財產權為憲法明定應予保障，而國家為增進公共利益得對財產權加以限制，此乃財產權之社會義務性，惟國家所採限制措施應符合必要性，並以法律明文定之，避免財產權遭受不當之侵害。時效取得制度乃國家為實現公共利益，透過立法行為重新調整所有權人及占有人間之財產權關係，其採取剝奪財產權之手段，是否具有必要性，有無違背憲法保障財產權之精神，殊值研究。又制度設計之良莠，除攸關政策目的能否實現、制度功能得否發揮外，亦決定制度存在之價值。在肯認時效取得制度之存在價值下，如何促其更合理完備，達到增進社會公共利益之目標，同時符合憲法保障人民財產權之精神，為本文所欲探討之課題。 為探究我國時效取得制度與土地所有權人之財產權保障間之關係，本文首先就時效取得制度在公益目的之追求下，是否兼顧土地所有權人之財產權保障進行探討，並以比例原則作為分析工具，檢視制度內容之合理性。其次，就實務上相關課題進行論述，藉由問題之釐清，尋求合理之解決方式，提供未來修法方向之參考，促使時效取得制度內容更臻合理完善。期使在公益目標達成下，尚能合理保障個人財產權，以減少紛爭，維持社會秩序之和諧，並符合社會公平正義。 本研究發現，為建立合理之時效取得制度，首應檢討並釐清制度追求之公益目的為何，始得決定其採行之手段及其他構成要件。當涉及人民權益之侵害時，必須以比例原則作為公益與私益之衡平標準，俾進一步確認「目的與手段間之適當性」、「採取手段之必要性」及「所實現公益與所侵害私益間之合比例性」，避免造成人民財產權之不合理侵害。目前實務上之作法，除允許已登記土地得適用時效取得地上權，與時效取得制度兼顧土地登記制度公信力之最初立法意旨不符外，餘如採取限縮時效取得所有權及地上權適用客體之作法、占有人是否符合「以行使地上權之意思為占有」要件之審核等，大都採取對土地所有權人較為有利之判斷，使土地所有權人之財產權免於不當之侵害，殊值肯定。惟應儘速檢討及修訂相關法律規定，以符法律保留原則。 關鍵詞：時效取得、財產權、地上權、比例原則

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第21508号 / 法博第225号 / 新制||法||164(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 土井 真一, 教授 毛利 透, 教授 曽我部 真裕 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM

本文之目的，是要探討兩岸人民關係條例第二十一條限制設籍台灣地區未滿十年之原大陸地區人民不得出任公務人員規定之合憲性，並擇定以平等權觀點作為切入論述的角度。全文共分為六大部分：第一部分確認大陸地區人民與設籍台灣地區未滿十年之原大陸地區人民在我國之法律地位為得享有平等服公職權之主體。第二部分確立平等權審查之基準，包括事務本質、憲法整體價值、體系正義及比例原則，是為檢證系爭條文合憲性及貫穿本文之核心價值標準。第三部分分析各國及我國公務員法制中，以忠誠度為考量來設定之審核申請出任公務員者「適任性」之法定任用條件之立法目的及法則，以找出與申請者適任公務人員與否重要相關之本質要素為何。第四部分則是分析設籍台灣地區未滿十年之原大陸地區人民之本質屬性，是否具有不適出任公務人員之重要本質要素。第五部分檢討系爭條文所採差別待遇之手段及內容，是否符合比例原則。最後，本文就系爭條文是否符合憲法平等保障人民基本權利之意旨作一綜合評析，並嘗試提出修正系爭條文之具體建議。 / The Mainland Chinese people have become Taiwan people since they settled down in Taiwan area. However, Article 21 of the Statute Governing the Relations between People in Taiwan Area and People in Mainland Area stipulates that the former Mainland Chinese people registered residences in Taiwan area within 10 years (hereafter “former Mainland Chinese people” ) couldn’t serve as civil servants. It is debatable whether said stipulation constituting a discriminatory treatment to part of nationals serving in public service violates Article 7 of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of equality. To begin with, this paper defines the legal status of Mainland Chinese people as nationals from Constitution point of view. Then, the paper looks into the subject from several points of view, including the nature of the addressed subject, the value system of the Constitution, and the purpose of enactment. It is find that the preclusion of the former Mainland Chinese people serving as civil servants is in harmony with amendment to the Constitution. It is furthermore not in conflict with the equal protection of law provided in Article 7 of the Constitution. However, part of the measure of the above said statute not in accord with the principle of Proportion should be amended in order to concur with preservation of state security and the adequate exercise of rights to serve in public service of the people. The Germany’s civil service law, which provides conditions of reappointment of former civil servants under German Democratic Republic after German unification serves as a most valuable reference model.

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.

本文將以Quanta v. LG電子案判決中尚留解釋空間及適用疑義的「契約自由」與「專利權耗盡理論」的關係為探討標的，從公法角度（我國憲法與經濟公法角度）探求專利制度中『追求公私利益衡平』的本質著手，探討專利權耗盡理論的理論基礎及其存在的合理性，然後分析美國專利權耗盡理論及Quanta v. LG電子案判決建構出的「契約自由」與「專利權耗盡理論」的關係之妥適性，並在「在知識專用權和知識共用權之間進行利益平衡，確保專用權的授予能換來知識共用的最大利益，並最大限度地增進社會的整體福利」精神下，重新省思Quanta v. LG電子案判決的未決爭點，分析契約約定與專利權耗盡理論應有的界限，看專利行使應如何受契約的限制（或者契約自由應受到限制），以對我國專利權耗盡理論提出解釋與適用上之建議。