English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51734869      Online Users : 588
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52805


    Title: 台灣祭祀公業土地清理問題之研究
    the land clearance of taiwan worship guilds problems
    Authors: 蔡哲晃
    Contributors: 楊松齡
    蔡哲晃
    Keywords: 祭田
    祭祀公業法人
    代為標售
    財產權保障
    比例原則
    房份
    Sacrificial field
    Worship guild as a Juristic Person
    Public Auction on One’s Behalf
    Protection of Property Rights
    Principle of Proportionality
    Scope of Property Rights and Responsibility
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2012-04-17 09:24:46 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 台灣祭祀公業為民間祭祀團體係特殊民間傳統習慣所形成,其特殊性為「共有」型態,以祭祀祖先為目的所設立之獨立財產。其設置,淵源於中國大陸南宋「祭田」經先民為維護人民本身之生存之安全,勢必組織團體,藉以互助及自衛,依賴宗族組織逐漸形成台灣之特殊制度。本文研究是以祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條「代為標售」政府以公權力介入剝奪民間之祭祀公業財產,限定三年內申報清理,逾期申報由直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售,此種化私產為公產(囑託登記為國有)剝奪人民財產權是否有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則應予探討。又祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項規定應以「祭祀公業法人為新設立之特殊性質法人,而非依民法成立社團法人或財團法人為新設立。」立法要求祭祀公業成立「祭祀公業法人」為權利義務主體具有人格化,管理重於清理,應予探討研究。
    「祭祀公業」以頒布祭祀公業條例予以清理,在民政機關(單位)應予嚴格審查核發派下全員證明書,以利祭祀公業登記為「祭祀公業法人」或「個別所有」、「持分共有」或「均分」所有,以利管理。因此對祭祀公業之派下員清理,宜予慎重探討。其頒指出祭祀公業條例實施後問題所在,能對過去到現在清理祭祀公業之政策困難「盲點」於處理原則及法令修定時予以參考。
    本論文共分五章其主要內容說明如下:
    第一章 緒論:說明研究動機與目的,研究方法與範圍,研究內容與流程。第二章 祭祀公業法性質定為之探討:祭祀公業的涵義,就有關文獻,藉著祭祀公業定義、分類、沿革及法律本質之定位問題予論述,日治時期之定位及分析祭祀公業法律性質之定位與釐清學說與實務不同見解,針對祭祀公業法人之特殊性,具有「人格」為權利義務主體,期望祭祀公業條例實施後,有利於政府管理祭祀公業。
    第三章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施前土地清理之探討:論述台灣光復初期地籍失實之原因,祭祀公業法制承接之改變,使法律本質定位在「習慣上法人」國民政府播遷來台影響,秉持大陸之見解認定祭祀公業為「公同共有」之性質,以致清理發生困難,政府放任祭祀公業不立法保護,法令闕如,以致祭祀公業纏訟爭財,政府對祭祀公業土地清理法令何在?雖然內政部於七十年四月三日頒布「祭祀公業土地清理要點」二十六點,積極清理,以便管理,隨後台灣省政府頒布「台灣省祭祀公業土地清理辦法」一十九條,因法律位階為法令,又缺少公權力,以致效果不彰,推原其故,詳述問題所在,以訂立新法為法律,而有土地清理相關規定問題,提出祭祀公業管理條例草案及地籍清理條例草案為立法解決祭祀公業土地清理問題。
    第四章 祭祀公業條例公佈實施後土地清理之探討:祭祀公業條例公佈實施前所發生問題是否解決?困難問題未能解決,政府為解決立法授權行政主管機關,以公共利益為考慮,予以代為標售為徹底解決主體不明,權屬不清,無法藉司法途徑解決之祭祀公業,如此見解是否剝奪民間習慣形成之祭祀公業,以公益剝奪私益,有違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條人民財產權之保障,闡述祭祀公業法人登記之分析,祭祀公業第五十九條第一項所規定新設立祭祀公業已民法規定社團法人或財團法人為之。闡述祭祀公業法人為特別性質之法人,為祭祀公業條例公佈實施之特色,今新設立祭祀公業應以登記為祭祀公業法人為之,為正確;對於祭祀公業土地清理,應以民政機關核發派下全員證明書為地政機關登記之憑證,故祭祀公業在申請民政機關核發派下全員證明書審核時與以對其派下員清理。
    第五章 結論與建議,一、結論:(一)祭祀公業派下員之清理,如何認定派下權,以杜絕糾紛,授權民政機關核發派下全員證明書協助祭祀公業派下權責任重大。期望未來修法時,在實體對派下權繼承取得或喪失及範圍作明確之規範。(二)祭祀公業法人登記之分析,將祭祀公業法人登記規範二十四項,予以歸納分析其程序及應附文件。於清理完畢,予以管理。祭祀公業條例第五十九條第一項新設立祭祀公業,依民法規定成立社團法人或財團法人。祭祀公業條例忽略法人化,特別規定特殊性質法人為權利義務主體,有別於社團法人或財團法人。因此本研究認為新設立祭祀公業應以成立登記祭祀公業法人為之,符合特殊性質法人說之立論。(三)逾期未申報清理,代為標售分析,政府(行政主管機關)為全面清理祭祀公業,竟然立法祭祀公業條例第五十一條及相關第五十四條、第五十五條規定,將土地二次標售,未完成標售者,囑託地政機關登記為「國有」,增加政府國有土地之資源。又於代為標售之價金及登記為國有之土地價金,期限十年,祭祀公業逾期未申請發給土地價金結算如有賸餘歸入「國庫」。此種土地政策公益大於私益,嚴重剝奪祭祀公業之財產,以公權力介入代為標售違反憲法第十五條及第二十三條之必要性原則及比例原則之違憲行為,剝奪人民之財產權,詳盡論述。二、建議:祭祀公業條例施行後,實務上之運作,對祭祀公業申報清理作業,仍有處分實務與法令盲點存在,建議將來為修法之參考:(一)祭祀公業條例第五條之修正為「一、……其繼承人應與該公業設立人或派下同姓且有共同分擔祭祀者,使符列為派下員。」(二)祭祀公業條例第五十條第一項:「……應於三年內依下列方式之一處理其土地及建物」之「之一」兩字應予刪除。(三)祭祀公業條例第五十條第三項建議修正。(四)祭祀公業條例第五十一條,直轄市、縣(市)主管機關代為標售之規定,有違背憲法第十五條及第二十五條對財產權保障及比例原則,於修法時建議刪除或修改條文。(五)祭祀公業條例第十二條欠缺移請直轄市、縣(市)政府調處機制,建議修法時予以增加,以利清理工作之運作。
    Abstract
    Worship guilds in Taiwan are civil worship associations formed due to special tradition and custom. Its unique characteristic is the “co-ownership” of the independent properties set up for worshiping ancestors. It originated from the “sacrificial field” in the Southern Song Dynasty. Due to the need of defending their safety and survival, ancient people organized themselves to help each other and ensure self-defense. Clan organizations have been evolved and developed into a system unique to Taiwan. This research discusses whether the government’s conversion of private properties into state-owned properties (inform the registration of properties as state-owned) and deprivation of people’s right to property are in violation of Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution, that is, the government deprives properties owned by civil worship guilds by exercising its public powers to require them to declare and clear their properties for ancestor worship within three years, and in the event that a worship guild fails to make the required declaration, the municipal city, county (city) government will publicly auction the properties in question on behalf of the worship guild according to Articles 51 and 54 as well as the “Public auction on behalf of worship guild “ stipulated in Article 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. In addition, Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds stipulates that “a worship guild constituted as a juristic person is a new form of juristic person with unique characteristics which differs from an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code.” The legislation requires a worship guild to form a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person” which has legal personality capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities. The fact that management takes precedence over clearance should be discussed and researched.
    The promulgation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds is to regulate “worship guilds.” Civil affairs authorities strictly review and issue the full membership (including the founding members and, if any, their successors) certificate of a worship guild to allow it being registered as a “worship guild constituted as a juristic person”, “individual ownership”, “co-ownership of respective shares” or “co-ownership of equal shares” for the purpose of management. As a result, it is important to undertake sensible discussions on the listing of worship guilds’ membership. This research is intended to point out problems arising from the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the policy “blind spots” associated with the regulation of worship guilds from the very beginning until now which are subsequently served as references for the principles of handling and future amendment to the applicable laws and regulations.
    This research is divided into five chapters and their key contents are listed below:
    Chapter one is the introduction which explains the research motive and objective, research methods and scope as well as research contents and procedures. Chapter Two discusses the positioning of worship guilds’ legal nature. In terms of the context of worship guilds, the definition, categorization, history and the positioning of the legal nature of worship guilds are expounded according to relevant literatures. Their positioning in the era under the Japanese colonial rule is also explored. The legal nature of worship guilds is analyzed and the clarification of the different interpretations between academic theories and practical experiences is made. Regarding the uniqueness of worship guilds as juristic persons, their acquisition of “personality” capable of exercising rights and bearing responsibilities after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect will hopefully facilitate the government’s management of worship guilds. Chapter Three concentrates on land clearance before the promulgation and implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds which discusses the reasons behind the incorrect cadasters immediately after the end of the Japanese occupation and the change of the legal system governing worship guilds. Worship guilds which had originally been regarded as “customary juristic persons” in their legal nature were deemed as “co-ownership in common” under the Mainland concept by the Nationalist government after its retreat to Taiwan. This led to great difficulties to regulate. The government’s failure to enact applicable laws to protect the interest of worship guilds created a legislative vacuum, causing numerous litigations for properties by worship guilds. Where the land clearance legislations as far as worship guilds are concerned? Although the Ministry of the Interior promulgated the “Arrangement Regulations for Worship Assets” with 26 regulations on April 3, 1981 to actively undertake clearance to facilitate management, followed by the “Regulations Governing Land Clearance by Worship Guilds of Taiwan Province” composed of 19 articles which were promulgated by the Taiwan Provincial Government, these points and regulations were inferior in their legal status and lacked enforcement powers, leading to ineffective and unsatisfactory results. The causes for their failure and problems needed to be addressed by the enactment of a new legislation. Accordingly, drafts of both the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds and the Statutes Governing Cadaster Clearance were proposed to resolve issues concerning land clearance by worship guilds.
    Chapter Four discusses land clearance after the implementation of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. Attentions are drawn to whether the problems which had occurred before the effectiveness of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds are resolved? In order to deal with the un-resolved problems, the government has enacted the law to authorize the competent authority, in consideration of public interest, to undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds aimed at completely resolving issues surrounding ownership and rights or cases of worship guilds which cannot be resolved by the judicial system. Whether this idea exploits worship guilds which were formed by way of civil custom, amounts to the deprivation of private interest by public interest, and violates the constitutional guarantee of people’s rights to property as per Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution requires further discussions. The registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons is analyzed as a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person as per the Civil Code under Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is also emphasized that worship guilds constituted as juristic persons are unique juristic persons which is a feature of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds. It is a correct policy to require any newly established worship guild to be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person. With respect of land clearance by worship guilds, civil affairs authorities should issue full membership certificates as a reference for land registration authorities to undertake land registration. Therefore, worship guilds can ascertain their full membership when applying to civil affairs authorities for membership certificates. Chapter Five is conclusions and suggestions. I. Conclusions: (1) Regarding the ascertaining of membership of worship guilds, it is important to ascertain the right of the membership to prevent future disputes. Civil affair authorities’ power to issue full membership certificates bears great responsibilities in assisting the establishment of the right of the membership of worship guilds. It is hoped that future amendment will be made to the acquisition by succession, loss and scope of the right of the membership. (2) In respect of the analysis of the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons, the procedures and attached documents required by the 24 regulations governing the registration of worship guilds constituted as juristic persons should be analyzed. After the analysis is done, the procedures and attached documents should be managed accordingly. According to Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, a newly established worship guild is required to be established as an association constituted as a juristic person or a foundation constituted as a juristic person in accordance with the Civil Code. The Statutes Governing Worship Guilds ignores legal personalization and specially provides that worship guilds are a special form of juristic persons which are different from associations or foundations constituted as juristic persons. Due to this, this research concludes that a newly established worship guild should be registered as a worship guild constituted as a juristic person in order to fit in its unique legal personality. (3) The failure to declare and clear worship properties leads to the government’s public auctions on behalf of worship guilds. In order to fully regulate worship guilds, the government (the competent authority) has nevertheless enacted Articles 51, 54 and 55 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds to publicly auction the lands for the second time. The competent authority then informed the land registration authority to register those lands which had not been successfully sold in auctions as “state-owned” properties to increase the state-owned land resources. Moreover, the limitation period for applying for the auction price and the land value of registered state-owned land is ten years, and if no attempt has been made to make the application for the land price within the statutory limitation, the remaining amount after final calculation will be given to the “Treasury.” This type of land policy accords more emphasis on public interest than private interest, seriously depriving properties owned by worship guilds. To publicly auction properties on behalf of worship guilds by exercising the public powers violates the principle of necessity as set out in Article 15 of the Constitution and the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 23 of the Constitution. This is deprivation of people’s right to property which is detailed in this research. II. Suggestions: there are still regulatory blind spots in practice with respect to the declaration and clearance procedures of worship guilds after the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds took effect. The following suggestions are made as references for future amendment to the Statutes: (1) Suggested amendment to Article 5 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds, “1. … the successor shall be listed as a member of the worship guild only if he or she shares the duty of ancestor worship with a founding member of the guild or a member of the same clan.” (2) Paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds provides “…shall handle the land and building as per one of the following methods within three years.” The wording “one of the following” should be deleted. (3) It is suggested that Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds should be amended. (4) The competent authority of the municipal city, county (city) government should undertake public auctions on behalf of worship guilds as set out in Article 51 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds violates the protection of property rights and the principle of proportionality guaranteed by Articles 15 and 25 of the Constitution respectively. It is suggested that the article should be deleted or amended. (5) Article 12 of the Statutes Governing Worship Guilds fails to include the mediation mechanism by way of transferring the case to the municipal city, county (city) government for mediation. It is suggested that such mechanism should be incorporated in order to facilitate the clearance.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    一、中文部分
    (一)、中文書目
    1. 內政部,民國85年6月,祭祀公業論述專輯,初版。
    2. 內政部,1992年,台灣的土地登記制度之由來與光復初期土地登記之回顧,台北。
    3. 內政部地政司,1984年,台灣民間共有土地權利之研究,內政部研究報告。
    4. 王泰升,1999,台灣日治時期的法律改革,台北:聯經出版社。
    5. 王泰升,2006年,台灣法律史的建立。
    6. 王國雄、張樂平,95年12月初版,共有土地處分變更及設定負擔實務─土地法第三十四條之一執行要點解說,台北市土地事務雜誌社。
    7. 王澤鑑,2000年,民法總則,增訂版。
    8. 王澤鑑,1992年版,民法物權:通則、所有權,三民書局。
    9. 史尚寬,1954,民法原論總則,3月,台訂正版:中國出版社。
    10. 尤重道,民國86年出版,祭祀公業財產管理實務,台北市:永然文化。
    11. 史尚寬,1990,民法總論,8月4版:自行出版。
    12. 史尚寬,1975,土地法原論,台五版:正中書局印行。
    13. 台灣省文獻委員會,1999,台灣省通志稿,卷3,政事志司法篇(一)。
    14. 李惠宗,2004年,憲法要義,台北:元照出版公司印行。
    15. 李肇偉,1976,法理學,11月3版,自行出版。
    16. 李肇偉,1977,民法總則,10月5版,自行出版。
    17. 安藤靜,1905,有關台灣之公業,收錄於,台灣慣習記事,中譯本,第5卷第10號,台灣省文獻委員會。
    18. 岡松參太郎著,陳金田譯,1981年6月,臨時台灣舊慣調查會第一部調查第三回報告書台灣私法,第一卷,台灣省文獻委員會編印。
    19. 林英彥主編,2008年元月初版,不動產大辭典,中國地政研究所印行,。
    20. 林旺根,85年6月初,論祭祀公業土地之清理,祭祀公業專題論述,內政部。
    21. 林紀東,71年2月,中華民國憲法逐條釋義(一),三民書局修訂初版。
    22. 林雪玉,2005年10月,民法總則,台北,三民書局初版。
    23. 林端,2000,國家制訂法與民間習慣:台灣祭祀公業的歷史社會學分析(I),法制史研究創刊號,12月,中國法制史學會會刊,頁117-151。
    24. 林瑞,2001,國家制訂法與民間習慣:台灣祭祀公業的歷史社會學分析(II),法制史研究第二號,12月,中國法制史學會會刊,頁183-206。
    25. 吳萬順,民國85年6月初版,祭祀公業土地之清理與處分,收錄於內政部編印,祭祀公業論述專輯。
    26. 范國廣,民國85年6月初版,祭祀公業清理之探討,收錄於內政部編印,祭祀公業論述專輯。
    27. 姚瑞光,2002年9月出版,民法總則論,海宇文化事業有限公司。
    28. 施啟揚,1994,民法總則,9月增訂6版,三民書局。
    29. 段盛豐,2004,祭祀公業,收錄於台灣民事習慣調查報告,法務部編輯。
    30. 洪遜欣,1997,中國民法總則,10月修訂5版,三民書局。
    31. 高欽明,民國98年9月,祭祀公業財產處分實務,永然文化初版,台北市。
    32. 許文富,農業政策導論,台北豐年社,1999年4月初版。
    33. 曹永和,1979,台灣早期歷史研究,聯經出版事業公司。
    34. 陳井星,1997,祭祀公業新論,5月增訂3版,自行出版。
    35. 陳井星,內政部,祭祀公業論述專輯,1996年6月出版,(祭祀公業派下及其房分之探討)。
    36. 陳其南,1987年,台灣的傳統中國社會,台北;允晨文化出版。
    37. 陳新民,2001年1月,中華民國憲法釋論,台北:三民書局修訂四版。
    38. 陳春生,2003『憲法』,台北:翰蘆。
    39. 陳新民,2005『憲法學釋論』,修定5版,台北:三民。
    40. 陳愛娥,1998,司法院大法官會議解釋中財產權概念之演變,收錄於劉孔中、李建良主編『憲法解釋之理論與實務』,中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁400。
    41. 陳新民,79年1月出版,憲法財產權保障之體系與公益徵收之概念,憲法基本權利之理論(上),三民書局。
    42. 陳明燦,90年3月1日出版,財產權保障,土地使用現制與損失補償,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司。
    43. 陳紹馨,1979,台灣的人口變遷與社會變遷,台北:聯經。
    44. 陳鳳琪等著台灣民間共有土地之研究(上篇)。
    45. 陳銘福,1996,祭祀公業派下權問題之研究,收錄於祭祀公業論述專輯,6月初版,內政部編印。
    46. 陳銘福,1996,祭祀公業實務,9月初版二刷,書泉出版社。
    47. 曾文亮,2007,台灣漢人祭祀公業問題的歷史考察─殖民統治、法律繼受與民間習慣之間,收錄於,以台灣為主的法律史研究,5月初版第1刷,元照初版有限公司。
    48. 溫豐文,2006,土地法,2月修訂版,三民書局。
    49. 黃志偉,2009年6月初版,祭祀公業條例解析與土地清理實務,台北五南。
    50. 黃明芳,1996年,財團法人祭祀公業之理論與實務,永然文化出版股份有限公司。
    51. 黃嘉靜,台法制史資料與所謂舊慣之蒐集及整理,收錄於政治大學法律系(編),中國法制史課程教學研討會論文集,政大法律系,1993年。
    52. 黃慶生、黃明芳編,2001年3月,最新祭祀公業法令廣輯,三版。
    53. 張國勳,必要性原則之研究,收錄於城仲模主編,民國88年,行政法之一般法律原則,再版,台北市:三民,頁139~170。
    54. 葉百修,78年4月,從財產權保障觀點,論公用徵收制度,國家資料叢書(一),作者自刊。
    55. 彭明敏、黃昭堂著,蔡秋雄譯,台灣在國際法上的地位,。
    56. 楊松齡,1998,土地徵收制度與財產權保障之研究,國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
    57. 楊松齡,2000年8月,實用土地法精義,一版一刷,五南圖書出版公司。
    58. 楊松齡,1996年版,現行土地制度有關財產權保障之研究─公用徵收補償之分析,大日出版社。
    59. 楊松齡,2006,都市更新權利變換制度之產權結構分析,論文發表於,2006兩岸四地土地學術研討會論文集,中國地政研究所;國立政治大學地政學系:台北,2006年9月,頁13-14。
    60. 管歐,1984,論法人的立法體制,收錄於民法總則論文選輯(下),7月初版,五南圖書出版公司。
    61. 劉夏如,2000,法、近代、民族主義─1920年待台灣祭祀公業改廢論爭,台灣風物50卷2期,頁17-70。
    62. 鄭玉波,1993,民法總則,2月修訂9版,三民書局。
    63. 鄭英弘,民間機關(單位)處理祭祀公業土地申報之困難及解決之道,內政部編,祭祀公業論述專輯,內政部印行,1996年6月,初版。
    64. 戴炎輝,1987年,中國法制史,台北三民書局印行,七版。
    65. 臨時台灣舊慣調查委員會編,,1910年,【台灣私法】,第一卷下。
    66. 劉夏如,1999年6月,台灣風物五十卷第二日起,法、近代、民族主義─ 一九二0年代台灣祭祀公業改廢論爭,初版。
    67. 謝在全,2003年7月出版,民法物權論(中冊),台北。
    68. 顏慶徳、雷生春,1992年3月,台灣土地登記制度之由來與光復初期土地登記之回顧,內政部印行。
    69. 姉齒松平,劉寧顏主編,程大學等,1983年,日據時期祭祀公業及在台灣特殊法律之研究,台灣文獻委員會編印,一版二刷。
    70. 鐘福山,祭祀公業理論與派下權問題,收錄於內政部編印,民國85年6月,祭祀公業論述專輯,初版。
    (二)、中日文期刊
    1. 王世慶、李季樺,1994,竹塹社七姓公祭祀公業與采田福地,平埔族群研究學術研討會,中央研究院臺灣史研究所主辦。
    2. 林美容,1933,「台灣人的社會與信仰」,自立晚報出版社,台北:頁67-71。
    3. 吳明儒,85年9月,「公共利益本質與社會福利議題─兼論社區問題與公共利益」,『社區發展季刊第』(75):第157頁。
    4. 吳信華,88年9月,「法治國家原則(三)─比例原則」,『月旦法學』(52):第2頁。
    5. 金根植,1999年8月,「當今中韓祭祀公業法律問題之比較探討」,『軍法專刊』,42(8)。
    6. 洪麗完,1994,「沙輔社(Salach)史之考察─以祭祀公業遷善南北社為中心」,論文發表於〈平埔族群研究學術研討會〉,中央研究院臺灣史研究所主辦。
    7. 徐照彥,1975年,日本帝國主義下の台灣,東京大學出版會。
    8. 莊英章,「台灣單系繼承嗣群之檢討」,『思與言』,11(1)。
    9. 莊英章、周靈芝,1984,「唐山過台灣:一個客家宗族移民的研究」,『中國海洋發展史論文集』,中央研究院三民主義研究所,中國海洋發展史論文集編輯委員會(編),台北:頁297-333。
    10. 莊英章、陳運棟,1986,「晚清台灣北部漢人拓墾型態的演變─以北埔姜家的墾闢事業為例」,收於瞿海源、張英華(編)『台灣社會與文化變遷』,中央研究院民族學研究所:頁1-43。
    11. 許仁舉,2004年6月,「祭祀公業派下權之繼承與喪失」,『土地事務月刊』,(369)。
    12. 陳得國,2006,「祭祀公業法制化規範與省思」,『台灣源流』,頁10。
    13. 許松、廖宗慶,2003,「祭祀公業土地問題研究」,『土地問題季刊』。
    14. 溫豐文,71年6月,「論土地所有權之限制」『東海大學學報』(23):第59頁下。
    15. 曾文亮,2002年3月,「日治時期家產/私產繼承的區分以及合流,台灣家產制度的演變」,『思與言』,40(1)。
    16. 曾文亮、黃承儀,2002年12月,「民間習慣與祭祀公業派下資格認定-從法律史觀點評」,最高法院八十九年台上字第一一三四號判決,『台灣本土法學雜誌』,(41)。
    17. 楊松齡,「土地徵收制度與財產權之研究」,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,87頁3-1。
    18. 楊松齡,81年1月,「財產權保障與公用徵收補償之研究」,『經社法治論叢』,(9):頁262-264。
    19. 楊松齡,87年12月,「基本權、財產權與土地徵收」,『人與地雜誌』,(165):頁23。
    20. 陳立夫,81年1月,「土地利用現制與是否應予損失補償─日本法理論介紹」,『人與地雜誌』,(97):頁17。
    21. 陳立夫,94年12月,「都市更新與土地徵收─都市更新條例第25條之1修正條文之闡述」,『土地問題研究季刊』,4(4):頁49。
    22. 蔡茂寅,89年4月,「比例原則的界限與問題性」,月旦法學雜誌,(59):頁30。
    23. 謝俊義,90年9月,「『定位』與『定向』─公共行政的大問題」,『中國行政評論』,10(4)。
    24. 盧崴詡,87年9月,「政治花蓮─淺談『政治』、『公共利益』與『社區參與』」,『東海岸評論』,(122),(34)。
    25. 蘇永欽,「財產權保障與大法官解釋」,『憲政時代』,42(3):頁20。
    26. 瀧野種孝,「台灣の舊慣立法に就て」,『台法月報』,七(一):頁43-47。
    二、日文部份
    1. 中村孝治著,荷蘭時代台灣史研究上卷:概說、產業,頁49。
    2. 井出季和太,台灣の公業と南支那の集團地主制度,台法月報34卷9號,1940年。
    3. 井出季和太編,台灣治績志編譯者郭輝,改名日據下之台政第一卷台灣省文獻委員會,民國66年4月10日修正版,頁43-44。
    4. 後藤武秀,台灣祭祀公業にれはる:概念規定の動向。
    5. 後藤武秀,臨時台灣舊慣調查會にれはる:台灣祭祀公業令の起草。
    6. 坂義彥,祭祀公業之基本問題,頁695。
    三、論文部份
    1. 尤重道,2002年,「祭祀公業之研究─以派下權及財產權為中心」,中正大學法律研究所。
    2. 李志殷,民國92年12月,「台灣光復初期土地權利憑證繳驗工作之研究」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士班碩士論文。
    3. 呂繼宗,94年6月,「祭祀公業定位及租稅問題之研究」,中原大學會計系碩士論文。
    4. 林輝銘,92年,「從公共利益的觀點探討非營利組織在都市發展中的角色與功能─以公園綠地為例」,私立逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
    5. 金根植,85年6月,「中韓祭祀公業法制與土地產權問題之比較研究」,政大地政研究所博士論文。
    6. 翁崇岳,97年7月,「台灣祭祀公業權屬爭議問題之研究」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文。
    7. 翁瑞麟,2006,「形成公用地役關係既成道路之損失補償救濟─以行政法院判決為中心」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士在職專班論文:頁11。
    8. 黃秀鳳,73年6月,「祭祀公業土地管理利用問題之研究」,國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文。
    9. 陳桂春,2004年5月,「共有不動產處分爭議問題之研究─以土地法第三十四調之一為中心」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文。
    10. 陳逢濤,民國91年6月,「台灣與香港土地制度之比較研究」,中國文化大學政治研究所,碩士論文。
    11. 陳薇芸,2002年,「祭祀公業作為納稅義務人」,國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    12. 黃彥叡,97年1月,「從法律人格論祭祀公業之適宜性」,逢甲大學土地管理研究所,碩士論文。
    13. 葉裕洲,93年6月,「終止耕地三七五租約補償問題之研究」,私立逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士在職專班論文。
    14. 魏家弘,1996年,「台灣土地所有權概念的形成過程─從業到所有權」,台大法律研究所碩士論文:台北。
    15. 曾文亮,1999年7月,「台灣史上的祭祀公業」,台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
    16. 顏曉筑,97年,「反傾銷制度與公共利益關係之研究」,私立中原大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
    17. 戴秀雄、張梅英、黃月娥,「論逾期未辦繼承登記處罰條款合憲性之研究」,收錄於〈2010年海峽兩岸土地學術研討會論文集〉,頁265~283。
    四、網路
    1.http://www.moi.gov.tw/divl/law 內政部民政司
    2.http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=e63Y_f/webmge?mode=basic 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政研究所
    94923025
    99
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094923025
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    302501.pdf779KbAdobe PDF24119View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback