借名登記契約，乃當事人間約定，一方經他方同意，就屬於一方之財產或權利，以他方之名義，登記為所有權人或其他權利人，而實際之管理、使用、收益、處分權限均由一方行使之，所成立之契約。此種契約使得名義上權利人與實質權利人並不一致，信託契約亦有相同特點。本論文想藉由信託契約與借名登記契約之交相對照，研究我國借名登記契約並觀察其發展，尤其在效力上。早期我國實務見解曾有認為借名契約就係消極信託契約，而認定其為無效。然現今實務見解已有轉變之勢，認定借名登記契約有效，與消極信託契約脫鉤；換言之，只要借名登記契約無違強行禁止規定、未悖公序良俗，且原因正當，就應認為有效。
此外，借名登記契約，亦會涉及不動產登記制度。本論文尚欲討論者乃借名登記契約與第三人之關係。借名登記契約會使得不動產之登記上權利人與實質上權利人不一致，出名人違反借名登記契約，擅與第三人交易，處分借名登記財產時，該處分行為效力為何，實務近來開始重視並討論之。觀察目前實務見解，傾向保護交易安全，只要第三人係善意，則認為該處分有效。然迄今實務上仍未有定見，有待後續發展與觀察。
The contract of borrowing other’s name for registration means that: “The parties agree with that one party provides his name for the other party as the registrant of real properties and is transferred the right of ownership of real properties; or simply provides his name to the other party for registration of quasi-real and personal properties. But the management, usage, and disposition of properties are succeeded by the others. ” This contract makes the ownership of properties or the rights of ownership inconsistent with the registrations of properties. Trust contract has the same characteristic. This essay is to study the contract of borrowing other’s name for registration and observe its development by contrasting with trust contract, especially in effect of contracts. In early cases, some courts thought that the contract of borrowing other’s name for registration was the same as the passive trust contract so that it should be invalid. However, the courts change their opinions with time. They think the contract of borrowing other’s name is completely different from passive trust contract. As long as there are no reasons offending law or being contrary to public order and good morals of the circumstances, and there are legitimate purposes, the contract shall be effective.
Besides, the contract of borrowing other’s name for registration is involving the registration of real properties. This essay also focuses on the relation between the contract of borrowing other’s name for registration and the third party because the contract of borrowing other’s name for registration makes the ownership of properties or the rights of ownership inconsistent with the registrations of real properties. Recently the courts pay attention to the issue about the ownership of properties or rights of ownership when the registered person defaulting the contract . So far, the courts tend to protect the safety of business transactions. In other words, the bona fide third party can obtain ownership of these real properties. Until now, the courts have no final conclusion from the issue about ownership of properties or the rights of ownership. We should keep eye on what happen in these cases and the opinions of the courts.
