重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(56)】釋字第516號解釋「相當之期限」有上限。
2014.4.24 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位：司法院
解釋字號：釋字第652號
解釋日期：民國97年12月5日
解釋爭點：釋字第516號解釋「相當之期限」有無上限？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 51 卷 2 期 7-34 頁
司法周刊 第 1419 期 1 版
法令月刊 第 60 卷 2 期 149-152 頁
總統府公報 第 6842 號 12 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二十一）第 500-535 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 154、165、233、247 條 ( 95.06.14 )
平均地權條例 第 15、46 條 ( 94.01.30 )
土地徵收條例 第 20、22、30 條 ( 91.12.11 )
解釋文：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障，故國家因公用或 其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償，且應儘速發給。倘原補償處分已因法定救濟期間經過而確定，且補償費業經依法發給完竣， 嗣後直轄市或縣（市）政府始發現其據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤，原發給之補償費短少，致原補償處分違法者，自應於相當期限內依職權撤銷該已確定之補償處分，另為適法之補償處分，並通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額轉發原土地所有權人。逾期未發給補償費差額者，原徵收土地核准案即應失其效力，本院釋字 第五一六號解釋應予補充。
理由書：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障，故國家因公用或其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃因財產之徵收，對被徵收財產之所有權人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，更應儘速發給，方符憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，迭經本院解釋在案（本院釋字第四００號、第四二五號、第五一六號解釋參照）。
按徵收土地應補償之地價及其他補償費，應於公告期滿後十五日內發給之，如徵收補償價額經復議或行政救濟結果有變動者，其應補償價額差額，應於其結果確定之日起三個月內發給之（土地法第二百三十三條前段、土地徵收條例第二十條第一項前段、第二十二條第四項參照）。本院釋字第五一六號解釋亦謂：「土地法第二百三 十三條明定，徵收土地補償之地價及其他補償費，應於『公告期滿後十五日內』發給。此項法定期間，雖或因對徵收補償有異議，由該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，然補償費額經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交轉發土地所有權人，其期限亦不得超過土地法上述規定之十五日（本院院 字第二七０四號、釋字第一一０號解釋參照）。倘若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，應動支預備金，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。」均係基於貫徹憲法保障人民財產權之意旨及財產權之程序保障功能，就徵收補 償發給期限而為之嚴格要求。
本院釋字第五一六號解釋之上開內容，雖係就徵收補償異議程序後補償費發給期限所為之闡釋，惟關於補償費應相當並儘速發給之憲法要求，對於原補償處分因法定救 濟期間經過而確定後，始發現錯誤而應發給補償費差額之情形，亦應有其適用。是倘原補償處分已確定，且補償費業經發給完竣，嗣後直轄市或縣（市）政府始發現其據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤，原發給之補償費較之依法應發給之補償費短少，而致原補償處分違法者，依行政程序法第一百十七條前段之規定，直轄市或縣（市）政府固得依職權決定是否撤銷原補償處分、另為適法之處分並發給補償費差額。惟因原發給之補償費客觀上既有所短少，已有違補償應相當之憲法要求，而呈現嚴重之違法狀態，故於此情形，為貫徹補償應相當及應儘速發給之憲法要求，直轄市或縣（市）政府應無不為撤銷之裁量餘地；亦即應於相當期限內，依職權撤銷該已確定之違法補償處分，另為適法之補償處分，並通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額轉發原土地所有權人。逾期未發給補償費差額者，原徵收土地核准案即失其效力，方符憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，本院釋字第五一六號解釋應予補充。
上述所謂相當期限，應由立法機關本於儘速發給之憲法要求，以法律加以明定。於法律有明文規定前，鑑於前述原補償處分確定後始發現錯誤而應發給補償費差額之情形，原非需用土地人所得預見，亦無從責其預先籌措經費，以繳交補償費之差額，如適用土地法、土地徵收條例等上開法律規定，要求直轄市、縣（市）政府於十五 日或三個月內通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額，並轉發原土地所有權人完竣，事實上或法律上（如預算法相關限制等）輒有困難而無可期待，故有關相當期限之認定，應本於儘速發給之原則，就個案視發給補償費差額之多寡、預算與預備金之編列及動支情形、可合理期待需用土地人籌措財源之時間等因素而定。然為避免直轄 市或縣（市）政府遲未發給補償費差額，致原土地所有權人之權益受損，參酌前揭因素，此一相當期限最長不得超過二年。
關於上開相當期限之起算日，因原補償處分之違法係直轄市或縣（市）政府據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤所致，直轄市或縣（市）政府應提交地價及標準地價評議委員會重行評議或評定，以資更正（土地法第一百五十四條、第一百六十五條及第二百四十七條、土地徵收條例第二十二條及第三十條、平均地權條例第十五條及第四十六條等規定參照），故於法律有明文規定前，上開相當期限應自該管直轄市或縣（市）政府地價及標準地價評議委員會重行評議或評定結果確定之日起 算。其中原補償處分之違法如係因原公告土地現值錯誤所致，而有所更正，則應自該管直轄市或縣（市）政府經地價及標準地價評議委員會評議更正公告土地現值之公告確定之日起算。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 652
Date：2008.12.5
Issue：Does “reasonable period of time” stated in J.Y. Interpretation No. 516 have an upper limit?
Holding：
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property pursuant to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be promptly given. If and when the original compensatory disposition becomes final and binding due to the lapse of statutory remedial period, and the compensation is paid in full, any subsequent discovery of errors by the Special Municipality or County/City concerning the land value criteria upon which the original compensatory disposition is based that result in the shortfall of the original compensation and render the original disposition unlawful, such competent authorities shall withdraw the original compensation disposition ex officio, render a lawful compensatory disposition, and notify the land-use petitioner to pay the discrepancies to the original landowner. The original expropriation shall become invalid in the event the discrepancies remained unpaid after a certain period of time. J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 shall accordingly be supplemented.
Reasoning：
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property pursuant to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a special sacrifice for the sake of public interests, and the State shall compensate the loss with respect to the deprivation of property or the constraints on rights. Therefore, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people, the compensation must be fair and prompt, as several interpretations rendered by the Judicial Yuan have so dictated (See Interpretation Nos. 400, 425 and 516).
Land price and other compensation due to expropriation shall be paid no later than fifteen (15) days after the period of public notice is expired, and in case the compensatory amount is adjusted after being re-evaluated or as the result of an administrative grievance proceeding, the discrepancies shall be paid within three (3) months since the date the result is determined (See the first sentence of Article 233 of the Land Act, the first sentence of Article 20, Paragraph 1 and Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Eminent Domain Act). J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 also held: “Article 233 of the Land Act clearly stipulates that land price and other compensation from expropriation of land shall be paid no later than ‘fifteen (15) days since the expiration of public notice.’ Although this statutory period may be extended because of the governing authority’s submission for re-evaluation in light of objection on the amount of compensation, the governing authority shall nevertheless immediately notify the person in need of land use once the compensatory amount is determined, and impose the period within which payment shall be made and remitted to the landowner. Such period shall not exceed fifteen (15) days as provided in the above-stated Land Act (See Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). In the event the amount of discrepancies is exceedingly large that requires the expenditure of reserved fund, or there are other special circumstances that render the payment within fifteen (15) days impossible, payment shall nevertheless be promptly made within a reasonable period of time since the date re-evaluation is determined or the eminent domain shall be deemed invalid.” These strict requirements on compensatory payment period over expropriation are to uphold the constitutional objective of protecting people’s property rights and the function of procedural safeguards on such protection.
While J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 deals with payment period after the objection proceeding on expropriation compensation, in light of the constitutional requirement for adequate and efficient compensatory payment, however, it is applicable mutatis mutantis to situations where error is discovered after the original compensatory disposition becomes final for the lapse of statutory period and the discrepancies must be paid. As a result, if the Special Municipality or County/City should discover that the land value that serves as the basis of its disposition is erroneous only after that disposition has become final and the shortfall amount has been paid, thereby rendering such disposition unlawful, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 117 of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Special Municipality or County/City may indeed at its discretion decide whether to rescind the original disposition and enter a lawful one instead with disbursement for the discrepancies. However, given that there is objectively a shortfall concerning the original compensation already, the status quo, therefore, constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional requirement for adequate compensation. Consequently, to uphold the constitutional requirement that adequate and efficient compensation be provided, the Special Municipality or County/City has no room to exercise its decision not to rescind; i.e., to undo the final but unlawful disposition as a matter of authority, issued another lawful disposition, notify the land-use applicant to pay the discrepancies and transfer that payment to the land owner within a reasonable period of time If the discrepancies are not paid after the period is expired, the approved expropriation shall immediately be deemed invalid. J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 is hereby supplemented to conform with the Constitution objective in protecting the property rights of the people.
The so-called reasonable period of time indicated above shall be clearly stipulated by legislative act based on the constitutional requirement for prompt compensatory payment. Before such legislation comes into being, the reasonable period of time shall be determined, based on the principle of promptness and on case-by-case basis, by factors such as the amount of the compensatory discrepancies, the appropriation of the budget and reserve fund, and the reasonable expectation of time the land-use applicant needs for fund-raising. This is because the land-use applicant cannot possibly foresee circumstances where errors are discovered after the original disposition becomes final with compensatory discrepancies incurred, nor can the applicant be obligated to arrange such discrepancy payment in advance. Should the above stated provisions of the Land Act or Eminent Domain Act be applied [strictly] so that the Special Municipality or County/City must notify the land-use applicant as well as complete the payment and transfer of compensatory discrepancies within fifteen (15) days or three (3) months, hardship is often created both in reality and in law (such as the relevant limitation by the Budget Act). Nevertheless, to avoid the situation where the Special Municipality or County/City continuously delay payment of the compensatory discrepancies, thereby infringing upon the rights of the original landowner, and taken into consideration the aforementioned factors, the maximum of this reasonable period of time shall be no more than two (2) years.
Prior to the legislative enactment of a clear stipulation, the starting date of the above-stated reasonable period of time shall be the date the re-evaluation decision of the Committee on Land Price and Land Values Standards of the Special Municipality or County/City becomes final. This is because the unlawfulness of the original compensation disposition is caused by the erroneous land value criteria based on which the Special Municipality or County/City renders the original compensation disposition, and the Special Municipality or County/City shall submit to the Committee on Land Values and Normal Land Values for re-evaluation (See Articles 154, 165 and 247 of the Land Act, Articles 22 and 30 of the Eminent Domain Act and Articles 15 and 46 of the Equalization of Land Rights Act). If the unlawfulness of the original compensation disposition is resulted from errors in the original publicly announced current land value, the reasonable period of time shall start from the date the public notice of the corrected land value by the Committee on Land Values and Normal Land Values becomes final.
Translated by Spenser Y. Hor, Esq. and Chien Yeh Law Offices..
解釋字號：釋字第652號
解釋日期：民國97年12月5日
解釋爭點：釋字第516號解釋「相當之期限」有無上限？
資料來源：
司法院公報 第 51 卷 2 期 7-34 頁
司法周刊 第 1419 期 1 版
法令月刊 第 60 卷 2 期 149-152 頁
總統府公報 第 6842 號 12 頁
司法院大法官解釋（二十一）第 500-535 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15 條 ( 36.01.01 )
土地法 第 154、165、233、247 條 ( 95.06.14 )
平均地權條例 第 15、46 條 ( 94.01.30 )
土地徵收條例 第 20、22、30 條 ( 91.12.11 )
解釋文：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障，故國家因公用或 其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償，且應儘速發給。倘原補償處分已因法定救濟期間經過而確定，且補償費業經依法發給完竣， 嗣後直轄市或縣（市）政府始發現其據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤，原發給之補償費短少，致原補償處分違法者，自應於相當期限內依職權撤銷該已確定之補償處分，另為適法之補償處分，並通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額轉發原土地所有權人。逾期未發給補償費差額者，原徵收土地核准案即應失其效力，本院釋字 第五一六號解釋應予補充。
理由書：
憲法第十五條規定，人民之財產權應予保障，故國家因公用或其他公益目的之必要，雖得依法徵收人民之財產，但應給予合理之補償。此項補償乃因財產之徵收，對被徵收財產之所有權人而言，係為公共利益所受之特別犧牲，國家自應予以補償，以填補其財產權被剝奪或其權能受限制之損失。故補償不僅需相當，更應儘速發給，方符憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，迭經本院解釋在案（本院釋字第四００號、第四二五號、第五一六號解釋參照）。
按徵收土地應補償之地價及其他補償費，應於公告期滿後十五日內發給之，如徵收補償價額經復議或行政救濟結果有變動者，其應補償價額差額，應於其結果確定之日起三個月內發給之（土地法第二百三十三條前段、土地徵收條例第二十條第一項前段、第二十二條第四項參照）。本院釋字第五一六號解釋亦謂：「土地法第二百三 十三條明定，徵收土地補償之地價及其他補償費，應於『公告期滿後十五日內』發給。此項法定期間，雖或因對徵收補償有異議，由該管地政機關提交評定或評議而得展延，然補償費額經評定或評議後，主管地政機關仍應即行通知需用土地人，並限期繳交轉發土地所有權人，其期限亦不得超過土地法上述規定之十五日（本院院 字第二七０四號、釋字第一一０號解釋參照）。倘若應增加補償之數額過於龐大，應動支預備金，或有其他特殊情事，致未能於十五日內發給者，仍應於評定或評議結果確定之日起於相當之期限內儘速發給之，否則徵收土地核准案，即應失其效力。」均係基於貫徹憲法保障人民財產權之意旨及財產權之程序保障功能，就徵收補 償發給期限而為之嚴格要求。
本院釋字第五一六號解釋之上開內容，雖係就徵收補償異議程序後補償費發給期限所為之闡釋，惟關於補償費應相當並儘速發給之憲法要求，對於原補償處分因法定救 濟期間經過而確定後，始發現錯誤而應發給補償費差額之情形，亦應有其適用。是倘原補償處分已確定，且補償費業經發給完竣，嗣後直轄市或縣（市）政府始發現其據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤，原發給之補償費較之依法應發給之補償費短少，而致原補償處分違法者，依行政程序法第一百十七條前段之規定，直轄市或縣（市）政府固得依職權決定是否撤銷原補償處分、另為適法之處分並發給補償費差額。惟因原發給之補償費客觀上既有所短少，已有違補償應相當之憲法要求，而呈現嚴重之違法狀態，故於此情形，為貫徹補償應相當及應儘速發給之憲法要求，直轄市或縣（市）政府應無不為撤銷之裁量餘地；亦即應於相當期限內，依職權撤銷該已確定之違法補償處分，另為適法之補償處分，並通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額轉發原土地所有權人。逾期未發給補償費差額者，原徵收土地核准案即失其效力，方符憲法保障人民財產權之意旨，本院釋字第五一六號解釋應予補充。
上述所謂相當期限，應由立法機關本於儘速發給之憲法要求，以法律加以明定。於法律有明文規定前，鑑於前述原補償處分確定後始發現錯誤而應發給補償費差額之情形，原非需用土地人所得預見，亦無從責其預先籌措經費，以繳交補償費之差額，如適用土地法、土地徵收條例等上開法律規定，要求直轄市、縣（市）政府於十五 日或三個月內通知需用土地人繳交補償費差額，並轉發原土地所有權人完竣，事實上或法律上（如預算法相關限制等）輒有困難而無可期待，故有關相當期限之認定，應本於儘速發給之原則，就個案視發給補償費差額之多寡、預算與預備金之編列及動支情形、可合理期待需用土地人籌措財源之時間等因素而定。然為避免直轄 市或縣（市）政府遲未發給補償費差額，致原土地所有權人之權益受損，參酌前揭因素，此一相當期限最長不得超過二年。
關於上開相當期限之起算日，因原補償處分之違法係直轄市或縣（市）政府據以作成原補償處分之地價標準認定錯誤所致，直轄市或縣（市）政府應提交地價及標準地價評議委員會重行評議或評定，以資更正（土地法第一百五十四條、第一百六十五條及第二百四十七條、土地徵收條例第二十二條及第三十條、平均地權條例第十五條及第四十六條等規定參照），故於法律有明文規定前，上開相當期限應自該管直轄市或縣（市）政府地價及標準地價評議委員會重行評議或評定結果確定之日起 算。其中原補償處分之違法如係因原公告土地現值錯誤所致，而有所更正，則應自該管直轄市或縣（市）政府經地價及標準地價評議委員會評議更正公告土地現值之公告確定之日起算。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 652
Date：2008.12.5
Issue：Does “reasonable period of time” stated in J.Y. Interpretation No. 516 have an upper limit?
Holding：
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property pursuant to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be promptly given. If and when the original compensatory disposition becomes final and binding due to the lapse of statutory remedial period, and the compensation is paid in full, any subsequent discovery of errors by the Special Municipality or County/City concerning the land value criteria upon which the original compensatory disposition is based that result in the shortfall of the original compensation and render the original disposition unlawful, such competent authorities shall withdraw the original compensation disposition ex officio, render a lawful compensatory disposition, and notify the land-use petitioner to pay the discrepancies to the original landowner. The original expropriation shall become invalid in the event the discrepancies remained unpaid after a certain period of time. J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 shall accordingly be supplemented.
Reasoning：
Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the people’s property rights shall be protected. Although the State may expropriate the people’s property pursuant to the law when it is necessary for the purpose of public use or other public interests, fair compensation shall be given. This compensation is due to the expropriation of property. For owners of expropriated property, this is a special sacrifice for the sake of public interests, and the State shall compensate the loss with respect to the deprivation of property or the constraints on rights. Therefore, in light of the purpose of the Constitution to protect the property rights of the people, the compensation must be fair and prompt, as several interpretations rendered by the Judicial Yuan have so dictated (See Interpretation Nos. 400, 425 and 516).
Land price and other compensation due to expropriation shall be paid no later than fifteen (15) days after the period of public notice is expired, and in case the compensatory amount is adjusted after being re-evaluated or as the result of an administrative grievance proceeding, the discrepancies shall be paid within three (3) months since the date the result is determined (See the first sentence of Article 233 of the Land Act, the first sentence of Article 20, Paragraph 1 and Article 22, Paragraph 4 of the Eminent Domain Act). J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 also held: “Article 233 of the Land Act clearly stipulates that land price and other compensation from expropriation of land shall be paid no later than ‘fifteen (15) days since the expiration of public notice.’ Although this statutory period may be extended because of the governing authority’s submission for re-evaluation in light of objection on the amount of compensation, the governing authority shall nevertheless immediately notify the person in need of land use once the compensatory amount is determined, and impose the period within which payment shall be made and remitted to the landowner. Such period shall not exceed fifteen (15) days as provided in the above-stated Land Act (See Yuan-tze No. 2704 and Interpretation No. 110). In the event the amount of discrepancies is exceedingly large that requires the expenditure of reserved fund, or there are other special circumstances that render the payment within fifteen (15) days impossible, payment shall nevertheless be promptly made within a reasonable period of time since the date re-evaluation is determined or the eminent domain shall be deemed invalid.” These strict requirements on compensatory payment period over expropriation are to uphold the constitutional objective of protecting people’s property rights and the function of procedural safeguards on such protection.
While J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 deals with payment period after the objection proceeding on expropriation compensation, in light of the constitutional requirement for adequate and efficient compensatory payment, however, it is applicable mutatis mutantis to situations where error is discovered after the original compensatory disposition becomes final for the lapse of statutory period and the discrepancies must be paid. As a result, if the Special Municipality or County/City should discover that the land value that serves as the basis of its disposition is erroneous only after that disposition has become final and the shortfall amount has been paid, thereby rendering such disposition unlawful, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 117 of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Special Municipality or County/City may indeed at its discretion decide whether to rescind the original disposition and enter a lawful one instead with disbursement for the discrepancies. However, given that there is objectively a shortfall concerning the original compensation already, the status quo, therefore, constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional requirement for adequate compensation. Consequently, to uphold the constitutional requirement that adequate and efficient compensation be provided, the Special Municipality or County/City has no room to exercise its decision not to rescind; i.e., to undo the final but unlawful disposition as a matter of authority, issued another lawful disposition, notify the land-use applicant to pay the discrepancies and transfer that payment to the land owner within a reasonable period of time If the discrepancies are not paid after the period is expired, the approved expropriation shall immediately be deemed invalid. J. Y. Interpretation No. 516 is hereby supplemented to conform with the Constitution objective in protecting the property rights of the people.
The so-called reasonable period of time indicated above shall be clearly stipulated by legislative act based on the constitutional requirement for prompt compensatory payment. Before such legislation comes into being, the reasonable period of time shall be determined, based on the principle of promptness and on case-by-case basis, by factors such as the amount of the compensatory discrepancies, the appropriation of the budget and reserve fund, and the reasonable expectation of time the land-use applicant needs for fund-raising. This is because the land-use applicant cannot possibly foresee circumstances where errors are discovered after the original disposition becomes final with compensatory discrepancies incurred, nor can the applicant be obligated to arrange such discrepancy payment in advance. Should the above stated provisions of the Land Act or Eminent Domain Act be applied [strictly] so that the Special Municipality or County/City must notify the land-use applicant as well as complete the payment and transfer of compensatory discrepancies within fifteen (15) days or three (3) months, hardship is often created both in reality and in law (such as the relevant limitation by the Budget Act). Nevertheless, to avoid the situation where the Special Municipality or County/City continuously delay payment of the compensatory discrepancies, thereby infringing upon the rights of the original landowner, and taken into consideration the aforementioned factors, the maximum of this reasonable period of time shall be no more than two (2) years.
Prior to the legislative enactment of a clear stipulation, the starting date of the above-stated reasonable period of time shall be the date the re-evaluation decision of the Committee on Land Price and Land Values Standards of the Special Municipality or County/City becomes final. This is because the unlawfulness of the original compensation disposition is caused by the erroneous land value criteria based on which the Special Municipality or County/City renders the original compensation disposition, and the Special Municipality or County/City shall submit to the Committee on Land Values and Normal Land Values for re-evaluation (See Articles 154, 165 and 247 of the Land Act, Articles 22 and 30 of the Eminent Domain Act and Articles 15 and 46 of the Equalization of Land Rights Act). If the unlawfulness of the original compensation disposition is resulted from errors in the original publicly announced current land value, the reasonable period of time shall start from the date the public notice of the corrected land value by the Committee on Land Values and Normal Land Values becomes final.
Translated by Spenser Y. Hor, Esq. and Chien Yeh Law Offices..
今日瀏覽人數：2403 總瀏覽人數：9499769
|
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。