| dc.description.abstract | After years of development, the country’s current judicial practice on the type of contract of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration has moved on from denying its validity to recognizing it as a nameless contract in the majority of cases. Additionally, based on the principle of freedom of contract, under the condition that the said contract does not violate general legal principle of imperative provision, public policy and morals in the Civil Code, its validity shall be recognized. In Mainland China, there are similar acts with borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, which is known locally as “Buying a House by the Name of another Person.” This research aims to collect and analyze the literature and practical judgments concerning the issue of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration so as to clarify the characteristics, validity, and its legal status in Mainland China and Taiwan.
There is a gradual increase of legal disputes involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration in recent years, which demonstrates the significance of the controversy involved in judicial practice, as well as the fact that the reason for initiating litigation has become diversified. In addition, in civil litigation, the defining factor of winning or losing a lawsuit is the burden of proof. Therefore, during litigation, it is extremely crucial for litigants on how the court distributes the burden of proof and how to decide whether the scenario of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration takes place or not, as well as if consistent and common logic and standard are found in judicial decisions involving similar causes and facts. The aim of this research is to summarize and categorize the features and imagery of court cases of similar causes and facts involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, and then uses the said summary and categorization to observe and examine the Taiwan Taoyuan District Court’s judgment of civil litigations involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration in 2017. The researcher cross-examines and investigates the interactions between various types of litigations and the litigants’ burden of proof in judicial practice, and proposes his initial observations and analysis in how the court affirms the occurrence of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, how it allocates the burden of proof, and how it investigates the facts and interpreted the laws, and if consistent and common standard exists in the process of judgment.
Finally, through the aforementioned empirical observation, the research proposes some perspectives in response to the controversy surrounding borrowing other’s name for real estate registration, and aims to provide guidance for litigants in cases involving borrowing other’s name for real estate registration. It is hoped that the humble opinions proposed in this research would serve as a blueprint for further studies of the legal systems of borrowing other’s name for real estate registration. | en_US |