重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(13)】已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，無消滅時效規定之適用。
2014.3.11 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 164 號
解釋日期： 民國 69 年 07 月 18 日
解釋爭點：
已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，有無消滅時效規定之適用？
資料來源：司法院大法官會議解釋續編（一）第 167 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二）（98年10月版）第 198-213 頁
相關法條： 民法 第 125、767 條 ( 19.12.26 )
解 釋 文：
已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，不在本院釋字第一○七號解釋範圍之內，但依其性質，亦無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用。
理 由 書：
按民法第七百六十七條規定，所有人對於無權占有或侵奪其所有物者之返還請求權，對於妨害其所有權者之除去請求權及對於有妨害其所有權之虞者之防止請求權，均以維護所有權之圓滿行使為目的，其性質相同，故各該請求權是否適用消滅時效之規定，彼此之間，當不容有何軒輊。如為不同之解釋，在理論上不免自相予盾，在實際上亦難完全發揮所有權之功能。「已登記不動產所有人之回復請求權，無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用」，業經本院釋字第一○七號解釋在案。已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，有如對於登記具有無效原因之登記名義人所發生之塗銷登記請求權，若適用民法消滅時效之規定，則因十五年不行使，致罹於時效而消滅，難免發生權利上名實不符之現象，真正所有人將無法確實支配其所有物，自難貫徹首開規定之意旨。故已登記不動產所有人之除 去妨害請求權，雖不在上開解釋範圍之內，但依其性質，亦無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用。
J. Y. Interpretation No.164
Date 1980. 7.18
Issue
Is there any application of the provisions of the defunct prescription on the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property?
Holding
The right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property is not within the scope of the Interpretation No.107 of this Yuan. However, based on the nature of this right, there will be no application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code either.
Reasoning
For according to the provisions of Article 767 of the Civil Code, the rights of the owner of a thing, as to demanding its return from anyone who possesses it without authority or who seizes it, claiming the removal of the interference on those who interfere with his ownership and claiming the prevention of such interference on those who might interfere with it, are all for the purpose of preserving the complete exercise of the ownership, being the same in nature, and therefore as for whether each of them shall have the application of the provisions about the defunct prescription, there should be no diversity among these interpretations. If there is any diversity among them, not only it will unavoidably cause a self-contradiction in theory, but also it will cause difficulty in completely exercising the power of the ownership in practice. Interpretation No. 107 by this Yuan has expounded: “The right to claim the repossession by the owner of a registered real property does not have the application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code.” If the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property, the right to claim the cancellation of a registration implying the invalidating cause against the person whose name is registered in the register, for example, has the application of the provisions of the defunct prescription, it will be abolished by prescription if it is not exercised within fifteen years. Then this would unavoidably cause an inconsistency between the right in name and the right in reality, and the real owner of a thing could not actually possess the thing, and the purpose of this Article could not be followed. Therefore although the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property is not within the scope of the above-mentioned Interpretation, based on the nature of this right, there will be no application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code either.
Translated by Jer -Shenq Shieh.
解釋字號： 釋字第 164 號
解釋日期： 民國 69 年 07 月 18 日
解釋爭點：
已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，有無消滅時效規定之適用？
資料來源：司法院大法官會議解釋續編（一）第 167 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二）（98年10月版）第 198-213 頁
相關法條： 民法 第 125、767 條 ( 19.12.26 )
解 釋 文：
已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，不在本院釋字第一○七號解釋範圍之內，但依其性質，亦無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用。
理 由 書：
按民法第七百六十七條規定，所有人對於無權占有或侵奪其所有物者之返還請求權，對於妨害其所有權者之除去請求權及對於有妨害其所有權之虞者之防止請求權，均以維護所有權之圓滿行使為目的，其性質相同，故各該請求權是否適用消滅時效之規定，彼此之間，當不容有何軒輊。如為不同之解釋，在理論上不免自相予盾，在實際上亦難完全發揮所有權之功能。「已登記不動產所有人之回復請求權，無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用」，業經本院釋字第一○七號解釋在案。已登記不動產所有人之除去妨害請求權，有如對於登記具有無效原因之登記名義人所發生之塗銷登記請求權，若適用民法消滅時效之規定，則因十五年不行使，致罹於時效而消滅，難免發生權利上名實不符之現象，真正所有人將無法確實支配其所有物，自難貫徹首開規定之意旨。故已登記不動產所有人之除 去妨害請求權，雖不在上開解釋範圍之內，但依其性質，亦無民法第一百二十五條消滅時效規定之適用。
J. Y. Interpretation No.164
Date 1980. 7.18
Issue
Is there any application of the provisions of the defunct prescription on the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property?
Holding
The right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property is not within the scope of the Interpretation No.107 of this Yuan. However, based on the nature of this right, there will be no application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code either.
Reasoning
For according to the provisions of Article 767 of the Civil Code, the rights of the owner of a thing, as to demanding its return from anyone who possesses it without authority or who seizes it, claiming the removal of the interference on those who interfere with his ownership and claiming the prevention of such interference on those who might interfere with it, are all for the purpose of preserving the complete exercise of the ownership, being the same in nature, and therefore as for whether each of them shall have the application of the provisions about the defunct prescription, there should be no diversity among these interpretations. If there is any diversity among them, not only it will unavoidably cause a self-contradiction in theory, but also it will cause difficulty in completely exercising the power of the ownership in practice. Interpretation No. 107 by this Yuan has expounded: “The right to claim the repossession by the owner of a registered real property does not have the application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code.” If the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property, the right to claim the cancellation of a registration implying the invalidating cause against the person whose name is registered in the register, for example, has the application of the provisions of the defunct prescription, it will be abolished by prescription if it is not exercised within fifteen years. Then this would unavoidably cause an inconsistency between the right in name and the right in reality, and the real owner of a thing could not actually possess the thing, and the purpose of this Article could not be followed. Therefore although the right to claim the removal of the interference by the owner of a registered real property is not within the scope of the above-mentioned Interpretation, based on the nature of this right, there will be no application of the provision of the defunct prescription in Article 125 of the Civil Code either.
Translated by Jer -Shenq Shieh.
今日瀏覽人數：18728 總瀏覽人數：9685455
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。