regulated in the second paragraph of the same article as “not exceeding the value at the time of damage”. Much of the current theories and judgements have interpreted it as “compensation for actual damages, not for lost profits”. This article aims to explore the reasons for limiting the scope of compensation and compare it with other no-fault liability provisions. It will also collect and analyze court rulings related to land area registration errors to examine how courts handle these situations and the final compensation scope, and to assess whether the rights of the victims are adequately protected.
This article argues that the provision does not limit the types of compensation but rather sets a cap on the amount of compensation. Typically, the compensation scope should include both the injury and interests which have been lost, but the total compensation amount should not exceed the value of the land at the time of damage. This interpretation better aligns with the legislative intent of Article 68 of the Land Law to protect victims.
The article also suggests that in cases of land area registration errors, the scope of damage compensation under Article 68 of the Land Law should be expanded. Since the compensation system aims to protect victims with the principle of full compensation, except for specific provisions for limited compensation, etc., for protecting the victims and at the same time take care of the financial situation of the aggressor so it will not be closed down as a result of the compensation. But the compensation for land registration damages is not from the state budget, is earmarked from the registration fees paid by the public, specifically allocated for registration purposes. Expanding the scope of compensation in Article 68 of the Land Law does not necessarily disadvantage the land office.