重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(51)】土地登記規則授權登記機關逕為更正登記之規定違憲？
2014.4.22 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 598 號
解釋日期： 民國 94 年 06 月 03 日
解釋爭點：
土地登記規則授權登記機關逕為更正登記之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1239 期 1 版
考選周刊 第 1020 期 2 版
總統府公報 第 6643 號 31-46 頁
法令月刊 第 56 卷 7 期 97-98 頁
司法院公報 第 47 卷 7 期 62-70 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23、172 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 37、43、48、59、69 條 ( 64.07.24 )
土地登記規則 第 14、29、122 條 ( 84.07.12 )
土地登記規則 第 13 條 ( 92.09.23 )
解 釋 文：
土地法第六十九條規定：「登記人員或利害關係人，於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」；為執行本條更正登記之意旨，中華民國八十四年七月十二日修正發布，同年九月一日施行之土地登記規則第一百二十二條第一項規定：「登記人員或利害關係人於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，應申請更正登記。登記機關於報經上級地政機關查明核准後更正之」；此一規定，符合母法意旨，且對於人民之財產權並未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第十五條及第二十三條之規定，均無牴觸。
上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第二項規定：「前項登記之錯誤或遺漏，如純屬登記人員記載時之疏忽，並有原始登記原因證明文件可稽者，上級地政機關得授權登記機關逕行更正之」；同條第三項：「前項授權登記機關逕行更正之範圍，由其上級地政機關定之」；及同規則第二十九條第一項第一款：「依第一百二十二條第二項規定而為更正登記」者，「得由登記機關逕為登記」，無須報經上級機關之核准。此等權限授予之規定，逾越六十四年七月二十四日修正公布之土地法第三十七條第二項之範圍，並牴觸同法第六十九條之規定，與憲法第二十三條法律保留及第一百七十二條法律優位原則有違，均應自本解釋公布之日起，至遲於屆滿一年時，失其效力。
理 由 書：
土地登記為不動產權利之公示制度，依法具有公信力（土地法第四十三條參照）。主管機關辦理土地總登記並發給書狀之前，應履行嚴謹之實質審查程序，諸如調查地籍、公布登記區及登記期限、接收文件、審查並公告等（土地法第四十八條）；公告期間內如土地權利關係人提出異議，地政主管機關應予調處；異議人如不服調處者，應於規定期間內，訴請司法機關決定權利之歸屬（土地法第五十九條）。為確保登記內容翔實無誤，土地法第六十九條並設有更正登記規定：「登記人員或利害關係人，於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」；為執行本條更正登記之意旨，內政部依土地法第三十七條第二項授權訂定之土地登記規則（內政部八十四年七月十二日台（八四）內地字第八四七七五○六號令修正發布，同年七月二十六日台內地字第八四一一一七號令定自八十四年九月一日施行）第一百二十二條第一項規定：「登記人員或利害關係人於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，應申請更正登記。登記機關於報經上級地政機關查明核准後更正之」（現行土地登記規則改列為第一百三十四條）。此一更正制度之目的，係為匡正登記之錯誤與遺漏，提高土地登記之正確性，以保障人民財產權。
土地法第六十九條所稱登記錯誤或遺漏，依上開土地登記規則第十四條規定，「係指登記之事項與登記原因證明文件所載之內容不符而言」（現行土地登記規則改列為第十三條，並於後段增訂「所稱遺漏，係指應登記事項而漏未登記者」等語）。依實務作法，登記錯誤之更正，亦以不妨害原登記之同一性者為限（參照行政法院四十八年判字第七二號判例，及內政部八十一年五月二十二日台（八一）內地字第八一七三九五八號函訂頒之更正登記法令補充規定第七點）。是土地法第六十九條之規定，係於無礙登記同一性之範圍內所為之更正登記。亦即使地政機關依法應據登記原因證明文件為翔實正確之登記，並非就登記所示之法律關係有所爭執時，得由地政機關逕為權利歸屬之判斷。上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第一項係為執行土地法第六十九條之意旨，並有同法第三十七條第二項之依據，且其規範內容亦未對人民財產權增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第十五條財產權之保障及第二十三條之法律保留原則，均無牴觸。
土地法第三十七條第二項雖授權中央地政機關訂定土地登記規則，惟其內容應符合授權意旨，並不得牴觸憲法之規定（憲法第一百七十二條，並參照本院釋字第四○六號及第二六八號解釋）。依土地法第六十九條規定，登記錯誤或遺漏「非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」，是已依法指定原登記機關之上級機關為得否更正登記之核准機關，且以經其「查明核准」為法定程序，並無使主管機關得以行政命令授權其他機關行使權限之餘地。上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第二項：「前項登記之錯誤或遺漏，如純屬登記人員記載時之疏忽，並有原始登記原因證明文件可稽者，上級地政機關得授權登記機關逕行更正之」；同條第三項：「前項授權登記機關逕行更正之範圍，由其上級地政機關定之」；同規則第二十九條第一項第一款：「依第一百二十二條第二項規定而為更正登記」者，「得由登記機關逕為登記」，無須報經上級機關之核准（現行規則改列為第二十八條第一項第二款後段），雖有簡化行政程序之便，然已逾越土地法第三十七條第二項之授權範圍，且與同法第六十九條辦理更正登記應力求審慎，並應由上級機關查明核准之意旨不符，與憲法第二十三條法律保留及第一百七十二條法律優位原則有違，均應自本解釋公布之日起，至遲於屆滿一年時，失其效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 598
Date 2005.6.3
Issue
Is the provision of the Regulations Governing Land Registration which empowers the recording organ to directly amend a recording unconstitutional?
Holding
Article 69 of the Land Act provides: "After completion of a recording, if recording officials or interested persons realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, unless they apply in writing and such application is approved by the upper level authority concerned, the recording can not be amended." To enforce the intent of “amending a recording” as referred to in this Article, Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration, amended and promulgated on July 12, 1995 and enforced on September 1, 1995, provides: "After completion of a recording, recording officials or interested persons who realize the recording is in error or has been lost, shall make application to amend the recording. The recording organ, after applying to and being approved by the upper level authority concerned, can then amend such recording." Such a provision coincides with the intent of the enabling statute and does not add non-statutory restraints on the property right of the people, and thus does not conflict with Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution.
Paragraph 2 of Article 122 of the aforementioned Regulations Governing Land Registration provides: "Regarding the error or loss of recording mentioned in the preceding paragraph, if it is purely due to the negligence of recording officials, and evidenced by the original recording instruments, the upper level land administrative organ can authorize the recording organ to directly amend it." Paragraph 3 of the same Article provides: "The scope of authorization for the recording organ to directly amend a recording shall be stipulated by the upper level land administrative organ." Section 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the same Regulations provides: "Amending a recording,” according to Paragraph 2 of Article 122, "means it can be recorded directly by the recording organ, and such organ does not have to apply for approval to the upper level land administrative organ.” These provisions of authorization exceed the scope of Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act, amended and promulgated on July 24, 1975, conflict with Article 69 of the same Act, and violate Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) and Article 172 (principle of preemption of statute) of the Constitution. Therefore, these provisions shall cease to be effective no later than one year after the date of promulgation of this interpretation.
Reasoning
Land recording is the public system of officially documenting real property, with a public reliance effect according to law (See Article 43 of the Land Act). To deal with general land recording, the authority concerned shall ensure a strict substantial review process (e.g., investigating cadastres, publishing the locations of recording districts and recording deadlines, receiving documents, and reviewing and making official notices (See Article 48 of the Land Act). Within the period of official notice, if any interested landowner objects to such recording or finds such recording to be in error, the land administrative authority concerned shall mediate any dispute. If there is any disagreement with the result of mediation, the petitioner shall appeal to the judicial organ for determination of ownership within the designated period (See Article 59 of the Land Act). In addition, to ensure that the content of the recording is detailed and correct, Article 69 of the Land Act provides: " After completion of a recording, if recording officials or any interested persons realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, unless such persons apply in writing to and receive approval from the upper level authority concerned, the recording can not be amended." To enforce the intent of “amending a recording” as referred to in this Article, Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration provides: “After completion of a recording, recording officials or interested persons who realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, shall apply to amend such recording. The recording organ, after applying to and receiving approval from the upper level authority concerned, can then amend such recording." The current Regulations (now Article 134) were promulgated (amended and promulgated by (86) N. T. T. Directive No. 8477506 of the Ministry of the Interior on July 12, 1995, and enforced by (86) T. N. T. Directive No. 841117 on September 1, 1995) by the Ministry of the Interior according to the authorization of Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act. The purpose of such an amending system is to ensure the correction of the error and prevent the loss of recording, to ensure the correctness of land recording, and to protect the property rights of the people.
The term “error and loss” in Article 69 of the Land Act, according to the aforementioned Article 14 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration, "means that the content of the recording does not match that of the original recording instruments" (The current Regulations Governing Land Registration are now Article 13, and they add "the word ‘loss’ means what should have been recorded but was not recorded" in the latter part.) According to empirical practice, amendment of an error in a recording is restricted to the identity of the original recording (See Administrative Court Precedent A. D.72 of 1959 and Item 7 of the Supplementary Regulations of the Amendment to Recording Acts and Regulations, promulgated by (81) T. N. T. Letter No. 8173958 of the Ministry of the Interior on May 22, 1992). Thus, the provision of Article 69 of the Land Act is to amend a recording within the scope which does not hamper the identity of such recording. That is, the land administrative organ shall maintain detailed and correct recording according to the original recording instruments, but the land administrative organ shall not directly judge the ownership when there is a dispute over a recorded legal relation. The purpose of the aforementioned Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration is to enforce the intent of Article 69 of the Land Act, and is based on Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the same Act, and its regulatory content does not add non-statutory restraints on the property right of the people, nor does it conflict with Article 15 (protection of property) and Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) of the Constitution.
Though Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act authorizes the central land administrative organ to promulgate the Regulations Governing Land Registration, the content of the Regulations shall coincide with the intent of authorization, and can not conflict with the Constitution (See Article 172 of the Constitution and J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 406 and 286). According to Article 69 of the Land Act, the error or loss of recording, "unless applied for in writing and approved by the upper level authority concerned, can not be amended." It already, according to the Act, designates the upper level authority concerned of the original recording organ as the approval organ of the amended recording, "being investigated as true and approved" as the process of law. There is no allowance for the authority concerned to authorize any other organ to perform the power by administrative order. Paragraph 2 of Article 122 of the aforementioned Regulations Governing Land Registration provides:" If the error in or loss of recording mentioned in the preceding paragraph is purely due to negligence on the part of the recording officials, and evidenced by the original recording instruments, the upper level land administrative organ can authorize such recording organ to amend it directly"; Paragraph 3 of the same Article states: "The scope of authorization for the recording organ to amend the recording directly shall be stipulated by the upper level land administrative organ"; Section 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the same Regulations provides: "Amending a recording,” according to Paragraph 2 of Article 122, " means that it can be recorded directly by the recording organ", and no application for approval is needed from the upper level organ (the current Regulations are now the latter part of Section 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28). Though they [these provisions of authorization] offer the convenience of simplifying the administrative process, they exceed the scope of the authorization of Paragraph 2 of Article 37. Besides, they do not coincide with the intent of Article 69 of the same Act, that those who amend a recording are expected to be conscientious and cautious in order to meet with the approval of the upper level organ, and as such they [these provisions of authorization] violate Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) and Article 172 (principle of preemption of statute) of the Constitution. Therefore, these provisions shall cease to be effective no later than one year after the date of promulgation of this interpretation.
'Translated by Jer -Shenq Shieh.
解釋字號： 釋字第 598 號
解釋日期： 民國 94 年 06 月 03 日
解釋爭點：
土地登記規則授權登記機關逕為更正登記之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1239 期 1 版
考選周刊 第 1020 期 2 版
總統府公報 第 6643 號 31-46 頁
法令月刊 第 56 卷 7 期 97-98 頁
司法院公報 第 47 卷 7 期 62-70 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23、172 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 37、43、48、59、69 條 ( 64.07.24 )
土地登記規則 第 14、29、122 條 ( 84.07.12 )
土地登記規則 第 13 條 ( 92.09.23 )
解 釋 文：
土地法第六十九條規定：「登記人員或利害關係人，於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」；為執行本條更正登記之意旨，中華民國八十四年七月十二日修正發布，同年九月一日施行之土地登記規則第一百二十二條第一項規定：「登記人員或利害關係人於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，應申請更正登記。登記機關於報經上級地政機關查明核准後更正之」；此一規定，符合母法意旨，且對於人民之財產權並未增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第十五條及第二十三條之規定，均無牴觸。
上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第二項規定：「前項登記之錯誤或遺漏，如純屬登記人員記載時之疏忽，並有原始登記原因證明文件可稽者，上級地政機關得授權登記機關逕行更正之」；同條第三項：「前項授權登記機關逕行更正之範圍，由其上級地政機關定之」；及同規則第二十九條第一項第一款：「依第一百二十二條第二項規定而為更正登記」者，「得由登記機關逕為登記」，無須報經上級機關之核准。此等權限授予之規定，逾越六十四年七月二十四日修正公布之土地法第三十七條第二項之範圍，並牴觸同法第六十九條之規定，與憲法第二十三條法律保留及第一百七十二條法律優位原則有違，均應自本解釋公布之日起，至遲於屆滿一年時，失其效力。
理 由 書：
土地登記為不動產權利之公示制度，依法具有公信力（土地法第四十三條參照）。主管機關辦理土地總登記並發給書狀之前，應履行嚴謹之實質審查程序，諸如調查地籍、公布登記區及登記期限、接收文件、審查並公告等（土地法第四十八條）；公告期間內如土地權利關係人提出異議，地政主管機關應予調處；異議人如不服調處者，應於規定期間內，訴請司法機關決定權利之歸屬（土地法第五十九條）。為確保登記內容翔實無誤，土地法第六十九條並設有更正登記規定：「登記人員或利害關係人，於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」；為執行本條更正登記之意旨，內政部依土地法第三十七條第二項授權訂定之土地登記規則（內政部八十四年七月十二日台（八四）內地字第八四七七五○六號令修正發布，同年七月二十六日台內地字第八四一一一七號令定自八十四年九月一日施行）第一百二十二條第一項規定：「登記人員或利害關係人於登記完畢後，發見登記錯誤或遺漏時，應申請更正登記。登記機關於報經上級地政機關查明核准後更正之」（現行土地登記規則改列為第一百三十四條）。此一更正制度之目的，係為匡正登記之錯誤與遺漏，提高土地登記之正確性，以保障人民財產權。
土地法第六十九條所稱登記錯誤或遺漏，依上開土地登記規則第十四條規定，「係指登記之事項與登記原因證明文件所載之內容不符而言」（現行土地登記規則改列為第十三條，並於後段增訂「所稱遺漏，係指應登記事項而漏未登記者」等語）。依實務作法，登記錯誤之更正，亦以不妨害原登記之同一性者為限（參照行政法院四十八年判字第七二號判例，及內政部八十一年五月二十二日台（八一）內地字第八一七三九五八號函訂頒之更正登記法令補充規定第七點）。是土地法第六十九條之規定，係於無礙登記同一性之範圍內所為之更正登記。亦即使地政機關依法應據登記原因證明文件為翔實正確之登記，並非就登記所示之法律關係有所爭執時，得由地政機關逕為權利歸屬之判斷。上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第一項係為執行土地法第六十九條之意旨，並有同法第三十七條第二項之依據，且其規範內容亦未對人民財產權增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第十五條財產權之保障及第二十三條之法律保留原則，均無牴觸。
土地法第三十七條第二項雖授權中央地政機關訂定土地登記規則，惟其內容應符合授權意旨，並不得牴觸憲法之規定（憲法第一百七十二條，並參照本院釋字第四○六號及第二六八號解釋）。依土地法第六十九條規定，登記錯誤或遺漏「非以書面聲請該管上級機關查明核准後，不得更正」，是已依法指定原登記機關之上級機關為得否更正登記之核准機關，且以經其「查明核准」為法定程序，並無使主管機關得以行政命令授權其他機關行使權限之餘地。上開土地登記規則第一百二十二條第二項：「前項登記之錯誤或遺漏，如純屬登記人員記載時之疏忽，並有原始登記原因證明文件可稽者，上級地政機關得授權登記機關逕行更正之」；同條第三項：「前項授權登記機關逕行更正之範圍，由其上級地政機關定之」；同規則第二十九條第一項第一款：「依第一百二十二條第二項規定而為更正登記」者，「得由登記機關逕為登記」，無須報經上級機關之核准（現行規則改列為第二十八條第一項第二款後段），雖有簡化行政程序之便，然已逾越土地法第三十七條第二項之授權範圍，且與同法第六十九條辦理更正登記應力求審慎，並應由上級機關查明核准之意旨不符，與憲法第二十三條法律保留及第一百七十二條法律優位原則有違，均應自本解釋公布之日起，至遲於屆滿一年時，失其效力。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 598
Date 2005.6.3
Issue
Is the provision of the Regulations Governing Land Registration which empowers the recording organ to directly amend a recording unconstitutional?
Holding
Article 69 of the Land Act provides: "After completion of a recording, if recording officials or interested persons realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, unless they apply in writing and such application is approved by the upper level authority concerned, the recording can not be amended." To enforce the intent of “amending a recording” as referred to in this Article, Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration, amended and promulgated on July 12, 1995 and enforced on September 1, 1995, provides: "After completion of a recording, recording officials or interested persons who realize the recording is in error or has been lost, shall make application to amend the recording. The recording organ, after applying to and being approved by the upper level authority concerned, can then amend such recording." Such a provision coincides with the intent of the enabling statute and does not add non-statutory restraints on the property right of the people, and thus does not conflict with Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution.
Paragraph 2 of Article 122 of the aforementioned Regulations Governing Land Registration provides: "Regarding the error or loss of recording mentioned in the preceding paragraph, if it is purely due to the negligence of recording officials, and evidenced by the original recording instruments, the upper level land administrative organ can authorize the recording organ to directly amend it." Paragraph 3 of the same Article provides: "The scope of authorization for the recording organ to directly amend a recording shall be stipulated by the upper level land administrative organ." Section 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the same Regulations provides: "Amending a recording,” according to Paragraph 2 of Article 122, "means it can be recorded directly by the recording organ, and such organ does not have to apply for approval to the upper level land administrative organ.” These provisions of authorization exceed the scope of Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act, amended and promulgated on July 24, 1975, conflict with Article 69 of the same Act, and violate Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) and Article 172 (principle of preemption of statute) of the Constitution. Therefore, these provisions shall cease to be effective no later than one year after the date of promulgation of this interpretation.
Reasoning
Land recording is the public system of officially documenting real property, with a public reliance effect according to law (See Article 43 of the Land Act). To deal with general land recording, the authority concerned shall ensure a strict substantial review process (e.g., investigating cadastres, publishing the locations of recording districts and recording deadlines, receiving documents, and reviewing and making official notices (See Article 48 of the Land Act). Within the period of official notice, if any interested landowner objects to such recording or finds such recording to be in error, the land administrative authority concerned shall mediate any dispute. If there is any disagreement with the result of mediation, the petitioner shall appeal to the judicial organ for determination of ownership within the designated period (See Article 59 of the Land Act). In addition, to ensure that the content of the recording is detailed and correct, Article 69 of the Land Act provides: " After completion of a recording, if recording officials or any interested persons realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, unless such persons apply in writing to and receive approval from the upper level authority concerned, the recording can not be amended." To enforce the intent of “amending a recording” as referred to in this Article, Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration provides: “After completion of a recording, recording officials or interested persons who realize the recording is in error or the recording has been lost, shall apply to amend such recording. The recording organ, after applying to and receiving approval from the upper level authority concerned, can then amend such recording." The current Regulations (now Article 134) were promulgated (amended and promulgated by (86) N. T. T. Directive No. 8477506 of the Ministry of the Interior on July 12, 1995, and enforced by (86) T. N. T. Directive No. 841117 on September 1, 1995) by the Ministry of the Interior according to the authorization of Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act. The purpose of such an amending system is to ensure the correction of the error and prevent the loss of recording, to ensure the correctness of land recording, and to protect the property rights of the people.
The term “error and loss” in Article 69 of the Land Act, according to the aforementioned Article 14 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration, "means that the content of the recording does not match that of the original recording instruments" (The current Regulations Governing Land Registration are now Article 13, and they add "the word ‘loss’ means what should have been recorded but was not recorded" in the latter part.) According to empirical practice, amendment of an error in a recording is restricted to the identity of the original recording (See Administrative Court Precedent A. D.72 of 1959 and Item 7 of the Supplementary Regulations of the Amendment to Recording Acts and Regulations, promulgated by (81) T. N. T. Letter No. 8173958 of the Ministry of the Interior on May 22, 1992). Thus, the provision of Article 69 of the Land Act is to amend a recording within the scope which does not hamper the identity of such recording. That is, the land administrative organ shall maintain detailed and correct recording according to the original recording instruments, but the land administrative organ shall not directly judge the ownership when there is a dispute over a recorded legal relation. The purpose of the aforementioned Paragraph 1 of Article 122 of the Regulations Governing Land Registration is to enforce the intent of Article 69 of the Land Act, and is based on Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the same Act, and its regulatory content does not add non-statutory restraints on the property right of the people, nor does it conflict with Article 15 (protection of property) and Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) of the Constitution.
Though Paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Land Act authorizes the central land administrative organ to promulgate the Regulations Governing Land Registration, the content of the Regulations shall coincide with the intent of authorization, and can not conflict with the Constitution (See Article 172 of the Constitution and J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 406 and 286). According to Article 69 of the Land Act, the error or loss of recording, "unless applied for in writing and approved by the upper level authority concerned, can not be amended." It already, according to the Act, designates the upper level authority concerned of the original recording organ as the approval organ of the amended recording, "being investigated as true and approved" as the process of law. There is no allowance for the authority concerned to authorize any other organ to perform the power by administrative order. Paragraph 2 of Article 122 of the aforementioned Regulations Governing Land Registration provides:" If the error in or loss of recording mentioned in the preceding paragraph is purely due to negligence on the part of the recording officials, and evidenced by the original recording instruments, the upper level land administrative organ can authorize such recording organ to amend it directly"; Paragraph 3 of the same Article states: "The scope of authorization for the recording organ to amend the recording directly shall be stipulated by the upper level land administrative organ"; Section 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the same Regulations provides: "Amending a recording,” according to Paragraph 2 of Article 122, " means that it can be recorded directly by the recording organ", and no application for approval is needed from the upper level organ (the current Regulations are now the latter part of Section 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28). Though they [these provisions of authorization] offer the convenience of simplifying the administrative process, they exceed the scope of the authorization of Paragraph 2 of Article 37. Besides, they do not coincide with the intent of Article 69 of the same Act, that those who amend a recording are expected to be conscientious and cautious in order to meet with the approval of the upper level organ, and as such they [these provisions of authorization] violate Article 23 (principle of statutory reservation) and Article 172 (principle of preemption of statute) of the Constitution. Therefore, these provisions shall cease to be effective no later than one year after the date of promulgation of this interpretation.
'Translated by Jer -Shenq Shieh.
今日瀏覽人數：2117 總瀏覽人數：9502124
|
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。