In order to meet the real demand of urban development, the government referred to international and domestic theories, laws, and practical affairs, explored the difficulties of urban renewal practice which our country encountered in the past, and finally established the Urban Renewal Regulations Draft. Later the Draft was submitted to the Executive Yuan to request for further discussion of the Legislation Yuan in June, 1997. It was passed after three times¡¦ reading on Oct.22, 1998, and formally announced by the President to be carried out publicly on Nov.11 of the same year in accordance with the Presidential Official Number 8700232460 of the Republic of China. For the purpose of giving an impulse to the urban renewal and encouraging the folk people to participate in the development and investment on slummy areas, Kaohsiung City Government considered the special demand of urban renewal and the beneficial attraction of participating, to be convenient for people to apply every benefit, such as the Building Floor Area Reward, Tax Reduction, and Expenses Subsidy, etc. and established the standards of the Evaluation Norm of Building Floor Area Reward, Delimitation and Definition Norm of Renewal Unit, and Rights Transformation of Minimum Allot Square Unit . Meanwhile, due to the right and obligation of the autonomous people, Kaohsiung City Government established the Urban Renewal Local Ordinance of Kaohsiung City with the spirit of elasticity and non-strictness under the 18th and 28th of Local Laws. The Urban Renewal Regulations and its related laws were legislated continually. The Urban Renewal Local Ordinance of Kaohsiung City was legislated by the cooperation of the city government and the city council, and it¡¦s strictly confirmed that the whole system of urban renewal will promote the advanced reuse of urban land by effective plans, which help revive the urban functions, improve the urban residential environment, increase the public benefits, and stimulate the prosperity of construction business. This paper provides practical examples for Execution to the Implementation of the Urban Renewal for Kaohsiung City, and suggests Kaohsiung City Government reinforce the concepts through every kind of occasion and way to ensure that the local government of urban renewal, Implementer, and people of the renewed areas can understand the contents of urban renewal, and advance the urban renewal as the first priority.

臺灣在以往的半個世紀，歷經工商業快速地成長，當時都市計畫與建築未能跟上其腳步，爰於都市計畫法以「舊市區更新」因應改善。然政府機關採「徵收」或「區段徵收」方式實施，受限於財力、人力之不足，及未透過協商機制取得私有土地，引起民眾反抗心理，以致成效不彰。部分地方政府為解決此一困境，開始制訂獎勵民間辦理都市更新，藉以引入民間資源，推動都市更新。 1998年「都市更新條例」公布施行，強制規範公有土地及建築物，依核定版都市更新事業計畫處理，而民間實施更新事業計畫重建方式，主要為協議合建及權利變換，然公有土地尚無法與實施者以協議合建方式進行更新事業，因此，公有土地參與都市更新方式，係以權利變換方式為主軸。 本研究於國有不動產參與都市更新權利變換權益分配個案中發現： 1.適時挹注國有土地參與都市更新事業，得以達到更新事業門檻，進而促成更新事業產權整合。 2.都市更新審議委員會負責審議都市更新事業計畫及權利變換計畫，包括核定共同負擔，為把關國有土地權益最重要防線。 3.權利變換範圍內國有土地面積與共同負擔費用呈現正向比例，國有土地面積愈大，樓地板愈大，則營建成本相對愈高，而權利變換之共同負擔費用，原則提列上限，得否調整，需由審議會議決通過。 建議： 1.審議會所列機關代表，應包括公產管理機關，以求公正客觀維護公產權益。 2.更新事業計畫擬定階段，規劃可供公務、公共使用性質房地，以利於相關機關視業務需要依法辦理撥用，並預估公產管理期間需負擔管(處)理成本，列為共同負擔費用，由參與者共同負擔。 3.公有土地參與都市更新，係為實現公共利益配合政策而執行，無論其參與更新事業目的，應考量維護全民財產權益。 / Taiwan, in the past half of century, has experienced the period of industry and commerce rapid expanding, but the urban plan and architecture couldn’t keep pace with them at that time. Therefore, “old town urban area renewal” came out and improved. However, limited to insufficiency of financial, human resources, and acquirement of private land without negotiation, the government agencies conducted “expropriation” or “zone expropriation” and the result was ineffective. In order to solve this dilemma, some local governments established the system of incentive of the private participation of urban renewal, introduced private power effectively, and promoted urban renewal fast. Urban Renewal Act was promulgated and conducted on 1998. It forces all the public lands and constructions should deal with the approved urban renewal business plan area. The ways of reconstruction dealing with the urban renewal business plan of non-governmental organizations are joint construction and rights transformation. However, the public lands can’t be proceeded urban renewal business plan by using the wayof reconstruction with implementers. Therefore, the main way of public lands participation in urban renewal is rights transformation. We realize on the case of national real estateparticipation in urban renewal rights transformationbenefit distribution on this study: 1.By pouring national real estate into the participation of urban renewal business plan, we are able to surpass threshold of urban renewal business plan, and promote the integration of property rights of renewal business plan. 2.The committee of urban renewal is in charge of reviewing renewal business plan and rights transformation, including approved common expense sharing. 3.There is a positive correlation between national land area within the area rights transformation and common expense sharing. If the common expense sharing which takes into upper limit is able to adjust, it should be passed a resolution by the committee. In summary, the study proposes suggestions as below: 1.The committee which lists governmental agencies should consist of public owned property managing authority, so that it is able to protect the rights of public property. 2.In the stage of renewal business plan, it should planfor office and public use real estate in order to help relative governmental agencies appropriate it, evaluates the management cost within the period of public management, and takes common expense sharing which should be shared by participators into account. 3.The aim of public land participation in urban renewal is to bring about public rights coordinating public policy. No matter what thepurposes of participation in urban renewal are, it should protect the all citizens’ rights.

都市的發展隨著時間而不斷地演變，都市內會不斷產生不能適應今日都市生活活動需求的地區，所以需要更新之地區會不斷的產生。從都市有限的土地資源來看，都市更新是要促進土地使用的合理化與使用強度的提高，所以都市更新是土地資源的一種再生型態。都市更新為現代台灣不動產開發之主流，為改善都市早期發展的舊城市，及促進都市的永續發展，都市更新將是未來都市發展政策的必然趨勢。然而，「都市更新不是目標，而是工具」。增進都市機能，改善生活環境，促進都市健全發展，才是都市更新的主要目的，惟應經由何種方式(工具)，方能順利達成上述目標，厥為都市更新所應關注之重點。而權利變換是實施都市更新的方式之一，本研究是從產權理論之產權結構的觀點出發來探討它在權利變換制度實務操作上的影響。 本論文主要在說明，從都市更新條例(以下簡稱本條例)第3條有關權利變換的定義來看，更新單元內之土地所有權人、合法建築物所有權人、他項權利人及實施者是一種「合夥」的關係，但依本條例第30、31條的規定，實施者則又成了代工者，然而在實務操作上實施者掌握了整個權利變換的控制權，在實施者追求利潤或利益極大化的前題下，實施者只好隱藏利潤於費用之中，以獲取剩餘利益。本研究以產權結構的理論為基礎，用已完成之案例來分析，以說明上述現象的存在事實，以為後續修法的參考。 本研究的論述重點，主要是在說明權利變換的生產要素經整合後組成了一個新的產權，而這個新產權是由參與權利變換的權利人所共有，而產權結構裡的控制權與剩餘收入權，是由實施者掌握了控制權，而土地所有權人則擁有剩餘收入權，在實施者與土地所有權人不能同時控制權與剩餘收入權的情形下，所產生的利益衝突現象，以致造成實施者與土地所有權人的利益目標或利益函數不一致，制度的設計應該是將資源分配的私下協議的障礙降至最低，換言之，應該要設計成實施者與土地所有權人的利益目標或利益函數一致，才會使實施者與土地所有權人為這個事業共同去努力，這樣才有助於都市更新事業的推動。 本研究透過理論與實證只是證明目前權利變換存在的不合理現象，至於權利變換的性質或定性應該是屬何種，例如：合夥、代理(承攬)或互易，則非本研究的範圍，有待後續的先進繼續探討。 / The development of urban is proceeding with the time, there are areas that can not accommodate the needs of urban life activities nowadays in the urban, thus those areas need to renew are continually generated. We could see from the view that land resource in the urban are limited, urban renewal help forward rationalize land use and raise the use intensity, thus urban renewal is one kind of revive types of land resource. Urban renewal is the mainstream in the development of modern Taiwan real estate; in order to improve the old town in the early urban development, and promote the sustainable urban development, urban renewal will be the consequential trend in the urban development policy in the future. However, “Urban renewal is not a goal, it is a tool.” The main goals of urban renewal shall be building up urban function, improving living environment and advancing well-balanced urban development. The emphasis of urban renewal shall be in which way (tool) to achieve the above goals. Right transformation is one kind of ways to improve urban renewal, in this study we use the view from the structure of property rights in Property Theory to discuss its effects in the Right transformation system manipulation. This essay is mean to explain that form the Urban Renewal Act (The Act for short) clause 3 about right transformation definition, the land owner, legal building owner, other owner and implementer are kind of “partnership” relation in renewal unit, but according to the rules in The Act 30 and 32 clauses, implementer become OEM command the control right in the whole rights transformation in manipulation process, implementer pursuits benefit or in the premise of maximize profit, implementer has to hide the benefit behind the cost, to obtain the residual benefit. Property right structure theory is the basis of this study, analyzed by the finished case study to explain the above exist fact for the reference of amendment hereafter. The emphasis of this study is to explain there is a new property right generated after integrating the produce factors in rights transformation, and this new property right is co-owned by the oblige who participated the right transformation. As the control right and the residual income right in the right structure, the implementer command the control right and the land owner command the residual income right, when implementer and the land owner can not command the control right and the residual income right at the same time, the benefit conflict will make the different profit goal or the different profit function between the implementer and the land owner. The system should be designed to minimize the obstacle of private negotiated resource allocation. In other words, it should be designed as a same profit goal or function to make the implementer and the landowner to exert themselves for this career, thus make for the advance of the urban renewal career. Through the theory and real demonstration in this study is only to prove the existing unreasonable phenomena in rights transformation, as for the character or the qualitative of right transformation shall be, for example, partnership, agent（to take full charge of responsibility）or trade, is not in the study range, and need the fellow successor to discuss about .

都市更新權利變換運作過程中的土地權利人與實施者的關係，是現代經濟活動典型的專業分工委託代理關係。土地權利人與實施者基於都市更新法制下相關的權利義務契約，執行都市更新事業，由於訊息不對稱、目標不一致與風險偏好之差異，實施者基於機會主義的決策或行動，經常不利於土地權利人的利益，於是產生代理問題、增加代理成本，雙方無法產生高度互信的基礎，而成為都市更新延宕與成效不彰的主因。本論文從土地權利人與實施者之間，於都市更新條例機制下的互動契約中，探討分析雙方之委託代理關係，並從土地權利人的角度設計監督方式，以維護土地權利人的權益，促進都市更新事業之實施。 當土地權利人與實施者，共同於一都市更新單元，組成生產團隊時，土地權利人初期擁有較強的提議與同意之控制權，隨著實施者握有超過都市更新法定之同意書門檻後，實施者掌握較強的執行控制權，土地權利人擁有較弱的監督控制權。又現行都市更新權利變換的價值分配，是實施者投入共同負擔費用，並以更新完成後之土地與建築物部分折價抵付，其餘土地及建築物則分配與原土地所有權人，因此土地權利人得到大部分的剩餘索取權。這樣的控制權與剩餘索取權分離狀態下，其權利變換價值分配模式，是否為適當的產權安排？對於都市更新參與人能否有所激勵？能否促進都市更新之推動效率？是本論文主要的探討分析重點。 此外，同一更新單元之土地權利人與實施者，具有短期且為一次性合作的特性，依現行都市更新法律規範，交易雙方以簽訂同意書做為實施都市更新事業的關鍵契約，由於契約簽定後，交易雙方所投入的特殊投資比例不相同，因而普遍引起期初契約簽署的遲疑，甚而契約簽定後，仍有權利義務不明確之爭議。本論文透過不完全契約理論的思維，探討分析土地權利人與實施者的契約關係與特殊投資關係，並建議一個新的交易契約模式，以降低雙方之機會主義行為，進而希能促進都市更新事業之推動。 / In the process of rights transformation of urban renewal, the relationships between land owners and the implementers are the typical Principal-Agent Relationship in modern economic activities. Based on the related rights and obligations under the regulations of urban renewal, land owners and the implementers execute urban renewal business. Due to the differences of asymmetric information, inconsistent goals, and risk preference, the decision-making and/or actions of implementers based on the opportunism, will often unfavorable to the benefits of land owners. Therefore, the problem of Principal-Agent Relationship arises that increases agent cost. Both sides cannot generate the foundation of highly mutual trust, and thus creates the major reason of delaying and inefficiency for urban renewal. This paper studies and analyzes the Principal-Agent Relationship of both land owners and the implementers from both sides with their interaction of contract under unban renewal regulation mechanism, and further from the land owners perspective to design ways of monitoring to protect rights and benefits of land owners, to facilitate the implementation of urban renewal business. When the land owners and the implementers organize as a「Production Team」on a very urban renewal unit, the land owners initially hold stronger control rights on both proposing step and agreement step; along the implementers hold agreement letters exceeding the official threshold of urban renewal regulations, they will control better execution rights, and the landowners hold weaker surveillance control rights. The current value allocation of rights transformation for urban renewal employs common sharing of expenses with the implementers. After deducting the common sharing of the discounted price substitute payment of the land and buildings after the rights transformation, the remaining lands and buildings shall be allocated to the original landowners according to the rights value proportion before each piece of land rights was transformed. In so doing, the land owners obtain most of the residual claim. Under such separation of the control rights and the residual claim, whether the value allocation of the rights transformation is as suitable arrangement for property rights? Will it be the incentives to the urban renewal participants? Whether it will facilitate the efficiency of urban renewal promotion? These are the main points of the analysis of this paper. Land owners and the implementers with the same Renewal Unit retain a short-term and once-for-all cooperative nature. According to the regulations of current Urban Renewal Act, both parties of the transaction by signing an agreement as the key contract of implementing urban renewal business. After signing up the contract, due to the different ratio of specific investment input by both sides of the transaction, the initial contract thus normally has been delaying or doubtfully signed. Even worse, after eventually signing the contract, there are still uncertain disputes on rights and obligations. Via the thoughts of Incomplete Contracts Theory, this paper not only analyzes the contractual relationship and the specific investment relationship of land owners and the implementers, but also recommends a new transaction contract model to decrease the opportunism behaviors of both sides, and further more, to facilitate the implement of urban renewal business.

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.