三、甲、乙合資購買 A地,雙方約定權利各半,並登記為乙所有。嗣甲終止雙方間之契約,並請求乙返還甲應有部分,乙置之不理。甲乃於民國 107年1月5日,訴請乙移轉A地所有權二分之一;乙隨即於同年月 10 日,將 A 地出賣予不知情之丙。丙備齊相關文件後,地政機關於同年月17日受理其移轉登記之聲請;甲則於同年月17 日,向法院聲請以裁定許可為訴訟繫屬事實之登記。而於地政機關尚未完成移轉登記前,法院已查明丙上述聲請登記之事實。有關法院對於甲之聲請應否許可,請依學理及法律規範加以闡述。(25分)

二、英翻中(30%)(請以中文做答) There is concern among national regulators and policymakers and the Standards-Setting Bodies regarding the large-scale termination or restriction of relationships and lines of business by banks seeking to avoid (rather than to continuously manage) the relevant compliance, operational, and reputational risks as envisaged under the proportionate and risk-based approaches of global standards. The scope and drivers of the phenomenon- referred to by banks as "'de-risking"--are complex and relevant aspects have not yet been fully studied and publicly documented. At the same time, the effects on affected communities and counties could not only undermine financial inclusion but also potentially hold broader implications for the global financial system and for poverty reduction and economic development efforts. De-risking is tied in part to concerns about money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions. However, key stakeholders describe a much more complex dynamic involving profitability concerns (which in turn are affected by prudential and market conduct issues) and integrity issues. In addition to potential bank correspondent withdrawal, concerns over terminations of business relationships have also been raised in relation to a range of financial inclusion relevant customers, notably cross-border remittance providers and humanitarian organizations.

相關申論題

相關試卷