| 摘要: | 憲法為各法規範之基礎，國家各權力機構為公權力行使應服膺於憲法的規制，基本國策為憲法的一部分，係國家的立國及治國理念指導及付託，各權力機關，包括司法機關所為各項司法解釋或個案裁判，均應受憲法基本國策規定之拘束，不僅不可抵觸更應積極促進及維護。尤以我國憲法關於國民經濟之基本國策的入憲過程，更可深刻瞭解我國制憲者對於土地分配與整理，對於扶植自行使用土地之人的要求，係原則而非為方針。再參以民國64年修正土地法104條之修正理由可知，現行土地法第104條關於房屋及基地優先購買權規定，係遵循配合憲法關於國民經濟之扶植自行使用土地人原則的基本國策而來。
因土地法第104條優先購買權規定，影響所及者，包括房屋或基地之出賣人、房屋或基地之原購買人及房屋或基地之先買權人間，甚至影響房屋或基地之再轉之人憲法財產權保障及干涉，亦會涉及契約自由限制及如何維護交易安全等議題，故而於進行土地法第104條規定之優先購買權各項爭議解釋時，必須符合憲法規範，以求合理解決各權利間之衝突問題。易言之，應以憲法第143條第4項規定之扶植自行使用土地人原則，並與相關人民之財產權、契約自由限制及交易安全保障進行權衡，作為土地法第104條規定之優先購買權各項爭議之解釋標準。
目前學說及司法實務對於土地法第104條規定之優先購買權之權利性質、權利要件、通知義務、權利行使、效力範圍及順序等相關爭議多有討論，但鮮少從憲法規範觀點切入進行各項爭議的研究及分析。因此，本論文擬從我國憲法關於財產權及基本國策規定及勾稽土地法第104條立法意旨，先求取土地法第104條規定之優先購買權的法規範意旨，再逐一回顧學說及實務對於土地法第104條規定所產生的各項爭議主張，再運用首揭提出具有憲法基礎之解釋標準，重新檢視土地法第104條各項爭議，進行評析提出結論。最後，並綜合參考國外對於優先購買權的立法例，提出對於土地法第104條房屋及基地優先購買權規定之修法建議。
The Constitution is the foundation of all laws and regulations. All competent authorities of the state shall fully obey the regulations of the Constitution for the exercise of public power. The fundamental national policies constitute a part of the Constitution, which shall be the guidelines and entrustment of the state's founding and governance concepts and all judicial interpretations or individual judgments shall be fully bound by the fundamental state policies of the Constitution, to which they shall not only to be consistent with those policies, but also be actively promoted and maintained. In particular, by viewing the process of enacting the fundamental national policies of the national economy in Taiwan’s Constitution, one would be able to deeply understand that the requirements of Taiwan's constitution-makers for land distribution and arrangement, in which the requirements for the government to support those who use the land for themselves shall be regarded as the principles rather than guidelines. Furthermore, by referring to the reasons for the amendment of Article 104 of the Land Act in 1975, one would see that the provisions of Article 104 of the current Land Act on the right of first refusal to purchase houses and land comply with the fundamental state policies of the Constitution in support of the national economy and the principle of self-use of the land.
For those affected by the right of first refusal stipulated in Article 104 of the Land Act, including the sellers of the houses or land, the original purchasers of the house or land and the persons with the right of first refusal of the house or land and even the affect to constitutional property rights protection and intervention of the re-transfer of the house or land may also involve issues such as the restrictions on the freedom of contract and the method to maintain transaction security. Therefore, when interpreting the disputes over the rights of first refusal stipulated in Article 104 of the Land Act, one shall comply with the constitutional norms to reasonably resolve the conflicts of rights. In other words, the principle of supporting those who use the land for themselves as stipulated in Paragraph 4 of Article 143 of the Constitution shall be weighed against the property rights of the relevant personnel, restrictions on contract freedom and transaction security, as the standards for the interpretation for each and all of disputes of the rights of first refusal stipulated in Article 104 of the Land Act.
At present, there are many discussions in theories and judicial practice on the nature, requirements, notification obligations, exercise of rights, scope of effect and priority of the rights of first refusal stipulated in Article 104 of the Land Act, but there are rarely research and analysis of the disputes over the perspectives of constitutional norms. Therefore, this study intends to clarify the legal normative context of the rights of first refusal stipulated in Article 104 of the Land Act by exploring the provisions of the Constitution on property rights and fundamental national policies and the legislative intent of Article 104 of the Land Act and then it will review the various disputes from the theories and practices on provisions of Article 104 of Land Act one by one. Then it will adopt the interpretation standards with constitutional foundation to re-examine the disputes in Article 104 of the Land Act, make evaluation and analysis and reach the conclusions. Last but not least, with comprehensive reference to foreign legislation on the rights of first refusal, it will provide the suggestion for the amendment the provisions of Article 104 of the Land Act on the rights of first refusal of houses and land. |
