论意思表示瑕疵与善意取得规定之关系

On the Relationship between Flaw in Intent Expression and Bona Fides

在通谋虚伪表示及被欺诈之情形,民法关于"不得对抗善意第三人"之规定与善意取得制度应可并存。而于胁迫之情形,"撤销得对抗善意第三人"应优先于善意取得而适用,盖惟如此方可践行私法自治之原则。在意思表示错误之情形,不发生意思表示瑕疵与善意取得之关系问题,善意第三人可径直依善意取得而主张其权利。第三人若知悉其前手交易之可撤销性,其非但不得主张"撤销不得对抗善意第三人",亦不得主张依善意取得而受保护。

In the case of collusion in false declaration and deceit, regulations of may not challenge any third party of good faith and bona tides in civil law should coexist. But in the case of coerce, priority should be applied to ＂abatement may challenge any bona fide third party＂ for bona fide. Only in this way, can it practice the principle of private law autonomy. In the case of error in expression of intention, the relationship that has flaw in expression of intention and bona fide does not exist. The bona fide third party has right to claim in accordance with bona fide. If the third party knew the abatement of his prior transaction, he can not claim abatement may challenge any bona fide third Dartv. nor bona fide.