日治初期殖民政府推動臺灣土地調查事業期間（ 1898-1905 ），在基隆市街購買大 量地基的日本資本家與本島人厝主之間發生了一車列的土地業主權紛爭。針對這個紛 爭，臺灣學者江丙坤曾從殖民掠奪的角度著眼，主張基隆市街建地上的地權關你與臺 灣一般市街無異，地基主僅有固定的地基租收益權，土地的業主權應該歸於本島人厝 主。因此，他認為土地調查局最後將業主權裁決給日本人地基主的作法，明白顯示日 本殖民政府對於臺灣人土地業主權的殖民掠奪。但最近日本學者西英昭則以法理學的 文本層位學分析取徑，重新分析臨時臺灣舊慣調查會的幾次慣習調查報告與事件當時 的新聞報導材料。他主張基隆市街糾紛地的土地關條與一般市街建地不同，的確有其 特殊性，地基主與厝主間的關條僅是單純的租質關餘，前者仍掌握房屋與建地的實權， 有向厝主要求加租或返還租屋的權利。因此，他認為土地調查局將業主權裁決給日本地基主，作法並無不當。與這兩種詮釋相對，筆者採用法律社會史的取徑，利用臨時臺灣土地調查局的史料與當時的新聞報導重新詮釋這一事件，發現兩種解釋皆有誤，並未完整呈現出該事件的法律社會史意涵。本文透過事件過程的完整描繪，指出土地調查局的地方土地調查委員會與總督府法院在糾紛前期實際上是支持臺灣人厝主的業主權，而否定日本地基主的業主權主張。然而糾紛後期，日本資本家利用壹灣人厝主對於現代法律文化的不熟悉，藉由法律程序與證據的操弄，虛構了基隆部分建地上「地基主與厝主關餘的特其性」圖像。土地調查局的高等土地調查委員會乃在新的互動脈絡下改正既有查定，肯定了日本地基主派的部分法律主張，重新裁決日本資本家可以取得部分建地的業主權。因此，這一事件的結果雖然是殖民掠奪，但其過程並非赤裸裸的殖民掠奪，而是在現代法理邏輯偽裝下的運作結果。

While the Japanese colonial government was launching its land survey in Keelung during the early colonial period (1898-1905), there was a series of land ownership disputes between Japanese owners of building lots (diji zhu) and Taiwanese owners of buildings (cuo zhu) in the Keelung city area. Taiwanese scholar Jiang Bing-kun sees these events as a form of colonial plunder. He considers the traditional multiple land ownership system in Keelung city equivalent to the system in effect throughout the rest of Taiwan, where the Taiwanese owners had ac切al control over their building lots and Japanese owners merely had the right to claim a fixed rent from Taiwanese owners. Therefore, Jiang believes, the Land Survey Bureau’s eventual granting of land ownership to Japanese owners demonstrates a violation of Taiwanese land rights by the colonial government. However, Japanese legal scholar Nishi Hideaki recently put forth a different analysis in terms of jurisprudence by examining the reports of the Provisional Investigation Committee of Taiwan 這Old Customs and contemporary newspaper materials. He suggests that land ownership customs of building lots in the Keelung city area were distinct from those in the rest of Taiwan. According to his reasoning, Japanese owners in the Keelung city area possessed the rights over the buildings and the land, and also had the right to demand rent increases or to terminate leases with the Taiwanese owners of buildings. It was a simple relationship of land lease. Therefore, he thinks that the Land Survey Bureau’s resolution for these disputes was legitimate. This paper reconsiders these events by studying the historical materials of the Provisional Land Survey Burean of Taiwan and . contemporary newspapers from the perspective of legal and social history, and finds both of the previous explanations e汀oneous and incomplete because they only partially consider the legal social history of the disputes. In the first stage, the Land Survey Burean's local investigation committee and the law court of the Governor-General’s Office held that the Taiwanese owners possessed complete ownership rights and nullified the claims of the Japanese owners. During the second stage, dissatisfied Japanese owners took advantage of Taiwanese owners’ unfamiliarity with the modern legal culture and fabricated evidence to prove that the Keelung city area’s land ownership system was unique within Taiwan. This act of forgery led senior investigators of the Land Survey Burean to alter the original verdict and affirm the sole land ownership rights of the Japanese investors. It is true that the outcome of these events was a form of colonial plunder, but its process was disguised by the workings of modern jurisprudence.