台北市舊市區居住環境不佳，土地使用效率極低，亟待更新改善。但由於舊市區土地 過於細分，面積狹小，產權複雜，再加上現況的發展和未來的都市計畫有顯著的差距 ，所以造成舊市區環境不易改善。現行政府推動都市更新方式多以區段征收做全區之 重建，改善都市景觀，以提供居民舒適的居住環境。但因徑收補償費與市價差距過大 ，政府投資之財力亦鉅，在人民反對與政府財力人力有限之情況下，實施成效一直不 彰，而政府一直鼓勵的民間投資都市更新事業亦因獎勵措施與法令不完備，使得投資 者卻步，兩個民間投資個案，一個忍痛叫停，一個風雨飄搖！ 從過去經驗之檢討並考量本基地之特性，研擬適合舊市區更新之模式構想，引進民間 建設公司之資金，由地主提供土地，配合政府所提供之獎勵措施與管制規定，使更新 地區能在各方角色協調與利益均衡下進行重建之工作。研究過程中發現，民眾能夠接 受之更新方式以「合建模式」佔最高比例，而建設公司亦表示，在都市土地價格高漲 的今日，以「合建」方式來進行都市更新，是他們所願意嚐試的。而政府主管當局更 表示願意提供容積獎勵與土地使用管制放寬來鼓勵民間參與都市更新。 在居民、業者、政府與學術單位多重角色參與下，以坵塊合建更新模式為主要構想， 配合政府制訂獎勵措施與設計準則，研擬出一套值得長期推廣，具體而可行之舊市區 鄰里環境改善計劃，以利台北市舊市區今後更新工作之大力推展。

過去都市更新相關文獻中，多在分析都市更新制度與探討相關法令缺失，且多以權利變換方式探討地主權益之分配，較少以量化分析來研究都市更新協議合建分配型態，對於地主所關注合建分配比率之影響因素也未能深入研究。本研究透過文獻回顧與台北市都市更新之現況分析後，掌握可能之影響變數，藉由實證資料之蒐集與相關變數之選取，將資料進行複迴歸實證分析，以探討影響都市更新合建分配比率之顯著變數。 本研究篩選出可能影響合建分配比率之14個自變項，並排除相關係較高之土地所有權人數及建築成本兩變數後，透過複迴歸分析，結果顯示有8項達顯著性之影響因素，其中個別屬性變數包括每人土地面積、每容積公告土地現值、平均容積率、臨路寬度與臨路寬度平方、都市更新容積獎勵率、區域房價等6項達顯著性，除臨路寬度平方與都市更新合建分配比率呈負向關係外，其他皆呈正向關係，而在總體經濟變數有上一月基準利率及上一季M2年增率等2項達顯著性，其中上一月基準利率與都市更新合建分配比率呈負向關係，而上一季M2年增率與都市更新合建分配比率呈正向關係。 由實證結果得知，增加都市更新容積獎勵，確實有助提昇地主合建分配比率，因此，政府應適度調整容積獎勵項目及上限，使地主參加都市更新後，能獲得較佳之居住環境與較高之居住面積水準，甚至保障地主原居住面積水準，以增加地主參與都市更新之意願。期望政府持續大力推動都市更新政策，透過建築規劃及設計，達到改善市容、美化環境、增進公共安全及提昇居住水準等政策目的，進而達到政府、地主及開發商三贏之目標。 / Most of the past research studies on urban renewal involves analysis in the related regulations and their shortcomings. Furthermore, studies based on allocation of land owners’ equity rights are mostly done from perspective of the rules set from the government supervised appraisal process known as Rights Transformation. Few of them are conducted using the quantitative approach to derive the equity rights of the landowners from the perspective of the process known as Joint Development --- a process of private negotiation and derived terms. Thus, through analysing research articles and the current state of the urban renewal projects in Taipei, this study first intends to identify the possible variables that might affect the equity share distribution. Then using regression analysis based on the selected variables and collections of empirical data, this study explores and derives variables of significant impacts on the equity share distribution between developers and landowners in jointly developed urban renewal projects. This research has screened 14 independent variables that might have impact the equity share distribution. Results of regression analysis identify 8 significant factors, including land area per owner, government assesed land value per floor area, average floor area ratio, road width, square of road width, floor area incentive for urban renewal, and surrounding area housing value. Most of the variables have positive relationships with the landowners’ equity except for the square of road width. Macroeconomic variables such as last month’s prime interest rate and M2 growth rate in the previous quarter are found to have significant impact as well. Of which, prime interest rate is found to have negative relationship with landowners’ equity, and M2 growth rate is found to have positive relationship. Based on this empirical study, the result shows that increasing urban renewal floor area incentives indeed enhances landowners’ equity rights in a jointly developed urban renewal project. Thus, government should adjust appropriately each of the floor area incentives and their maximum allowed limits, giving the original residents a better living environment and a slightly larger living space from the redeveloped project. Furthermore, to increase the willingness of the original residents’ participation in urban renewal projects, the government could guarantee the retention of their floor area in the redeveloped projects to be the same as the floor area before urban renewal. The government should continue to promote its urban renewal policy. Proper architecture planning and design will improve the city’s appearance and the environment, as well as enhancing public safety and living standards - through which the government will not only achieve its policy objectives, but also create a win-win situation between the developers, landowners, and the government itself.

我國早期發展之都市地區，隨時間經歷，無可避免地產生各種都市問題，因而有實施都市更新之必要。於現行法制下，除由政府主辦都市更新外，私人亦得自行實施都市更新，且一般認為政府應幫助私人進行都市更新，原因在於若無政府公權力介入，強迫相關權利人參與，將導致更新時程嚴重拖延，都市更新條例25條之1即明定得由實施者申請徵收少數不願參與都市更新者之土地或合法建築物。然而，政府公權力介入之程度與時機為何，亦應審慎考量。 由私人興辦都市更新事業，或許除了「私益」外，亦產生「公共利益」，惟此「公共利益」是否大至足以剝奪私人所有權之「私益」，則有待商榷。因而，政府有無權力為了辦理都市更新，以強制手段要求私人參與，甚至徵收不願參與更新者之財產，不無疑問。申言之，主要之問題在於都市更新是否具備足夠之公共利益，而具有剝奪私有財產之正當性；亦即運用徵收方式為辦理都市更新之私人實施者取得其無法以協議方式取得同意之土地，手段(徵收)是否適當，且目的(都市更新)有足以剝奪私人土地之正當性，有釐清及解決之必要。為探討此問題，本文由實施都市更新歷史悠久之美國加以取材，欲透過美國相關法制之研究，找出國內值得學習與借鏡之處。 本文第二章主要針對我國與美國關於都市更新及土地徵收法制之相關法制加以探討，並歸納我國與美國採徵收手段辦理都市更新時之相關規定。 研究發現我國與美國除更新、徵收程序之差異外，對於得以發動徵收之要件，我國係以「公共利益」稱之，美國則以「公共使用」加以規範，而判斷得否發動徵收之機構，於我國為內政部土地徵收審議委員會，美國則係由司法機關進行判斷。是故，第三章接著介紹美國採徵收手段之都市更新相關裁判概況與主要爭議問題點，並於第二至六節分別探討採徵收手段之都市更新相關判決之主要案例，最後於第七節將二至六節各判決案例中美國法院對於公共使用之判斷標準加以綜合分析。 第四章則對於我國以徵收方式實施都市更新之規範加以檢討，接著以第三章美國相關判決對公共利益之判斷基準為視點，探討我國之採徵收手段實施更新制度之適當性，以及得以徵收實施更新之情形為何。最後，第五章針對我國現行以徵收作為都市更新手段之規範提出改進方向，以提供都市更新條例及土地徵收條例修法之參考。

合建契約在我國不動產市場當中，一直占有相當重要的地位。尤其當地主想要在自己所有的土地上擁有房屋，或者擬將舊屋更新時，合建契約就扮演重要的角色。透過合建契約，地主得節省自行建築房屋所必須支出之資金，即可取得房屋所有權；而建商無須支出取得建築土地之龐大資金，避免資金積壓，即可於地主提供之土地上興建房屋。雙方再依據契約所定比例，分配房屋及土地。實務上常見的合建契約類型有很多種，然而大致上可以地主是否以取得房屋所有權為目的為區分標準，如果地主只是提供土地與建商共同經營事業，而於房屋興建完成之後依約定比例分配獲利，並不實際分配房屋，此種合建契約多以「合夥契約」之方式為之，於實務上較少發生爭執，本文即不以此為討論重點。而另一類的合建契約，即地主以取得房屋所有權為其目的，提供土地與建商合建，並且實際獲得分配房屋。此種合建契約之契約類型，以及當事人的權利義務內容、契約條款，在實務上衍生的糾紛甚多，然而較為深入且有體系的的討論卻為數甚少，本論文即以此種合建契約為重心，探討合建契約之功能、契約類型、合建房屋原始所有權人之認定標準，並且建構當事人的權利義務體系、檢視契約條款內容。 在討論合建契約類型與條款內容時，本文將一併探討合建契約與消費者保護法之間的關係。因為在本文討論的合建契約當中，地主以取得房屋所有權為其主要目的，是否得將其視為消費者保護法上所指之消費者，而認合建契約之法律關係屬於消費關係，因此當建商以合建之定型化契約與地主締約時，得以適用消費保護法，採取較為有利於地主之解釋。除此之外，關於合建契約特殊的保證金制度，本文將以實務上的判決為例，討論保證金擔保之內容與目的，以及保證金返還義務與瑕疵擔保之瑕疵修補義務之間，是否得為同時履行抗辯的相關問題。 與合建契約相關另一項特殊的問題，則在於當地主將合建土地所有權移轉予第三人時，建商或者是買受房屋之人，對於土地買受人是否仍然有權繼續使用合建土地，或者成為無權占有，而將遭受拆屋還地、侵權行為損害賠償以及不當得利返還之訴訟。實務上的見解可明顯區分為兩種，一種見解認為合建契約為債權契約，僅具有相對性，因此當合建土地所有權人變異時，新所有權人當然不受合建契約之拘束，建商或房屋買受人即無法主張依據合建契約使用合建土地，其占有自屬無權。另一種見解則認為，合建土地買受人應受合建契約之拘束，因此建商或房屋買受人屬於有權占有，或者認為合建土地買受人權利之行使應受限制，藉此避免拆屋還地等重大影響社會經濟的結果。本文即從這兩個方向，探究其法律上的依據與各種可能的解釋方案，希望能夠達到保障社會上重大經濟利益的目標，避免浪費已投入的大量資源。 關鍵詞：建商 地主 合建契約 權利濫用 消費者保護 定型化契約 債之相對性 誠實信用原則 買賣不破租賃

本文以研究採「協議合建」方式進行都市更新之初衷，試圖從本土傳統合建制度之演進歷程為本，復以引進日本都市再開發法中權利變換制度而制定之我國都市更新條例，根據其立法主軸之「權利變換」制度為綱，經由比較分析與歸納，嘗試建置出我國都市更新條例中「協議合建」應有之法制規範及應注意事項。 本於協議合建方式下進行都市更新，在斟酌當事人真意及都市更新之目的下，本文將所簽訂之合建契約定性為「承攬與互易之混合契約」，作為法律關係分析之依據。文中，並對權利變換之多階段行政程序，詳加論述與研究，可做為瞭解都市更新條例立法主軸之認識與發現爭議之所在。 針對協議合建具有全體權利人同意之最重要特徵，本文引據公寓大廈管理條例中關於重建之規範，與新北市率全國之冠，於民國102年所推出之「簡易都更」政策加以研究比較，從而得以回饋至協議合建，更加認清其本質上具有之特質。 最後本文強調，協議合建具有濃厚的私法自治特徵，本身只是一個都市更新可據以採用的可行方式，並無法直接對其做出評價；而是都市更新條例中之立法制度，允許私人基於較偏私益之目的下，於劃定更新地區外自行劃設更新單元申請實施更新事業，從而造就協議合建雙面刃之性格。是以，在規範協議合建時，當制度面向不同時，可能導致效果扭轉之認知，這是我國協議合建制度所面臨之最大挑戰。 結論中，為確立協議合建於都更條例中應有之定位，將本質上屬重要之事項，以修法建議加以確立。惟政策立法論非在本文主題所強調之列，其他影響協議合建之法條規範，當可從法解釋論與司法救濟上尋求解決之道。 / This thesis is based on the concept of traditional joint construction in Taiwan and "the rights transformation" which is the main idea of Urban Renewal Act in Taiwan transplanted from Urban Redevelopment Act in Japan to study on the "joint construction agreement" in Urban Renewal Act in Taiwan. By comparison and generalization, try to find the instructions for legislation of "joint construction agreement" in Urban Renewal Act in Taiwan. Based on the urban renewal using the method of joint construction agreement, the intent of the parties and the purpose of urban renewal, the contracts of joint construction mentioned in the thesis are identified as the mixed contract of exchanging and contracting to analyze the legal relationships. Besides, discussing the multi-leveled administrative procedure of rights transformation could help us find the issue of Urban Renewal Act. By researching on the regulation of reconstruction in Condominium Administration Act Building Administration Division and the policy of "Simple Urban Renewal" that New Taipei City government has promoted since 2013, we could clarify the character of the agreement among right holders of joint construction agreement. Joint construction agreement having the character of autonomy of private law is one method to urban renewal so it is hard to value it directly. Because of the legislation of Urban Renewal Act allowing people to designate renewal unit besides the designation of the renewal area for personal interests, the joint construction agreement becomes a double-edged sword. Therefore, the challenge of joint construction in Taiwan is the effects will differ from the purposes of joint construction agreement. In conclusion, the important things of joint construction agreement should be mentioned in the legislation amendment proposals to clarify the joint construction agreement in Urban Renewal Act. However, the policy of legislation is not emphasized in the thesis. Problems of other regulations affecting the joint construction agreement could be solved by the interpretation of law and judicial relief.

2012年3月28日爆發的文林苑事件，北市府對於王家的合法獨立建物執行強制拆除，該建物無礙公共安全，且由外觀上看來並無都更之必要。王家與其支持者誓死抵抗，同意戶因原有房屋早被拆除而返家無期亦備受煎熬，預售屋的買主亦稱自己才是真正受害者，同時間政府與實施者皆堅稱一切都是「依法行事」:依照「都市更新條例」。文林苑事件引起的質疑與辯論迄今未歇，公權力之發動是否與重要公益失去連結？都更法制之設計與運作是否向建商不當傾斜？民眾之權利救濟於實體或程序上是否有不當障礙？ 2013年4月26日，司法院釋字第709號解釋宣告都更條例若干條款不符憲法要求之正當行政程序，相關機關應就違憲部分檢討修正。值此修法之際，正是對都更體制全面體檢的良好時機。本文將聚焦於民辦都更模式，依都更條例的多階段行政程序設計，深入檢視各階段中政府行政行為之法律性質與救濟途徑、分析造成重大爭議之條款所牽動之公法或私法關係、探究法規之實體與程序規定是否合宜、並歸納實務判決對於都更法律之適用與解釋原則，冀能提供修法之適切建議。 整體觀之，無論是採協議合建或是權利變換方式，民辦都更體制所採取的多階段行政程序，於一開始自行劃定更新單元時就與重要公益失去有效連結，而於「事業計畫」與「權利變換計畫」階段就個案之公益性與必要性亦無具體之檢驗標準。隨著程序之遞進，對於不同意者之基本權限制逐漸加深，但對不同意者權利之保護卻逐漸弱化，甚至在執行階段導致不同意者之財產權與居住自由被完全剝奪。此種法制之設計思維亦反映在實際運作上，政府傾向與實施者站在同一立場，在「大多數人之私益等於公共利益」與「加速都更」此理所當然之脈絡下，不同意者之權益經常被忽略，且被迫負擔不成比例的不良後果。 確實，就不同意者之權益保障，都更體制之設計於各階段中無論在實體與程序方面均有欠缺之處，尤其是執行階段，實施者得借用公權力之設計更讓整個都更體制朝實施者偏斜而去，致不同意者與實施者間所產生之私權關係嚴重失衡。而於行政救濟方面，法院傾向尊重審議會之判斷餘地而採寬鬆立場，故就行政行為對地主權益之侵害是否合理與正當，似易錯失再度檢驗之機會。 本文主要建議，政府劃定更新地區時，應確保民眾之程序參與並明白揭示其救濟之道；於事業計畫核定前，宜准許地主撤銷同意書；於權利變換階段，應增設同意機制，估價師之選定與委任宜讓地主參與，審議核復之救濟程序應予明文釐清；於執行階段，因強拆與強徵手段不符公益與比例原則，恐不宜適用於民辦都更案件。 總括而言，現行都更之法律體制一律以單純「國家與人民」之公法二維思維來規範都更事務，自對當事人間私益之權衡欠缺考量。尤其民辦都更主要涉及以私法為本質的私權關係，此種因循公法框架之制度設計，更無法平衡兼顧各方私益之調和。本文亦贊同，都更之實施應以公辦都更為主要之模式，俾能與上位的都市計畫產生有效的連結，並較可能基於公益之理由而發動公權力。至於民間發動之都更，因多以追逐私益為主要目的，政府之介入既無法確保權利人間利益之公平分配，又無法提供與公益之有效連結，在無都更必要性與急迫性之情形，則以回歸傳統私法自治之範疇，經全體同意為宜。 惟重要的是，無論是民辦與公辦都更，應訂定具體之公益檢驗標準，並區分都更之必要性與急迫性，以分級制度適用寬嚴不同的程序，且應於各階段設計針對個別建物公益性與必要性之評估機制。尤其，強制拆除與強制徵收都必須節制為最後手段，僅宜運用在情況最為急迫嚴重之案例。如此，始能期待各方當事人與社會大眾同享都更之果實。 / On 28 March 2012, the Taipei City Government exercised its authority to evict the homeowners and tear down the buildings, which were legally and exclusively owned by the Wang family refusing to take part in the urban renewal project. Neither did the buildings pose any existing threat to public safety, nor did it show any urgent need for urban renewal. Thus, the so-called “Wen-Lin Yuan Incident” sparked a series of confrontation: The Wang family and its supporters vowed to defend homes with their lives； the 36 households taking part in the project hoped to speed up the construction, because their houses have long been demolished by developer； the buyers of the pre-sale houses said they were also the innocent victims； meanwhile the private developer and the city government insisted that their handling in this case has been adhering to the law-The Urban Renewal Act. The debates and questions ignited in this dispute have sustained and continued till now: Does the exercise of official authority well connect with the purpose of important public interest? Are the Urban Renewal Act and the related regulations designed and used to favor developers? Is there unreasonable substantive or procedural obstacles on legal remedies for residents? On 26 April 2013, the Justices of the Constitutional Court issued J.Y. Interpretation No. 709, which declared some provisions of the Urban Renewal Act do not comply with the due process in administrative procedures required by the Constitution and the unconstitutional parts of the provisions should be reviewed and amended by the relevant authorities. It’s time to fully re-examine the current urban renewal laws. Based on the multiphase-administrative-procedural model, the Urban Renewal Act governs and facilitates the renewal projects initiated by both private and public sector. This thesis focuses solely on the issues of private-initiated renewal projects. Within each phase, by examining in detail the legal nature and remedies of government decisions or actions, analyzing how controversial statutes influencing the relationship between individuals and the government and the relationship between individuals, exploring if the substantive or procedural provisions are appropriate, and generalizing legal principles enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions, hope this thesis can make meaningful suggestions for the amendment of the law. From an overall perspective, no matter what the method taken- “Rights Transformation” or “Joint Construction Agreement”, starting from the early phase of “business summary”, in which the law allows property owners to designate the renewal units by themselves, the legal system on the private-initiated urban renewal causes great risk of losing effective connection to an important public-interest purpose. Moreover, in the “business plan” and “rights- transformation plan” phases, the law lacks clear standards or criteria to check if the specific case meets the proportionality principle and whether the public interest is best served. As each phase involves different government decisions, the restrictions on the property right of dissenting owners grow bigger, yet the mechanism for their rights protection becomes weaker, eventually in the final “execution” phase, the dissenting owners could be completely deprived of their property right and freedom of residence. When it comes to the practical application, following this legal structure’s line of reasoning, the administrative agency tends to act in concert with implementer (mostly private developer), both parties interpret public interest as the sum of most private interests and aim at speeding up the whole process, so that the dissenting property owners’ rights are usually overlooked and the dissents are forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of the negative effects. Actually, for the property owners refusing to join the project, the law fails to provide proper protection no matter substantively or procedurally. Especially in the “execution” phase, the implementers are entitled to request the government to demolish or expropriate the property. Thus, through the indirect transfer of public power to the implementer, the law impairs the supposed-to-be-fair balance between the rights of the property owners and the rights of the implementer. On the other hand, in administrative judicial proceedings, given that administrative courts often defer to the discretion of expert committee set up by administrative agency for the review of renewal projects, it is unsurprising that the courts tend to adopt administrative agency’s litigation interpretation. Thus, when property owners’ fundamental constitutional rights are infringed, the administrative action may not be under adequate scrutiny by courts. This thesis proposes that: in the first phase when designating the renewal area, the administrative agency should ensure an open and transparent public participation, and after decision made, especially for those most affected in the renewal area, including property owners and residents, the legal remedy should be clearly specified in the law； before the “business plan” approved and announced by administrative agency, property owners should be allowed to withdraw their letter of consent unconditionally； in “rights- transformation plan” phase, the consent mechanism should be added into the process, property owners should be entitled to participate in selecting and entrusting real estate appraisers, the special “disagreement inspection procedure” should be well-clarified and defined in law； in the last “execution” phase, the use of forced demolition or expropriation as a legal instrument to take private property for private-initiated renewal projects, cannot be justified under the principle of proportionality and public interest. Thus, the related unconstitutional regulations need to be modified. In short, the current urban renewal laws are designed under the framework of governing the relationships between government and individuals. As for the relationship between individuals, especially in the now dominating private-initiated mode, this original design is inherently flawed to balance the diverse and competing interests among different private parties. In essence, all urban renewal projects should conform to the overall urban plan adopted and formulated by the city government. Besides, the use of authority and power can be legitimate only when implementing public purpose and public benefits. Given that the government-initiated mode is more likely to be consistent with the comprehensive urban plan and be aligned with public interest, this thesis suggests that government take the responsibility to lead and initiate most urban renewal projects. As for the private-initiated mode, which mostly driven by short-term private profits, the current government intervention can neither ensure equitable distribution of benefit among stakeholders, nor can it provide a significant link to public interest, thus, better leave it to the traditional realm of private law, that is, if there is no necessity or urgency, reconstruction shall require the consent of all property owners. If the public and private modes are to be maintained and co-exist in the urban renewal system, both laws should contain concrete guidelines and standards on factors that should be taken into account in determining if the designation of renewal areas or units is in pursuit of important public interest. Besides, a priority rating system should be established based on the degree of need and urgency to categorize the different procedural implementation, aiming to ensure a direct correlation between the degree of government intervention and the degree of need and urgency. Furthermore, an assessment tool of the necessity and proportionality is required to be built in each phase, thus to help administrative agency decide whether in the particular case, the public interest outweighs the interests adversely affected. In all cases, the use of eminent domain and forced demolition should be reserved as the last resort for the most serious conditions. Hopefully, by the aforementioned amendments, the promised fruits of urban renewal can be available not only to the parties involved but also to the general public.