臺灣從日據時期開始，即有許多土地一直沒有辦理繼承登記，而其未為繼承登記者，往往具有其難為登記之複雜背景，並非故意不為登記。因數量龐大，與日劇增，嚴重地影響地籍、稅籍之正確與政府之施政，為求解決，政府爰於六十四年間以增訂土地法第七十三條之一規定逾期未辦繼承登記者代管九年，期滿仍未辦理繼承登記，逕為收歸國有的方法，嘗試解決問題，惟因法條所定逕為收歸國有之規定，與立法所欲達到之促請繼承人儘速申辦繼承登記、整理地籍及促進土地利用之目的相較，似有違反憲法第二十三條「所必要」之「比例原則」之疑義。在八十九年土地法再度修法時，乃將其備受爭議之規定修改為列冊管理十五年，期滿仍未辦理繼承登記者，即移請國有財產局辦理公開標售。 未辦繼承登記之土地數量，在土地法八十九年修訂後，未見有減少之跡象，可知民眾並不會因為土地法明文規定，將移請財政部國有財產局辦理標售等因素考量，而辦理繼承登記，實際上如果無法辦理繼承登記之原因或問題無法獲得根本解決，則即使政府立法強制規定，亦無法因此促使民眾申辦繼承登記。即法條之修正並無法解決實質之問題，其問題之本質仍在。 本文從繼承與繼承登記相關文獻，歸納分析繼承之法律關係，探討分析繼承理論之思想發展，並探討繼承制度之存廢，以及逾期未辦繼承登記產生之背景與實務處理未辦繼承登記不動產所遭遇之困難後，藉其推導整理獲致下列數項結論： 一、主張繼承仍應存在，為減少繼承造成之不平等，可透過課稅之方式，而不宜剝奪繼承人之財產權。 二、國家應從協助及獎勵繼承人辦理繼承登記之面向著手，而不是將逾期未辦繼承登記之不動產以消極地列管十五年後即移請國有財產局辦理標售之方法來解決。 三、對解決久懸之逾期未辦繼承登記不動產所造成之地籍失實等問題絲毫沒有幫助。 / From the Taiwan was occupied by Japan, there are a lot of land unregistered for succession. The reason of land unregistered for succession is that they have difficult factors of registered. They didn’t unregistered intentionally. Because of much land unregistered for succession, and they are increasing year by year. This situation is seriously that makes the inaccuracy datas of land and tax. For solved this problem, the Government draw up NO.73-1 of “THE LAND OF LAW” in 1975. The stipulation is land unregistered for succession will be managed about 9 years, if behind time that will be force to register the nation land. But this stipulation makes people query that it breaches the proportion principle of NO.23 of THE CONSTITUTION. In 2000, the Government redraws up NO.73-1 of “THE LAND OF LAW”. The stipulation is land unregistered for succession will be managed about 15 years, if behind time that will be sell by tender. The amount of land unregistered for succession didn’t decrease after 2000. We know that if the factor of registered for succession couldn’t be solved, even though the government to legislate the article to force the heir apparent to register.

於土地標售成交案例中，市場上不乏以高溢價率標得土地之案例。惟究竟土地投標人何以願意支付高出底價甚多之金額取得土地?何以部份土地溢價率相對較高，其他土地溢價率相對較低?則未能從過去之單一文獻探究。 本文透過彙整過去關於土地標售溢價率之文獻，歸納拍賣理論共同價值觀點、私人價值觀點、特徵價格理論觀點、實質選擇權理論觀點，建立土地標售溢價率之分析架構。此外，本文以新莊副都心為實證分析標的，說明該分析架構之操作方式。其中，透過列聯表分析，卡方獨立性檢定、相關係數及其檢定，驗證新莊副都心土地標售溢價率高低之成因能透過前述四大觀點切入，且影響溢價率可再歸納為受人的因素、地的特質影響。至於該實證分析衍生之政策意涵有二。第一，若以財政角度切入，政府得將待標售抵費地劃分為面積較小之土地，藉以降低進入門檻；此外，政府亦能透過加強宣傳或採第二價格密封拍賣制增加競標人數，以創造高溢價率、達到增加財政收入之目的。第二，以社會責任角度切入，政府應擬定及檢視相關政策是否能減少因得標後短期轉售土地所創造之高溢價率，以降低市場上之投機情形。 / Why do the land auction participants bid a land at a premium? While reviewing the paper about the land auctions, none of the papers can describe the high premium situation in land auction completely. This thesis constructs a framework of price premium analysis in land auctions and includes the views of auction theory, hedonic model theory and real option theory. Besides, this research presents how to analyze the price premium in land auctions with an empirical study. Using the contingency table, Pearson's chi-squared test of independence and calculating the correlation coefficient with 52 land auction data in Xinzhuang Fuduxin, there are two findings. First, we can use the points of the analyzed framework to describe the price premium. Second, the reason of the price premium can be summarizes as the factors of people and land characters. According the empirical result, there are some policy implications. First, due to the view of enhancing revenue, the government can create high premiums by dividing the land into small areas to lower the entry barrier to participate the auction. Besides, the government can have more advertisements or sell the land through second price sealed bid auctions to increase the number of the competitors. Second, due to the view of responsibility, the government should restrain the phenomenon of selling the land in the short term.

金融機構不良資產的處理方式，一般可區分為，拍賣健全金融機構的不良資產和標售問題金融機構兩方面。前者通常透過法拍、金拍、銀拍或出售予AMC來處置之；後者的處理結果影響無遠弗界，依標售標的不同，又細分為Good Bank、Bad Bank、不動產、持有股份等，通常屬於第一價位秘密競標模型、採取「Good Bank/Bad Bank」分開標售模式、兼具資格標與價格標的特殊重複拍賣模式、擁有底價不一定公告等特性。因此，我們分別透過文獻整理及模型推導，歸納並推論不良資產處理機制設計之原因。結果發現，台灣金融機構不良資產處理機制之設計，一方面是為避免競標勾結的情況，希望藉此來提高拍賣者的收益；另一方面則是為保障債權人及債務人雙方的權宜之計，因為對銀行或中央存保公司而言，儘管減價重複拍賣非最佳策略，但繼續持有不良資產也是毫無價值可言的方式，故折衷採取現階段之問題金融機構標售機制，以儘速處置不良資產。

地方政府透過引進民間投資公共建設，帶動了區域經濟發展、減少政府財務支出及增加就業機會，更開啟了地方政府與國有財產局合作的機制。本研究以新北市政府目前已完成簽約或辦理中的個案進行歸納分析，從設定地上權、租賃與標售等招商模式中，找出在不同的環境因素下，應選擇何種模式為最適。而辦理招商前置作業應考量基本環境、市場可行性、法律可行性、財務可行性等分析結果。 研究發現，政府部門開放的態度、設置專責的單位、長官的支持、有效的行政效率及良好的內容規劃，為招商案主要關鍵成功因素。不同的招商模式各有其考量因素，設定地上權模式主要考量因素為：1.財務設算後回收期間較長2.計畫的回收於設定地上權期間內達成，財務設算可行3.產業類型以服務業、商業設施為主。租賃模式主要考量因素為：1.產業特性較無法評量其營收的狀況2.財務分析不可行3.產業類型以工業使用為主。標售模式主要以土地開發後取得之土地為主。 / By introducing private investment in public construction, local governments could lead regional economic development, reduce the government’s financial expenditures, increasing employment opportunities, as well as create a cooperative mechanism between local governments and National Property Administration. The study summarized and analyzed some bidding cases which have completed contract signing or still under process in the New Taipei City Government, trying to find the most suitable trade promotion model, under different environmental factors, from like superficies creation, lease, tender and etc. In preparing the start-up work of trade promotion, the analysis of basic environment and feasibility in market, law and finance should be considered. The study finds that there are several key factors leading trade promotion projects successful such as open attitude, set of specialized unit, support from the executive, high efficiency and good project planning of and in governmental departments. Models will be designed under different considerations. When choosing the model of superficies creation, it mainly considers longer payback year after financial evaluation, which could possibly be accessible if the planed payback could be achieved during its creation period, and it mainly categorized in the service industry and commercial facilities. If the industry’s characteristics the kind less able to evaluate its revenue condition; financial analysis is unfeasible and is chiefly for industry use, the leasing model will be considered. If the land is expected to be acquisitive after land development, the tender one is the concern.

戰後台灣經濟快速的發展，主要得力於民營製造業的高速成長。來台接收的官員陳儀，延續日治時期的專賣政策，將煙、酒、樟腦、度量衡與火柴繼續專賣。儘管在中國已廢除專賣制度，但在台灣仍舊繼續實行，限縮民營製造業發展的空間。 　　1945年10月全台民營製造業家數有10,300家，至1946年底家數減少39.6％，台灣人歷經二二八事件的抗暴，中國國民黨政府撤換陳儀，至1947年底家數成長45.6％，是民營製造業發展最黑暗的時期。大量日資企業被收編成官營事業，官股中的台股股權不是遭到漠視，不然就是遭到國家機構的侵權；台日合資企業則被清算標售，以排除台灣人在製造業的發展，陳儀當局則將標售日產美其名為扶植民營企業的發展；新設立的大公企業則受到當局百般的刁難與阻撓，標售的日資企業相當有限，發展情況則因經營者而各有差異。 　　日本人在台灣苦心殖民經營50年，其所創造的財富則難以算計，遣返時每人只換得若干小行李，身上只准攜帶1千元的現金歸向日本，其在台領取的退職慰勞金、臨時賞與金與解散津貼無法攜回日本，巨額的財富則轉移到台灣人手中，不然就是在台灣社會消費掉。陳儀當局下令回存千圓券禁止流通一年，實則凍結台灣人的流動資產。回存銀行變成抵押品，當局規定給付年息2％，借款則需支付年息2.5％，從中剝削台灣人的財富。解凍後因通貨膨脹價值已減少一半，勤樸的台灣人將此資金投資創業，表現成為1947年製造業家數的突然增加。 　　二二八事件後，中國國民黨當局逐漸改善對台灣的經濟政策，但中國國共內戰爆發，不當的貨幣與匯率政策，使民營製造業的經營環境遭致摧毀，工廠不是倒閉、半停工，不然就是易手。直到幣制改革，切斷台灣與中國的匯兌關係，中斷台灣的中國的貿易依賴關係，擴增對日本與美國的貿易關係，民營製造業才獲得重生的契機。官業則只願將經營不善的企業標售民營，民間申請經營的官業則因實施土地改革而被迫中止。官方依法不應該經營製糖的輕工業，但卻收編成官營事業；理應經營煉鐵的重工業，但反而要標售與出租給民間經營。台灣糖業公司的民股呈請撥一砂糖廠民營，財經官僚則以「不論可開工者，或不能開工者，一律不能出讓」，國民黨的官營政策是否代表公共利益，則不禁令人感到懷疑！ 　　中國國民黨當局實行的民營製造業政策，幾乎都是在應付當時的問題，並沒有一套有計畫的經濟政策。當局實施的補助與貸款政策、收購工礦業產品與工業配合供應軍事需求的政策，都是些短期性與臨時性的政策，實際發揮的功效有限。相反的，美援對穩定台灣通貨膨脹貢獻良多，只是外來統治的政權並未善盡將資源做合理分配，限制使用本地花生、芝麻等植物性的榨油業設廠，嚴重扭曲榨油業的發展。美援軍事資源，亦因當局未能有效推行軍工政策，使建設廳推行的民營工業配合軍需小組毫無成效可言，徒使民營業者大失所望。 　　美援貸款民營製造業，部份亦是四年經濟計畫的一部份。一般工業貸款又分中型民營工業貸款與小型民營工業貸款。工業計畫貸款從1951年開始，小型民營工業貸款則從1954年開始，中型民營工業貸款則從1960年才開始。綜合民營工業計畫與小型民營工業貸款觀察，就貸款家數分析，平均每年受貸家數約76.9家，全國民營製造業只有將近1％左右的工廠得到美援的貸款。貸款以1955年的1億8千餘萬最多，1953年約1千萬最少。美援貸款除1952年由新竹玻璃一家大型企業獨佔該業全部及較多的貸款外，其餘各大小型製造業幾乎都是或多或少得到部分貸款，獲貸企業並未呈現出「幾乎完全吸收該產業的美援貸款」的現象。1954年以前可說是由少數業別，尤其是紡織業與非金屬製造業獲得較多的貸款；1954年以後各業則是獲得多寡不一的貸款，美援貸款民營製造業並未集中於某一產業類別。 　　當局因土地改革而開放台灣水泥、台灣紙業、台灣工礦與台灣農林四間公司民營。1953年經濟部重估四間公司的資產，將資本額提高7-10倍；股票若根據1952年的市價重估，水泥、紙業、工礦與農林分別被高估4.32、3.33、3.7與3倍。而這被高估的佔數，也約略接近於1954年3月發行至當年6月，其盤價僅維持在面額的20％至30％之間。當局將四間公司股票做為補償地價，實際上並非有意要扶植民營企業的發展，故民營化後的產值並未增加。當局從中剝削小地主的利益，以做為補償統治機關財政赤字的一種手段。

台灣祭祀公業為民間祭祀團體係特殊民間傳統習慣所形成，其特殊性為「共有」型態，以祭祀祖先為目的所設立之獨立財產。其設置，淵源於中國大陸南宋「祭田」經先民為維護人民本身之生存之安全，勢必組織團體，藉以互助及自衛，依賴宗族組織逐漸形成台灣之特殊制度。本文研究是以祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條「代為標售」政府以公權力介入剝奪民間之祭祀公業財產，限定三年內申報清理，逾期申報由直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售，此種化私產為公產(囑託登記為國有)剝奪人民財產權是否有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則應予探討。又祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項規定應以「祭祀公業法人為新設立之特殊性質法人，而非依民法成立社團法人或財團法人為新設立。」立法要求祭祀公業成立「祭祀公業法人」為權利義務主體具有人格化，管理重於清理，應予探討研究。 「祭祀公業」以頒布祭祀公業條例予以清理，在民政機關(單位)應予嚴格審查核發派下全員證明書，以利祭祀公業登記為「祭祀公業法人」或「個別所有」、「持分共有」或「均分」所有，以利管理。因此對祭祀公業之派下員清理，宜予慎重探討。其頒指出祭祀公業條例實施後問題所在，能對過去到現在清理祭祀公業之政策困難「盲點」於處理原則及法令修定時予以參考。 本論文共分五章其主要內容說明如下： 第一章 緒論：說明研究動機與目的，研究方法與範圍，研究內容與流程。第二章 祭祀公業法性質定為之探討：祭祀公業的涵義，就有關文獻，藉著祭祀公業定義、分類、沿革及法律本質之定位問題予論述，日治時期之定位及分析祭祀公業法律性質之定位與釐清學說與實務不同見解，針對祭祀公業法人之特殊性，具有「人格」為權利義務主體，期望祭祀公業條例實施後，有利於政府管理祭祀公業。 第三章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施前土地清理之探討：論述台灣光復初期地籍失實之原因，祭祀公業法制承接之改變，使法律本質定位在「習慣上法人」國民政府播遷來台影響，秉持大陸之見解認定祭祀公業為「公同共有」之性質，以致清理發生困難，政府放任祭祀公業不立法保護，法令闕如，以致祭祀公業纏訟爭財，政府對祭祀公業土地清理法令何在？雖然內政部於七十年四月三日頒布「祭祀公業土地清理要點」二十六點，積極清理，以便管理，隨後台灣省政府頒布「台灣省祭祀公業土地清理辦法」一十九條，因法律位階為法令，又缺少公權力，以致效果不彰，推原其故，詳述問題所在，以訂立新法為法律，而有土地清理相關規定問題，提出祭祀公業管理條例草案及地籍清理條例草案為立法解決祭祀公業土地清理問題。 第四章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施後土地清理之探討：祭祀公業條例公佈實施前所發生問題是否解決？困難問題未能解決，政府為解決立法授權行政主管機關，以公共利益為考慮，予以代為標售為徹底解決主體不明，權屬不清，無法藉司法途徑解決之祭祀公業，如此見解是否剝奪民間習慣形成之祭祀公業，以公益剝奪私益，有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條人民財產權之保障，闡述祭祀公業法人登記之分析，祭祀公業第五十九條第一項所規定新設立祭祀公業已民法規定社團法人或財團法人為之。闡述祭祀公業法人為特別性質之法人，為祭祀公業條例公佈實施之特色，今新設立祭祀公業應以登記為祭祀公業法人為之，為正確；對於祭祀公業土地清理，應以民政機關核發派下全員證明書為地政機關登記之憑證，故祭祀公業在申請民政機關核發派下全員證明書審核時與以對其派下員清理。 第五章 結論與建議，一、結論：(一)祭祀公業派下員之清理，如何認定派下權，以杜絕糾紛，授權民政機關核發派下全員證明書協助祭祀公業派下權責任重大。期望未來修法時，在實體對派下權繼承取得或喪失及範圍作明確之規範。(二)祭祀公業法人登記之分析，將祭祀公業法人登記規範二十四項，予以歸納分析其程序及應附文件。於清理完畢，予以管理。祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項新設立祭祀公業，依民法規定成立社團法人或財團法人。祭祀公業條例忽略法人化，特別規定特殊性質法人為權利義務主體，有別於社團法人或財團法人。因此本研究認為新設立祭祀公業應以成立登記祭祀公業法人為之，符合特殊性質法人說之立論。(三)逾期未申報清理，代為標售分析，政府(行政主管機關)為全面清理祭祀公業，竟然立法祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條規定，將土地二次標售，未完成標售者，囑託地政機關登記為「國有」，增加政府國有土地之資源。又於代為標售之價金及登記為國有之土地價金，期限十年，祭祀公業逾期未申請發給土地價金結算如有賸餘歸入「國庫」。此種土地政策公益大於私益，嚴重剝奪祭祀公業之財產，以公權力介入代為標售違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則及比例原則之違憲行為，剝奪人民之財產權，詳盡論述。二、建議：祭祀公業條例施行後，實務上之運作，對祭祀公業申報清理作業，仍有處分實務與法令盲點存在，建議將來為修法之參考：(一)祭祀公業條例第五條之修正為「一、……其繼承人應與該公業設立人或派下同姓且有共同分擔祭祀者，使符列為派下員。」(二)祭祀公業條例第五十條第一項：「……應於三年內依下列方式之一處理其土地及建物」之「之一」兩字應予刪除。(三)祭祀公業條例第五十條第三項建議修正。(四)祭祀公業條例第五十一條，直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售之規定，有違背憲法第十五條及第二十五條對財產權保障及比例原則，於修法時建議刪除或修改條文。(五)祭祀公業條例第十二條欠缺移請直轄市、縣(市)政府調處機制，建議修法時予以增加，以利清理工作之運作。 / Abstract Worship guilds in Taiwan are civil worship associations formed due to special tradition and custom. Its unique characteristic is the “co-ownership” of the independent properties set up for worshiping ancestors. It originated from the “sacrificial field” in the Southern Song Dynasty. Due to the need of defending their safety and survival, ancient people organized themselves to help each other and ensure self-defense. Clan organizations have been evolved and developed into a system unique to Taiwan. This research discusses whether the government’s conversion of private properties into state-owned properties (inform the registration of properties as state-owned) and deprivation of people’s right to property are in violation of Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution, that is, the government deprives properties owned by civil worship guilds by exercising its public powers to require them to declare and clear their properties for ancestor worship within three years, and in the event that a worship guild fails to make the required declaration, the municipal city, county (city) government will publicly auction the properties in question on behalf of the worship guild according to Articles 51 and 54 as well as the “Public auction on behalf of worship guild “ stipulated in Article 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. In addition, Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds stipulates that “a worship guild constituted as a juristic person is a new form of juristic person with unique characteristics which differs from an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code.” The legislation requires a worship guild to form a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person” which has legal personality capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities. The fact that management takes precedence over clearance should be discussed and researched. The promulgation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds is to regulate “worship guilds.” Civil affairs authorities strictly review and issue the full membership (including the founding members and, if any, their successors) certificate of a worship guild to allow it being registered as a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person”, “individual ownership”, “co-ownership of respective shares” or “co-ownership of equal shares” for the purpose of management. As a result, it is important to undertake sensible discussions on the listing of worship guilds’ membership. This research is intended to point out problems arising from the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the policy “blind spots” associated with the regulation of worship guilds from the very beginning until now which are subsequently served as references for the principles of handling and future amendment to the applicable laws and regulations. This research is divided into five chapters and their key contents are listed below: Chapter one is the introduction which explains the research motive and objective, research methods and scope as well as research contents and procedures. Chapter Two discusses the positioning of worship guilds’ legal nature. In terms of the context of worship guilds, the definition, categorization, history and the positioning of the legal nature of worship guilds are expounded according to relevant literatures. Their positioning in the era under the Japanese colonial rule is also explored. The legal nature of worship guilds is analyzed and the clarification of the different interpretations between academic theories and practical experiences is made. Regarding the uniqueness of worship guilds as juristic persons, their acquisition of “personality” capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect will hopefully facilitate the government’s management of worship guilds. Chapter Three concentrates on land clearance before the promulgation and implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds which discusses the reasons behind the incorrect cadasters immediately after the end of the Japanese occupation and the change of the legal system governing worship guilds. Worship guilds which had originally been regarded as “customary juristic persons” in their legal nature were deemed as “co-ownership in common” under the Mainland concept by the Nationalist government after its retreat to Taiwan. This led to great difficulties to regulate. The government’s failure to enact applicable laws to protect the interest of worship guilds created a legislative vacuum, causing numerous litigations for properties by worship guilds. Where the land clearance legislations as far as worship guilds are concerned? Although the Ministry of the Interior promulgated the “Arrangement Regulations for Worship Assets” with 26 regulations on April 3, 1981 to actively undertake clearance to facilitate management, followed by the “Regulations Governing Land Clearance by Worship Guilds of Taiwan Province” composed of 19 articles which were promulgated by the Taiwan Provincial Government, these points and regulations were inferior in their legal status and lacked enforcement powers, leading to ineffective and unsatisfactory results. The causes for their failure and problems needed to be addressed by the enactment of a new legislation. Accordingly, drafts of both the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the Statutes Governing Cadaster Clearance were proposed to resolve issues concerning land clearance by worship guilds. Chapter Four discusses land clearance after the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. Attentions are drawn to whether the problems which had occurred before the effectiveness of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds are resolved? In order to deal with the un-resolved problems, the government has enacted the law to authorize the competent authority, in consideration of public interest, to undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds aimed at completely resolving issues surrounding ownership and rights or cases of worship guilds which cannot be resolved by the judicial system. Whether this idea exploits worship guilds which were formed by way of civil custom, amounts to the deprivation of private interest by public interest, and violates the constitutional guarantee of people’s rights to property as per Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution requires further discussions. The registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons is analyzed as a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code under Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is also emphasized that worship guilds constituted as juristic persons are unique juristic persons which is a feature of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is a correct policy to require any newly established worship guild to be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person. With respect of land clearance by worship guilds, civil affairs authorities should issue full membership certificates as a reference for land registration authorities to undertake land registration. Therefore, worship guilds can ascertain their full membership when applying to civil affairs authorities for membership certificates. Chapter Five is conclusions and suggestions. I. Conclusions: (1) Regarding the ascertaining of membership of worship guilds, it is important to ascertain the right of the membership to prevent future disputes. Civil affair authorities’ power to issue full membership certificates bears great responsibilities in assisting the establishment of the right of the membership of worship guilds. It is hoped that future amendment will be made to the acquisition by succession, loss and scope of the right of the membership. (2) In respect of the analysis of the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons, the procedures and attached documents required by the 24 regulations governing the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons should be analyzed. After the analysis is done, the procedures and attached documents should be managed accordingly. According to Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person in accordance with the Civil Code. The Statutes Governing Worship Guilds ignores legal personalization and specially provides that worship guilds are a special form of juristic persons which are different from associations or foundations constituted as juristic persons. Due to this, this research concludes that a newly established worship guild should be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person in order to fit in its unique legal personality. (3) The failure to declare and clear worship properties leads to the government’s public auctions on behalf of worship guilds. In order to fully regulate worship guilds, the government (the competent authority) has nevertheless enacted Articles 51, 54 and 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds to publicly auction the lands for the second time. The competent authority then informed the land registration authority to register those lands which had not been successfully sold in auctions as “state-owned” properties to increase the state-owned land resources. Moreover, the limitation period for applying for the auction price and the land value of registered state-owned land is ten years, and if no attempt has been made to make the application for the land price within the statutory limitation, the remaining amount after final calculation will be given to the “Treasury.” This type of land policy accords more emphasis on public interest than private interest, seriously depriving properties owned by worship guilds. To publicly auction properties on behalf of worship guilds by exercising the public powers violates the principle of necessity as set out in Article 15 of the Constitution and the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 23 of the Constitution. This is deprivation of people’s right to property which is detailed in this research. II. Suggestions: there are still regulatory blind spots in practice with respect to the declaration and clearance procedures of worship guilds after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect. The following suggestions are made as references for future amendment to the Statutes: (1) Suggested amendment to Article 5 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, “1. … the successor shall be listed as a member of the worship guild only if he or she shares the duty of ancestor worship with a founding member of the guild or a member of the same clan.” (2) Paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds provides “…shall handle the land and building as per one of the following methods within three years.” The wording “one of the following” should be deleted. (3) It is suggested that Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds should be amended. (4) The competent authority of the municipal city, county (city) government should undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds as set out in Article 51 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds violates the protection of property rights and the principle of proportionality guaranteed by Articles 15 and 25 of the Constitution respectively. It is suggested that the article should be deleted or amended. (5) Article 12 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds fails to include the mediation mechanism by way of transferring the case to the municipal city, county (city) government for mediation. It is suggested that such mechanism should be incorporated in order to facilitate the clearance.