Ａ Study on Lease Termination and Compensation Controversies in the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act

• Main Authors: Lan-Hsin Chen, 陳藍馨
• Other Authors: Chih-Ming Jau
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/q4hju2

碩士 === 中原大學 === 財經法律研究所 === 106 === ABSTRACT As the Japanese tenant farming system continued to be in effect after the retrocession of Taiwan, rent issues had worsened. In 1948, Chen Cheng became head of the Taiwan provincial government and implemented a 25% rent reduction, with the enactment of the “Regulations Governing the Leasing of Arable Lands in Taiwan Province” and its enforcement rules on April 17, 1949. On June 7, 1951, the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act was announced. Without adequate knowledge of actual rent rates, the “37.5% rent reduction” was a careless measure with a clear disregard of the differences among land conditions and the economic conditions of the tenant farmers. Also overlooked was the change in leasing structure after the 37.5% arable rent reduction was implemented, which clearly deprived or restricted the property rights and freedom of contract of landowners. Arable land lease contracts based on this Act favors the tenant farmers and stabilized the society of the time. However, the compensation to tenant farmers in the amendment to the Act caused grievance among landowners, who believed that their property rights were infringed. During its time, the 37.5% rent reduction was a price control measure. However, as a long-standing law, it has severely distorted the tenant farming market. It is hard to believe that this law has been in effect for decades. As socioeconomic conditions have changed, the question of whether tenant farmers still require protection from the government makes it necessary to reexamine the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act. Shi No. 580 of Constitutional Interpretation of the Supreme Court clarified the constitutionality of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act as follows. The one-third compensation amount in Article 17 Paragraph 2 Subparagraph 3 shall be reviewed and corrected promptly. It was deemed unconstitutional that at the termination of a lease, repossessing arable land to expand the operation of a family farm requires one third of the land value paid to the tenant as compensation, the reason being that the landowner’s ownership right and the tenant’s tenant right are both property rights. Therefore, based on the controversies of lease termination and compensation, this study investigates whether the 37.5% rent reduction is overprotection of tenant farmers and the legality of mandatory compensation of one third of land value from the landowner to the tenant. With a focus on the issue of compensation at the end of a 37.5% arable land lease, this study first analyzes the patterns of the termination of arable land leases and then assigns the responsibility to compensate tenant farmers to the attributable terminating party of the lease, which can help terminate leases while benefiting both the landowner and the tenant and bring a better future to agricultural development and national economy. Keyword：37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act、Lease Termination、Compensation Controversies、The Equalization of Land Rights Act、Land Act