本文主要係探討訴訟上和解程序是否鄉新增訂民法第四百二十五條第二項之適用範圍。首先，引用臺灣高等法院臺中分院實務判決見解，認為民法第四百二十五條第二項保護不動產受讓人之意旨，不能擴張解釋訴訟上和解能替代公證之效力。其次，本文就日本實務與學說上之見解，說明訴訟上和解與作成公證書程序在性質上有相同之「公證作用」，進而從民法第四百二十五條第二項之立法意旨，說明依訴訟上和解所成立之不動產租賃契約，不論其內容是否與訴訟標的有關，均可類推適用民法第四百二十五條第二項規定。

The Article 425 of Taiwan Civil Code was amended in April 21, 1999 and provides that the leasing contract will continues to exist against the transferee of leasing object as if the lessor transfers the ownership to the transferee after delivery of leasing object and on occupation by the lessee (Section 1); the provision of the preceding section shall not be applicable as if the contract of tenancy over 5 years or an indeterminate contract of tenancy has not been notarized (Section 2). This text is to discuss the application of the Section 2 of the preceding Article for the same essence of conciliation procedure in court and notarial procedure. The judgment of the Taiwan High Court, holding that conciliation procedure in court could not be instead of notarial procedure for the purpose of the Section 2 of Article 425 of Civil Code in protection of the transferee, is firstly quoted. This text then explains that conciliation procedure in court and notarial procedure have the same essence according to the opinions of Japanese scholars and judicial practice, and further explains that the leasing contract standing under the deed of conciliation can be applicable to the Article 425 of the Taiwan Civil Code.