台灣大部分的建築物都歷經長期的使用並老朽化，加上氣候變遷與人為使用導致的環境災害問題，例如地震、火災等，亦迫切化建築防災應變能力。建築定期安檢法制為建築安全管理機制之一環，台灣於1995年起實施建築定期安檢法制，至今有數十年之歷史，不過隨著老朽建築物增加，建築物外牆剝落等災害亦引發檢討建築定期安檢法制及參考日本法制之議論。本文研究日本與台灣建築定期安檢法制規範內容，除藉由比較分析以瞭解兩者之制度特色外，並以強化建築長期使用與安全管理之觀點，提出我國法制規範內容之修正建議。日本於1959年起實施建築定期安檢法制，之後在面臨各樣的災害事件中修正法規內容，2016年實施之新制乃是因應改善高齡者等收容設施火災事故之發生。日本建築定期安檢法制與台灣建築定期安檢法制之主要相異處呈現於以下各點：一、區分民間與國家及地方自治團體建築定期安檢之規範方式。二、地方自治團體得指定建築定期安檢受檢對象之規範方式。三、建築定期安檢義務人之規範方式。四、建築定期安檢專業資格者管理之規範方式。五、各類定期安檢之項目、方法與基準之規範方式。本文提出我國法制規範內容之修正建議包括：一、增定「管理人」作為義務人與受罰對象。二、明定僅得由具備法定定期安檢資格之安檢人員進行定期安檢。三、檢討修正各類定期安檢之項目、方法與基準。四、擴大建築定期安檢法制之適用範圍。

The amount of old buildings is getting increasing in Taiwan. These old buildings are facing the threats from disasters such as earthquakes and fires caused by the nature or human beings. The building safety management could be operated by the building periodical safety inspection-reporting regulations. Taiwan has implemented the building periodical safety inspection-reporting clauses of the Building Act and the Fire Services Act for decades since 1995. A significant increasing of the old buildings and the building accidents such as the tiles falling down from the wall of the buildings and injuring the walking people in Taiwan, the public required for the reviewing of the building periodical safety inspection-reporting clauses of the relating Acts and proposed to learn from Japan. In the article, the building periodical safety inspection-reporting regulations of Japan and Taiwan are reviewed and compared, and the article will propose some suggestions for Taiwan’s building periodical safety inspection-reporting regulations to promote the building safety management. The building periodical safety inspection-reporting responsibility clauses of the Building Act of Japan has been implemented also for decades since 1959, and amended several times while the times after the building accidents happened. In 2016, some new amended clauses of Japan’s Building Act was implemented for the frequency of the occurrence of the fire accidents in the buildings where the elders and the handicapped people were housed. The differences between Japan and Taiwan of the building periodical safety inspection-reporting regulations include five aspects: 1. The regulations for private buildings and public buildings are different; 2. The regulations for which kinds of buildings and equipments to be inspected could be designated by the local governments are different; 3. The regulations for the parties charged of the building periodical safety inspection-reporting obligations are different; 4. The regulations for the management of the inspectors are different; 5. The regulations for the inspect lists, methods, and standards are different. The suggestions proposed in the article include four points: 1. The manager should be added to be one of the parties charged of the building periodical safety inspection-reporting obligations and punished when the manager disobeyed the regulations. 2. The regulations should be amended to be that only the inspector who has the inspect license is legally permitted to inspect. 3. The regulations concerning to the inspect lists, methods, and standards should be amended to be clear. 4. The regulations of building periodical safety inspection-reporting obligations may be considered to expand its scope of application.