查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 結構體以外之工作或非重大修繕適用承攬人抵押權規定之探討=An Exploration of Whether the Mechanic's Lien Applies to the Work Outside the Structure and the Non-vital Repair |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 黃健彰; | 書刊名 | 國立臺灣大學法學論叢 |
卷期 | 42:3 2013.09[民102.09] |
頁次 | 頁497-552 |
分類號 | 584.26 |
關鍵詞 | 結構體之工作; 重大修繕; 結構體以外之工作; 非重大修繕; 水電工程; 承攬人抵押權; 法定抵押權; Work of the structure; Vital repair; Work outside the structure; Non-vital repair; Sewage and electricity works; Mechanic's lien; Statutory lien; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 民法第513條第1項規定:「承攬之工作為建築物或其他土地上之工作物或為此等工作物之重大修繕者…」,嚴格來說,該項僅規範「重大修繕有承攬人抵押權的適用」,而就「非重大修繕有無承攬人抵押權適用」此問題其實並未直接規範,也未排除「結構體以外之工作」。我國過去著作中雖有略微提及此爭議,並呈現不同見解,但無專門探討該問題的論文。不過,此為實務上重要的問題。總體而言,過去法院裁判經常以「系爭承攬為『結構體以外之工作』或『非重大修繕』」為由,而認為承攬人無該條規定之抵押權可主張。此見解是否妥適,有待檢討。再者,從實務見解可得知,建物「重大修繕」乃至「主體結構」的判定,最高法院、高等法院與地方法院常出現不同的認定。本文以文獻分析法為主、以法律經濟分析法與比較法為輔,詳盡探討上開議題,提出解釋論與立法論上的建議。本文以為,從賦予承攬人抵押權的主要規範目的來看,並無理由認為限於結構體的工作才可主張該抵押權,且發生事由宜包括非重大修繕。縱認為文義已相當明確而不得類推適用,堅持承攬人抵押權的適用仍應以「重大修繕」為要件,亦應儘量予以擴張解釋。未來如有機會修法,宜考慮將該條「重大」二字刪除。 |
英文摘要 | The first paragraph of Article 513 of Civil Code provides, ”When the contract of hire of work is for the construction of a building or other works on land or for vital repairs on such building or works ...”. Strictly speaking, the paragraph only regulates ”mechanic's liens apply to vital repairs”, but it does not regulate directly ”whether mechanic's liens apply to non-vital repairs or not”. It does not exclude ”the work outside the structure”, either. Although the pass writings in our country touched on this dispute slightly and presented different views, there is no paper specifically devoted to this question. However, this is an important practical question. Generally speaking, court judgments in the past considered that contractors held no liens described by this provision because of ”works outside the structure or non-vital repairs in dispute” very often. It is necessary to examine this opinion. Furthermore, known from the opinion of the practice, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the District Courts often determine ”the vital repairs” and ”the structure” of the building differently. This study explores said issues in detail mainly under the perspective of documentary analysis, and in addition, of law and economic analysis and comparative law. This study makes suggestions of interpretation and legislation on the provision.This study holds that ”contractors who work outside the structure and for non-vital repairs” shall have liens under the perspective of the main purpose of the provision of a mechanic's lien. Even though we insist on the element of ”the structure of the building or vital repairs” of mechanic's liens and consider that this provision shall not apply by analogy because of its very clear meaning, we shall explain it broadly as possible. If we have opportunity to modify this provision in the future, we can take repealing the element of ”vital repairs” into consideration. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。