:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:戰後臺灣公產管理審議委員會的組成與運作(民國38年11月-42年9月)
書刊名:國史館館刊
作者:何鳳嬌
作者(外文):Ho, Feng-chiao
出版日期:2010
卷期:25
頁次:頁115-155
主題關鍵詞:臺灣省行政長官公署臺灣省公產管理處產權日產買賣Taiwan provincial administrative executive officeTaiwan provincial office of public property administrationProperty rightsTransactions of Japanese properties
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:32
戰後為了釐清日產買賣是否有效,在日產管理機關中成立審議委員會。最初日產清理期間(民國36年5月-38年11月),設有日產清理審議委員會,惟法令未備,審議未定案。直至民國38年11月成立公產管理處,同時成立公產管理審議委員會,負責審議日產管理機關送來的日產買賣案件,審定後才可做產權處分,所以公產管理審議委員會之決議,是日產買賣有效與否的重要關鍵。 透過本文之探討,知道戰後日產清理機關的功能不一,由最初的接收到清理、處理,各有其階段性使命,一旦完成即面臨改組結束,所以戰後短短數年間,日產管理機構更迭不已。 民國38年到42年存在的臺灣省公產管理審議委員會,其目的在於審定戰爭結束前後到民國34年10月間,臺灣人買受日人公、私產業之案件。該會除確定日產有效的買賣,保障人民權益外,更將買賣無效者歸國家所有,確實公私產權的劃分,將戰後以來糾紛不斷的日產買賣問題拍案叫停,日後公私土地得以登記、買賣及撥歸運用,該會扮演之角色與重要性不可言喻。從公產管理審議委員會的審議實例中,可以歸納出人民購買日產,符合買賣確定有效的要點如下:1.在禁賣日期前及具有合法買賣憑證者。2.已締約者,不論是遵從政府政令,或是自願解約,不管是否如願收回已付價款,政府都認定買賣雙方自動解約,買賣行為已不存在,所以產權無效。至於行政機關依法塗銷,非當事人所為,審定時則認為買賣有效。3.分期付款買賣不動產,縱使戰後仍未繳清款項,但可推論其買賣早在戰前成立,所以買賣確實存在。4.日治時期的法令並未隨著中華民國政府來臺接收就失效,依舊規範著戰後臺灣人的土地權益。如神社、州廳官有土地之買賣,仍如日治時期法令規定,必須獲得官府同意,所以是否取得官府的許可就成為審核日產產權有效的主要憑證之一。又外國人不准在臺購置產業的規定亦是。另外一明顯的例子,是「臺灣官有森林原野賣渡(出售)、貸渡(放租)規則」。 由上可知,該會的審議原則,除了新統治者中華民國政府的法令規定外,也受到日治時期法令的影響,畢竟歷史是延續、不可分割的,不會因治權的轉移就完全切斷過去的羈絆。
After the War, in order to investigate whether the transactions of the properties during the Japanese rule were still valid, the Council of Public Property Investigation was formed as part of the Japanese Property Administration Office. The council was initially established at the stage between May 1947 and Nov. 1949, but as there were no laws regarding the set-up of the council, no investigation could proceed. It was in November 1949 after the establishment of Taiwan Provincial Office of Public Property Administration, the Council was officially formed. The Council was in charge of investigating the transaction cases sent from the Japanese Property Administration Office. It was demanded that only after a transaction had been examined and approved could the property right be settled. In other words, whether the transaction was valid or not depended on the result of the investigation by the Council. This paper discovered that the functions of Japanese Property Administration Office were not clear enough to handle the situations(What situation?). It had been re-organized many times in the first few years after the War. Each version dealing with some of the problems at the time. The Council of Public Property Investigation during the period of 1949-1953 were mainly in charge of the cases of transactions in which Taiwanese purchased properties both public and private from the Japanese in October 1945. The Council not only ascertained the validity of many transactions in order to protect people's rights, but also turned the invalid cases to the Nationalist government and drew a distinctive line between public and private properties, putting an end to disputes concerning the transactions. After the investigation, any transaction could then be registered officially, and could further be sold or transferred. We can summarize the criteria for the judgment of the validity of any transaction as follows: 1. If the purchase was done before the deadline forbidding any transaction and with evidence of transaction, then it was valid. 2. If a contract had been drawn and was forced to be canceled because the government demanded it or because the seller and the buyer agreed to cancel it, the transaction would be judged as invalid. In this case, there was no issue of property right. But if the contract was canceled by official administration without the agreement of the seller and the buyer, then it remained valid. 3. On condition that the contract was signed before the War, and if the seller agreed that the buyer paid by installments, and yet the payment was not completed, then the case remained valid. 4. The Japanese laws and decrees concerning the matter were still applicable as a measure to protect the property rights of the Taiwanese people. For example, shrines and the lands sold by the Japanese government must be examined on the basis of Japanese laws and decrees. That is, if the Japanese government actually agreed to sell them, then the transactions would remain valid. As the Japanese forbid foreigners to purchase any land in Taiwan, any transaction of this kind would be invalid. Another example concerns the selling and the leasing of governmental forests and wilds. To sum up, in addition to setting up new laws concerning the investigation of any transaction, the Nationalist government also kept some of the original laws and decrees of the Japanese government. In other words, history is always continuous and inseparable. Whoever takes power must follow the footsteps of his predecessors.
期刊論文
1.何鳳嬌(20040600)。戰後神社土地的接收與處理。臺灣風物,54(2),105-137。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.欒正平。論臺灣審查日產移轉之確定(上)。民主憲政,3(7)。  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.林孟欣(2008)。日治時臺灣總督府官有地開發與地方統治的關係。南投。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.黃士娟(1998)。日治時期臺灣宗教政策下之神社建築(碩士論文)。中原大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.民治出版社(1950)。臺灣建設。臺北:民治出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.臺灣省日產清理處(1948)。臺灣省日產清理法令彙編。臺北:臺灣省日產清理處。  延伸查詢new window
3.中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會(1981)。中華民國重要史料初編─對日抗戰時期(第七編)。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
4.國史館臺灣文獻館(2005)。臺灣省行政長官公署職員輯錄(一)。南投:國史館臺灣文獻館。  延伸查詢new window
5.臺灣省參議會秘書處(1948)。臺灣省參議會第一屆第六次大會特輯。台北:臺灣省參議會秘書處。  延伸查詢new window
6.林玉茹、王泰升、曾品滄、吳美慧、吳俊瑩(2008)。代書筆、商人風:百歲人瑞孫江淮先生訪問紀錄。臺北:遠流出版社。  延伸查詢new window
7.臺灣總督府(1945)。臺灣統治概要。臺北:臺灣總督府。  延伸查詢new window
8.吳濁流(1989)。無花果。臺北:前衛出版社。  延伸查詢new window
9.葉榮鐘(196703)。小屋大車集。臺中:中央書局。  延伸查詢new window
10.何鳳嬌(1993)。臺灣土地資料彙編:光復初期土地之接收與處理。新店:國史館。  延伸查詢new window
11.張瑞成(19900630)。光復臺灣之籌劃與受降接收。臺北:中國國民黨中央委員會黨史會。  延伸查詢new window
12.臺灣省政府民政廳地政局(1948)。臺灣省地政法令輯要(下)。臺灣省地政法令輯要(下)。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.日產爭執,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.公產公物整理委員會移接,南投。  延伸查詢new window
3.公產公物整理委會日產清理處移交,南投。  延伸查詢new window
4.省府各單位對監察院巡察團提出書面報告,南投。  延伸查詢new window
5.臺灣省政府函請臺灣省參議會復議繼續保留本省公產公物整理委員會暨函送臺灣省公產管理處成立日期暨臺灣省公產管理審議委員會組織規程並請指定駐會委員參加組織,南投。  延伸查詢new window
6.產權有效租賃權(275-1-2102)。,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
7.關於日產產權處理。  延伸查詢new window
8.第一批日產產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
9.陳琉球(五福)產權。  延伸查詢new window
10.第二批日產案件審查。  延伸查詢new window
11.林匏梨產權。  延伸查詢new window
12.第四批日產產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
13.第七批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
14.第十批產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
15.第十一批產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
16.第十六批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
17.林金龍請確認產權。  延伸查詢new window
18.第十七批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
19.第十八批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
20.第十九批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
21.第二十批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
22.第廿一批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
23.第廿二批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
24.第廿三批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
25.第廿四批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
26.第六批日產產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
27.第廿六批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
28.第廿七批日產案件審查。  延伸查詢new window
29.第廿九批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
30.第卅一批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
31.第卅二批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
32.第卅三批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
33.第卅五批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
34.第卅六批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
35.第卅九批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
36.第四十四批日產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
37.第四十七批日產產權移轉審查。  延伸查詢new window
38.第四十八批產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
39.第五十二批產權審查。  延伸查詢new window
40.日產移轉審查無效抹銷登記。  延伸查詢new window
41.駐日代表團協助審查日產產權疑義。  延伸查詢new window
42.林開郡確認抵押權。  延伸查詢new window
43.杜阿敏土地產權。  延伸查詢new window
44.邱魏義聲請確認產權。  延伸查詢new window
45.廖樹旺申請確認產權。  延伸查詢new window
46.蔣玉珪黃清錦等呈請複審產權。  延伸查詢new window
47.日人質權土地債務。  延伸查詢new window
48.高等法院查詢日產處理。  延伸查詢new window
49.廖倍產權。  延伸查詢new window
50.第二批日產移轉案件審查會議。  延伸查詢new window
51.參議任免。  延伸查詢new window
52.公產公物會人員任免案。  延伸查詢new window
53.公產管理審議會任免。  延伸查詢new window
54.公產管理處任免。  延伸查詢new window
55.公產管理審議委員會任免。  延伸查詢new window
56.關於本省敵產移轉事項(附日產移轉案件審查辦法),南投。  延伸查詢new window
57.本省土地權利清理辦法及財產類別。  延伸查詢new window
58.臺灣省政府電送修正本省日產移轉案件審查辦法案,南投。  延伸查詢new window
59.林獻堂(1946)。灌園日記。  延伸查詢new window
60.(1946)。臺灣省行政長官公署公報。  延伸查詢new window
61.(1948)。臺灣省政府公報,臺灣。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.蔡錦堂(1996)。日治時期臺灣之宗教政策。歷史文化與臺灣。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE