Landlords Of "The 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act" Retain Their Land By Using Farm Scope Expansion Plans

• Main Authors: Juang, Jiann-Shenn, 莊建勝
• Other Authors: Lu, Tsung-Ying
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2015
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/83746283304697984689

碩士 === 國立屏東大學 === 不動產經營學系碩士班 === 103 === The 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act was promulgated on June 7th, 1951. The concept of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act was first implemented by the Taiwanese government in primary school. Students are taught that this act is a benevolent policy which enables farmers to concentrate their energy on agricultural improvement rather than worrying about rent and lease issues, which has increased the gross production exponentially. However, there was a disregard of the individual sacrifices of land-lords and compensations they made while the government praised their virtues and achievements. Although there are only 31 articles in this act, the Grand Justice Council (CGJ) had delivered constitutional interpretations in response to the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act 11 consecutive times. Article 17, paragraph 1, subsection 5: “The leased arable act has been categorized, or changed to non-arable use according to laws”. This was amended on December 23rd, 1983. It stated that when the lease contract is terminated or in order to expand the scale of farm operations by the lessor, the lessor shall compensate the lessee according to the article 17, paragraph 2. On July 9th, 2004, the CGJ delivered constitutional interpretation 580 was a response to article 17, paragraph 2, subsection 3. It stated “The property rights of the lessor(s) should not be restricted, which opposed the purpose of agricultural development which was passed in article 146, and amendment 10, paragraph 1. It was also against the rule of proportion on article 23 and property rights on article 15. This study juxtaposes the results of lessor’s appeals to reclaim farm land for “self-cultivation” when the lease contract had expired both pre 2003 and post 2009 (this was when the constitutional interpretation 580 was delivered.) The two cases were brought to the supreme administrative court, but the verdicts differed widely due to constitutional interpretation 580. This study discusses not only reasons for why these verdicts were reached, but it also examines several other verdicts relating to these cases, which has found that the lessees would not lose their financial support after the lessors reclaimed their farm land. Moreover, the majority of the lessors were able to reclaim their farm land after the verdicts had been announced. Therefore, the current laws are regulated towards a more neutral and unbiased verdict rather than protecting the disadvantaged lessees.