台灣地區國家公園土地使用管制目前是以分區管制為主，許可制為輔。依據國家公園法之規定，國家公園區域內主要劃分為五大分區即生態保護區、史蹟保存區、特別景觀區、遊憩區與一般管制區。其中遊憩區與一般管制區為國家公園內僅可開發建築地區，然而劃設國家公園目的首重保育，因此國家公園內土地開發須兼顧保育，同時保育需要整體的土地使用規劃與管制；而目前國家公園內公私有土地並存，為顧及私人權益的情形下，土地使用規劃與管制又須兼顧私人權益。 由於分區管制長久實施結果無法考慮開發行為對環境的衝擊影響、較僵硬的管制方式未能因應未來自然與社經條件變化等管制體制上缺失；並且分區劃設經計畫審議公布後，直接賦與所有權人開發權力或禁止開發，對於財產權分配較不公平，造成園內土地所有權人抗爭。綜上所述，本研究即欲尋求能兼顧保育與開發、保障私有權益之土地使用管制方式。換言之，以開發許可制替代分區管制為國家公園土地使用管制方式。 本研究係經深入訪談及以舉辦座談會討論方式，釐清目前國家公園土地使用管制之課題，並參酌英國開發許可制運作模式與我國國內現行開發許可制進行比較分析，以作為建構國家公園開發許可制模式之基礎。 再者，最後所研擬實施國家公園開發許可制主要範圍為一般管制區與遊憩區；主要係從計畫架構、機關權責劃分、開發許可審核流程、審核內容等方面說明國家公園開發許可制之構想。

都市更新事業之實施涉及公共利益之實現，影響更新單元或地區周邊利害關係人之財產權及居住自由，都市更新條例第11條提供未經劃定應實施都市更新之地區土地及合法建築物所有權人得自行劃定更新單元申請實施都市更新事業，然此條文之適用攸關更新單元規模範圍大小及自劃更新單元之審查，且開啟後續一連串都市更新事業之行政程序，如以臺北市為例，目前審查時係由都市更新處承辦人依據自訂的「臺北市未經劃定應實施更新之地區自行劃定更新單元建築物及地區環境評估標準」一定要件即屬符合，明顯缺乏適當之審議組織，又此標準下之指標也缺乏都市更新條例第6條及第7條之立法精神，且未建立合理關連性之連結。若稱「為促進土地再開發利用或改善居住環境」之目的即能申辦更新事業，則其他開發方式亦能達成，何需都市更新一途；再者，都市更新以外地區亦缺乏上位計畫之指導等等，是以都市更新之推動能否實現或增進公共利益則存有極大疑義，導致多數學者一再強調將此條文廢除。爰此，本研究將探究該條文存在或廢除之必要性，依公共利益等法理觀點重新檢視其合憲性與否，釐清此制度適用後所衍生之課題，進而考量於憲法保障人民居住自由及財產權前提下，建構以居民權益為中心之正當法律程序，完備都市更新條例第11條之立法要件。 都市更新事業實施分為多階段不同之行政程序，包含更新單元之劃定、都市更新事業概要之核准、都市更新事業計畫之核定等，於都市更新條例第11條制度之適用下涉及私人財產權之變動或剝奪，而此制度是否有存在之必要性，是否依憲法第23條比例原則規定之意旨遵守需具備公共利益之前提要件下始得足以剝奪或限制人民財產權？是故，民間於都市更新以外地區實施都市更新事業所涉及不同階段之行政程序，該如何完備其公共利益，又於各階段中之公共利益應如何判斷，皆是本研究所欲探討之內容。 本研究以臺北市為例，藉由文獻與理論分析彙整專家學者針對民間於都市更新以外地區實施都市更新事業探討之相關文獻，以公共利益、正當法律程序及財產權保障之法理基礎，釐清都市更新條例第11條所衍生之爭議問題，並依此制度之發展現況，分析依都市更新條例第11條適用情形及立法目的，藉以檢視該制度存在之必要性及政策意涵，重新建構民間於都市更新以外地區實施都市更新事業所涉及之更新單元劃定、都市更新事業概要核准及都市更新事業計畫核定等程序，提出修法內容及具體之公益性評估，希冀達到都市更新條例第1條之立法目的及應為之政策功能，提供公部門後續修法及因應措施之參考。

公用徵收，係指基於公共利益上之需要，由國家以強制手段取得人民之財產權，並給予財產權人相當之補償，在性質上乃屬權利之剝奪。而國家透過公用徵收制度取得財產權者，要以土地權利之徵收居多，故對於人民依法所擁有之土地財產權予以徵收，對於民眾有嚴重影響，有關之爭議問題亦因此而生。 本文係藉由財產權保障、公用徵收之學理為立論基礎，以及經檢視土地徵收裁判案件所呈現近來司法裁判見解情形以及土地徵收爭議情形，而就：一、按憲法財產權保障之內涵，亦包含程序性保障，則有關公聽會、協議價購等徵收前之先行程序於司法實務之爭議情形如何？又徵收核准前之陳述意見由需用土地人來執行是否合乎立法目的？ 二、有關被徵收土地人對於土地徵收或徵收補償不服或異議時，依土地徵收條例第22條之規定，會產生何種問題？救濟程序應如何進行？三、殘餘土地之申請一併徵收經會勘後，如需用土地人怠於提出申請 或有異議時，究應如何處理？四、有關徵收之失效於司法實務上之認定，法院之見解如何？對於年代久遠，相關資料已不可得之案件，於被徵收人張徵收失效時，法院援引權利失效理論是否妥適？等問題加以檢討分析。 進而歸納其結論之要點如下： 一、有關徵收前之先行程序，諸如：關於舉辦公聽會，如係為回應釋字第409號解釋，則應著重於徵收計畫確立前之陳述意見，以審查土地徵收計畫之合理性及必要性，以使公益及私益之間能夠兼顧；而協議價購部分，需用土地人應有徵收是最後手段之認知，依尊重私有財產權之立法意旨，應優先考量採行其他較溫和、侵害較小之方式、手段，儘可能地以協議方式達成用地取得之目的，始可謂符合憲法關於財產權保障及比例原則規定之要求；對於陳述意見之執行，似可透過機制之設計委由下屬機關基於協力之關係，代為給予相對人陳述意見，以提供土地徵收審議委員會審議時之考量。 二、有關土地徵收之「異議」是否為「訴願」之先行程序，主要是因為土地徵收公告中即包含土地徵收處分及徵收補償之處分二種，加以土地徵收條例第22條之規範未盡明確，相關爭議即因此而生。宜就對於公告文字之異議、對於土地徵收處分之不服、抑或對於徵收補償價額之不服，著手進行法律文字之修正，以維護被徵收人之訴權，亦可避免行政救濟之亂象。 三、有關殘餘地一併徵收之爭議，按為避免爭議，並使對於需用土地人之權益以及殘餘土地所有權人權益均能有效保障，有關一併徵收之處理，仍可依現行之規定由殘餘土地所有權人向直轄市或縣（市）政府提出申請後，由縣市政府於會勘後將會勘結果送交土地徵收審議委員會審理後作成准駁，再予需用土地人較為寬限之補償費提交期限，以免需地機關籌款未及，再者有關一併徵收案件，亦應由法規設上加以規定，若需用土地人有籌款不及之情形時，應使土地所有權人得據一併徵收之核准處分，就徵收補償費有請求權，以免徵收失效以致殘餘地所有權人對於徵收補償之請求權應徵收之失效而喪失。 四、有關徵收失效之爭議，按土地徵收有其公共利益之目的，是否仍繼續承襲大法官會議解釋之見解，抑或由制度面作改變，則不無思考之空間。目前主要是補償費是否於法定期間內發給，作為徵收效力是否存續之依據。而若為公共利益及兼顧人民財產權保障，有關土地徵收之效力，似可以公告徵收時即發生徵收之完成，至於補償費之發給，則可賦予土地所權人請求權對於遲而未發給者則應課予利息，此亦可使，民眾對於已被徵收使用之土地不致因徵收失效，而無徵收請求權，而致就其補償費之索討無門。

憲法第十五條規定：「人民之生存權、工作權及財產權，應予保障。」揭示了對於人民財產權的保障。憲法對於財產權之保障係透過對於財產權之承認並透過立法者建立財產權之法律制度，即所謂財產權之「制度保障」。而憲法以財產權為人民之基本權利，並予以保障則為財產權之「個別保障」。個別保障使人民產生一積極權力以抵抗公權力對財產之侵害亦是對於財產權法律地位之保障。 然財產權保障並非絕對之保障，財產權於社會中尚須考慮其於眾人間之相互性及普遍性。因此，財產權之實行須受社會環境之限制；換言之，財產權除供「私人利用外」亦應配合公共福祉而負有「社會義務」。憲法第二十三條規定：「國家為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序，或增進公共利益之必要，得以法律限制財產權及其他自由權利」即蘊有此意涵。此外，憲法第一百四十五條第一項規定：「國家對於私人財富及私營事業，認為有妨害國計民生之平衡發展者，應以法律限制之。」，故立法者藉由法律訂定財產權之內容及界限時，亦由憲法第二十三條及第一百四十五條取得財產權之限制依據。因此，法律對於財產權之限制，如屬財產權之內容及界限之事項，原則上權利人應予容忍而不生補償之問題。但若對於財產權之限制，使權利人與他人相較受有特別不利益時甚或侵害財產權之內涵時，則須予補償，以與憲法對於財產權保障之意旨及平等原則相符。 土地為財產權之一部，當然依法受有保障。但因土地具數量、位置固定之特性，且為人們生活所不可或缺之資源，為調和土地上各種不同使用之需求、競爭並考量社會整體利益，需透過法律或土地利用計畫對於土地使用施以干涉、管制。然土地使用限制可能基於維護公共利益之目的，對土地施以不同強度之限制。甚至許多土地使用管制法令中，政府並無意以徵收程序取得人民之所有權，但這些法管制卻大幅限縮人民使用財產之權利，造成土地權利人相較下承受更多或更嚴苛限制之不公平情形。因此，土地使用規定對財產權之干涉，如為公共利益之目的，而使受干涉之權利人與他人相較受有特別不利益時，應由國家予以合理補償以符憲法保障財產權之意旨及平等原則。但究土地使用管制規定於何種情況無須補償？於何時須予補償？而其間之辨別基準為何？此等問題實為一複雜且不易具體化之重要課題。 有關土地使用限制之界限及補償問題，於我國之法制下並未見出具體之判斷標準。而「特別犧牲」之概念雖已經由大法官解釋引入並作為財產權限制是否須予補償之判斷基準，但關於財產權受限制至何種程度或何種情況始構成「特別犧牲」，解釋中則未進一步闡釋及說明。國內文獻對美國法「準徵收」觀點討論財產權限制之相關問題雖不如「特別犧牲」常見，但美國法有關準徵收之討論自1922年之Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon案以來已有相當之發展，由其文獻及案例之彙整可整理出較為具體的準徵收判斷基準，甚或於國會中提出之財產權利提案已明確指出管制措施對於財產價值造成ㄧ定比例之減損時須予補償。因此，本研究除對於現行土地使用限制之相關問題加以討論，並希冀藉由美國法關於準徵收案例之蒐集及分析，釐出準徵收之判斷標準，並應用其觀點對我國之土地使用法制中有關土地使用限制之規定加以檢視分析，釐清土地使用限制規定中有關管制限度及補償之問題，俾助於土地使用法制與憲法對於財產權保障之意旨更相符合。

我國目前採取混合式遺產稅制，遺產稅被定位為財產稅，邊際稅率最高卻達50％，且其罰鍰亦高，因而引起遺產稅之改革、甚至廢除之聲浪；目前提案遺產稅之修正目標多以促進經濟發展為首要目的，主張廢除遺產稅者亦不乏以遺產稅有礙資本累積為由者；實則最初遺產稅立法時，立法者即已於立法理由中揭示，遺產稅並非以獲取財政收入為主要目的，其課徵目的係在於平均財富。 / 我國憲法保障財產權、私有財產制及經濟自由，並以租稅做為保障之對價；憲法對於財產保障之範圍隨著社會交易型態而由具體所有權擴及至抽象財產價值，繼承制度與繼承權亦為國家保障財產權內涵之ㄧ部分，是以國家以租稅做為保障財產權之對價，便已經將繼承制度及繼承權之保障含括在內；再者，我國憲法既宣示我國為社會法治國家，亦賦予財產權一定之社會義務性，國家自得對人民財產權為限縮，限制之方式亦包含以課徵租稅使得人民整體財產之抽象價值減少；惟國家保障財產權既然已將繼承制度及繼承權含括在內，課徵遺產稅即非係國家保障繼承制度及繼承權之對價；毋寧認為遺產稅之課徵係出自社會法治國家對於正義之要求，透過財產權之社會義務性對人民之整體財產價值為限縮，從而達到平均財富分配之正義要求。 / 惟何謂租稅公平、租稅正義、應以何種標準做為衡量是否公平正義之準繩，至今仍無定論；本文認為租稅公平、租稅正義係憲法內蘊之正義理念在租稅法領域之展現，其內涵並不僅有量能課稅原則，尚包含需要／功績原則及實用性原則；惟若藉由羅爾斯的正義論觀點，對於租稅正義之要求則有別於前；羅爾斯並未對特定稅制、稅基或稅率結構有所偏好，只要租稅不違反其提出之正義原則要求，亦即：確保每人皆有平等的基本權利自由，以及保障人民平等地參與經濟之機會、且此機會於每個世代皆被更新，則此等租稅即可被認為符合羅爾斯的理想稅制。惟遺產稅之課徵有別於其他租稅，其課徵目的係在於更新每個世代參與政治之機會，係出自確保每人皆有平等基本自由權利之要求，惟有在滿足此一前提條件下，方有其他調整社會經濟收益之可能；據此觀之，主張廢除遺產稅之論點，依羅爾斯之觀點來看是違反正義的。 / 最後，本文認為，基於正義之要求，遺產稅可以修改，卻不應被廢除；遺產稅之課徵目的既在於調整社會貧富差距，其他出於促進經濟之目的所為之遺產稅改革，如有違反遺產稅課徵目的者，皆應退讓並以遺產稅之課徵目的達成為優先，而以其他政策手段促進經濟發展。

我國自民國77年於大眾捷運法首創徵收取得區分地上權立法例後，即隨之於獎勵民間參與交通建設條例、促進民間參與公共建設法及土地徵收條例訂定徵收取得區分地上權條文，對公共建設穿越用地之取得有相當大之助益，但由於法制並非完備，致在徵收取得區分地上權補償方面產生了一些問題，此不僅影響公共建設穿越用地取得之順利進行，更有害憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，故本文即從財產權保障觀點，以完全補償理念為核心，對這些補償問題加以探討，並提出建議，以建構完善的徵收取得區分地上權補償制度，及做為政府修改相關法令之參考。 本文共分五章，第一章緒論，說明本文研究動機、研究目的與研究方法、研究範圍與內容。第二章財產權保障與損失補償，分析徵收取得區分地上權對財產權所造成之損失，並闡述財產權保障與損失補償之真諦，以奠立本文後續探討充分彌補被徵收人損失之方法。第三章我國徵收取得區分地上權補償制度之探討，對我國徵收取得區分地上權制度、補償法源及補償內容加以探討。第四章徵收取得區分地上權補償問題之探討，分別就補償性質問題、補償範圍問題、補償標準問題、補償費發放問題四方面加以探討問題之所在，並研擬適當解決方法。第五章結論與建議，對徵收取得區分地上權補償法制提出建議。 / After originating the legal case of the expropriation of space superficies in Mass Rapid Transit Law in 1988, the government soon legislated the clauses for expropriating the space superficies in Statute For Encouraging Private Sector Participation In Transportation Construction, Promoting Private Participation In Public Works Law, and Statute For Expropriating Land. It’s helpful to obtain the lands which public works pass through over or under, but some questions about the compensation for the expropriation of space superficies result from the legal system is not complete enough. This not only affects to smoothly obtain the lands which infrastructure need, and will be more harmful for the meaning of the people's property rights which safeguarded by constitution. Therefore this research takes complete compensation as a core and discusses these questions of compensation from the viewpoint of safeguarding the property rights. Finally, it hopes to make propositions for constructing a faultless system of compensation for the expropriation of space superficies and can be as the reference for government when she revises the correlation law. This research is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is introduction, which shows the motive, goal, method, scope, and content of this research. The second chapter is the indemnification for property right and the compensation for loss, which analyses the losses of property rights caused by the expropriation of space superficies, and elaborates the true meaning of the indemnification for property right and the compensation for loss in order to establish the method for fully making up the losses of the rightful recipients in the following discussion of this research. The third chapter is the discussion for compensative system of the expropriation of space superficies, which discusses the system of the compensation for the expropriation of space superficies, the legal origin of compensation, and the content of compensation. The fourth chapter is the discussion for the questions of compensation for the expropriation of space superficies, which discusses four aspects of questions including the characters, scopes, criterions, and payment of compensation and draws up suitable solutions. The fifth chapter is conclusion and suggestion, which proposes suggestions for the compensative system of the expropriation of space superficies.

私有土地，如供公眾通行多年而成為道路者，該土地已因時效完成而成立公共地役關係，該私人雖仍保有所有權，但其使用權之行使應受限制，不得違反公眾通行之用，通說將該因通行之事實所形成之道路，稱為既成道路或既成巷道。既成道路存在公用地役關係之限制，致土地所有權人無從自由使用、收益，對於所有權人所受損失，是否應予補償？早期行政法院判決採取否定見解。直到85年大法官作成釋字第400號解釋，宣示國家應就既成道路辦理徵收給予補償。對於既成道路應予徵收補償已無爭議，但是，行政機關迄今未能提出具體有效之解決措施。 囿於既成道路補償問題遲遲未能解決之現況，民間嘗以捐地抵稅作法因應，導致稅基流失；既成道路所有權人，也以釋字第400號解釋為基礎，向道路管理機關請求辦理徵收補償，道路管理機關通常均以財源拮据、暫無徵收計畫等理由回應。人民遭拒絕後向行政法院提起訴訟，行政法院一貫見解均為：人民無請求國家徵收其土地之公法上請求權，道路管理機關非徵收核准及補償金發給機關，對之提起訴訟被告適格欠缺，釋字第400號解釋僅為立法指針不得作為請求徵收之法律基礎，補償金以徵收處分存在為前提，無徵收處分自不得請求補償，不得以平等原則、憲法財產權保障規定作為請求權基礎…… 等理由駁回人民請求。然上開理由是否適切？人民應選擇哪種訴訟類型才能達到權利救濟之目的，引發本文寫作之動機。 從憲法財產權保障觀點而言，財產權受到國家公權力之干涉時，應就財產權之權能減損程度，判斷是否達到「公用徵收」程度，或僅是「財產權內容之確定與限制」。又法規範對財產權內涵之確定與限制，如未侵犯財產權之本質內涵，則屬財產權之合憲限制，構成財產權人之社會義務；然而財產權人所受之限制程度，倘逾越財產權人所可忍受之限度而構成特別犧牲時，國家應給予適當之補償，始合乎憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，此為「應予補償之財產權限制」。釋字第400號解釋指出：「既成道路符合一定要件而成立公用地役關係者，其所有權人對土地既已無從自由使用收益，形成因公益而特別犧牲其財產上之利益，國家自應依法律之規定辦理徵收給予補償。」宣示既成道路所有權人所受限制程度構成特別犧牲，其法律效果應為損失補償。至於，徵收補償或其他補償方法均係填補特別犧牲損失之補償方式，既成道路所有權人應可擇一行使「徵收補償」及「損失補償」兩種請求方式。 現行行政訴訟制度，分為撤銷訴訟、課予義務訴訟、一般給付訴訟及確認訴訟等類型，惟既成道路所有權人提起確認訴訟類型較為少見。從其他類型訴訟的判決理由分析，既成道路所有權人提起撤銷訴訟及課予義務訴訟，無法達到權利救濟之目的，而應提起一般給付訴訟類型，以需地機關為被告，請求需地機關提出徵收計畫書，向內政部申請徵收之應為事實行為訴訟；或以需地機關為被告，請求給付損失補償金訴訟，兩種聲明是可行的請求方式。本文結論部分，就既成道路所有權人提起行政訴訟，從訴訟類型之選擇、請求權基礎及善用確認訴訟類型三方面提出建議；憲法財產權保障之規定，無待實體法明文規定，本身便是一種主觀之公法上權利，財產權保障內涵中，實已包括無補償即無財產權侵害之保障，並於財產權侵害之情形已無法排除時，為補償給付之請求，德國、日本司法實務運作均是如此，我國大法官會議解釋也一再揭櫫此一要旨，行政法院固守請求權基礎，應以實定法條文規定之見解，顯然與財產權保障思潮背道而馳。就行政機關處理既成道路問題，應妥善運用徵收補償，市地重劃、容積移轉、以地易地等地政手段，檢討改進既成道路存廢及補償費計算等角度，多方面思考解決對策，才是根本解決既成道路問題應有的方向。

政府辦理區段徵收希望帶動新社區的繁榮，達成都市整體發展，取得公共設施用地及節省龐大建設經費支出等之目標，而地主希望藉由政府的開發行為，享有土地利用價值提高、公共設施完善等好處，然而所謂的公私互蒙其利，共創政府與民眾雙贏的開發方式，卻仍常產生地主為了財產權保障抗爭之情形而導致區段徵收作業延宕，因此，本研究以高鐵新竹車站特定區區段徵收案為例，針對地主選擇行為進行探討，透過群落分析歸類地主選配抵價地的型態，經由因子分析找出影響選配抵價地行為之因子，最後藉由羅吉特建立地主選配抵價地模型，希望可以提供政府部門及地主在選配抵價地之參考。研究結果如下： 一、 透過群落分析，予以歸類分析，劃分易於解釋的分配類型，可獲得二個群組四個方案，由此可瞭解地主選配抵價地型態。 二、 參與抵價地配地作業以男性地主居多，以年齡層多集中於中年左右，受訪地主多為已婚；受訪地主針對各項選配抵價地之影響因素均表示影響程度上都是以影響很大為居多，其中受訪地主多數認為使用分區類別、面前街道寬度、鄰近嫌惡設施程度、坵塊形狀、街廓評議地價高低等因素對於選配抵價地影響很大，又以鄰近嫌惡設施程度為居高。 三、 經由研究得知目前政府提供予地主之資訊管道不足或宣傳不周，對於整體區段徵收作業仍需加強與地主資訊的傳遞，以及充分公開整體計畫內容。 四、 部份地主不太滿意先抽籤再選配街廓的抵價地配地作業方式，其原因有主要為因籤號先後導致無法選配期望街廓佔多數，其次為權利價值較小者可能無法選配街廓，而需再與他人合併分配。 五、 建構八種類型之二項羅吉特模式，並透過AIC及SC值找出能力較佳的群組方案，由方案中得知地主多數還是以居住適宜性及小規模開發為主要。 六、 由二項羅吉特模式實證結果顯示，模型共通變數為土地變數的使用分區類別、基地最小開發規模訂定、鄰近嫌惡設施程度、緊臨遊憩設施狀況、坵塊座向，以及地主行為變數面前街道寬度影響程度、鄰近嫌惡設施影響程度、區段徵收前土地座落位置影響程度、性別、學歷、職業等等，均顯著影響地主選配抵價地之行為。 / Zone-expropriation by government hopes to achieve these targets like exciting new community's prosperity, achieving the overall development of the new city, accessing the public facilities and saving huge expenditures. By the government's development activities, the landlords enjoy the benefits of increased value of land and good public facilities. Handling Zone expropriation creates a win-win situation between the Government and the landlords. However, in the process of Zone-expropriation often generate opposition of landowners to protect their property rights which led to delays in Zone-expropriation operations. Therefore, this study of THSR (Taiwan High Speed Rail) Hsinchu Station Zone- expropriation as an example and discuss the landowner’s choice behavior. Through cluster analysis classified the landowner’s choice behavior. And by factor analysis to identify the major factors of landlord’s choice behavior. Finally by Logit modeling the landlord model hopes to provide some valuable suggestions for government. The study results are as follows: 1. Through cluster analysis, the study classified and divided into two groups that are easy to explain. The two groups contain four plans each and they can explain the landlord’s choice behavior. 2. Landlords of participation of Zone-expropriation are mostly male with age around 40 to 60 years old. These mostly married landlords think these are the major factors, the use of zoning category, the street width, the neighboring facilities, the shape of street block, the value of street blocks. The neighboring facilities rank the top 1 factor. 3. Through the research shows that government lacks of information or promotional channels. Government should improve the communication with landlords and fully disclosed the contents of the overall Zone-expropriation plan. 4. Landowners are not satisfied by the flow of ballot at first and then land choosing. The major reason is landlords can not choose the expected lands after ballot. And the second reason is the land loads with smaller land value can not choose street blocks unless they combine with other landlords’ land value and choose the expected land. 5. In the study, construction of eight types of models from two of Logit modeling, through the AIC and SC values come out the better group and plan. It shows the better plan is the small-scale residential development and good environment for the most landlords. 6. By the empirical results from Logit model show that model common variables are the land use zoning category, the base size of the minimum development, near the level of aversion facilities, recreational facilities close to the zone, street block location, the width of the street, the impact of land location before zone expropriation, gender, education, occupation, etc. They are significantly affected the selection behavior of land choice.

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.