| 摘要: | 歷經多年發展，目前我國司法實務上對於不動產借名登記此類契約類型，已從早期否定其效力，轉而多認其屬一無名契約，並於不違反民法強行規定、公序良俗等一般法律原則之下，基於契約自由原則，應肯認其效力。而在中國大陸亦有與不動產借名登記相似之行為，即所謂借名買房，是本文擬先蒐集並分析兩岸有關不動產借名登記議題之文獻、實務判決，以釐清兩岸不動產借名登記之性質、效力及其定位。
另由於不動產借名登記之爭訟，近年愈趨成長，益顯其所涉及之爭議於司法實務上重要性，且案件所源之原因事實呈現多樣化；再者，於民事訴訟上，舉證責任實為勝敗之決定因素，因此，在案件中，法院如何分配舉證責任、如何認定不動產借名登記存在與否；抑或針對相似原因事實之案件類型，法院於裁判上是否有一致性、共同性之邏輯、標準存在，對於爭訟之當事人呈顯關鍵，進步言之，對於當事人而言，裁判進程、結果之合理性、可預見性，不僅有防止裁判突襲之功能性意義，更是民事訴訟制度所欲追求之目標與理想。本文之目的即嘗以實務上常見之不動產借名登記案件，就相似原因事實之案件，歸納且類型其特徵與圖像，並以之為觀察工具，再以臺灣桃園地方法院民國106年度之不動產借名登記之民事爭訟判決為檢核標的，交錯檢驗並探求司法實務上各種案件類型與舉證責任之互動，對於法院如何認定不動產借名登記，其舉證責任、認事用法之操作而言，是否有一致或共同之認定標準，提出初步觀察與分析。
最後，藉由上述之實證觀察，本文嘗試提出司法實務上有關不動產借名登記爭議之再思考觀點，並期能提供不動產借名登記當事人相關訴訟上之指引，希冀本文之淺見能協助擘劃未來不動產借名登記制度研究發展之藍圖。;After years of development, the country’s current judicial practice on the type of contract of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration has moved on from denying its validity to recognizing it as a nameless contract in the majority of cases. Additionally, based on the principle of freedom of contract, under the condition that the said contract does not violate general legal principle of imperative provision, public policy and morals in the Civil Code, its validity shall be recognized. In Mainland China, there are similar acts with borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, which is known locally as “Buying a House by the Name of another Person.” This research aims to collect and analyze the literature and practical judgments concerning the issue of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration so as to clarify the characteristics, validity, and its legal status in Mainland China and Taiwan.
There is a gradual increase of legal disputes involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration in recent years, which demonstrates the significance of the controversy involved in judicial practice, as well as the fact that the reason for initiating litigation has become diversified. In addition, in civil litigation, the defining factor of winning or losing a lawsuit is the burden of proof. Therefore, during litigation, it is extremely crucial for litigants on how the court distributes the burden of proof and how to decide whether the scenario of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration takes place or not, as well as if consistent and common logic and standard are found in judicial decisions involving similar causes and facts. The aim of this research is to summarize and categorize the features and imagery of court cases of similar causes and facts involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, and then uses the said summary and categorization to observe and examine the Taiwan Taoyuan District Court’s judgment of civil litigations involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration in 2017. The researcher cross-examines and investigates the interactions between various types of litigations and the litigants’ burden of proof in judicial practice, and proposes his initial observations and analysis in how the court affirms the occurrence of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, how it allocates the burden of proof, and how it investigates the facts and interpreted the laws, and if consistent and common standard exists in the process of judgment.
Finally, through the aforementioned empirical observation, the research proposes some perspectives in response to the controversy surrounding borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, and aims to provide guidance for litigants in cases involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration. It is hoped that the humble opinions proposed in this research would serve as a blueprint for further studies of the legal systems of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration. |
