February 2018
Application for old-age benefit under labor insurance is an actus solemnis in writing; and if an application made by the insured has indicated the selected benefit items, an approval should be made based on what the application shows (Taiwan)
2017.11.22
Emily Chueh
The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 106-Pan-648 Decision of November 22, 2017 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that application for old-age benefit under labor insurance is an actus solemnis in writing; and if an application made by the insured has indicated the selected benefit items, an approval should be made based on what the application shows.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Plaintiff was an insured of the labor insurance. He submitted an application for old-age benefits under the labor insurance in which he selected "lump sum payment (payment of one-time old-age benefit or application for lump sum payment of the old-age benefit) to the Defendant (i.e., the Labor Insurance Bureau under the Ministry of Labor) for old-age benefit payment. The Defendant approved the application via the original disposition. The Plaintiff subsequently asserted that the clerk of the group insurance applicant he was affiliated with had made a wrong selection which did not reflect his intention to apply for monthly payment of old-age pension. After filing an application for reconsideration which was rejected, he brought an administrative action by following relevant procedures. The original trial court subsequently rendered a decision to compel the Defendant to render an administrative disposition that pays the old-age pension on a monthly basis. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed this appeal.
It was first pointed out in this Decision that application for old-age benefit under labor insurance is an actus solemnis in writing; and if an application made by the insured has indicated the selected benefit items with no need to inquire any further, an approval should be made based on what the application shows rather than an intent which runs counter to the literary description.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that even if the applicant made an error in conveying the intent, in which case relevant provisions of Articles 88, 89 and 105 of the Civil Code may apply by analogy. However, if an intent as to the existence of an error is conveyed by an agent to the extent that the effect of the intent is affected, a decision shall be made with respect to the agent. In this case, since the Plaintiff entrusted the clerk of the group insurance applicant to handle the application, the cancellation right should be exercised by considering if the agent was absolutely erroneous. However, application for old-age benefit payment under labor insurance as well as the front side of the payment receipt printed by the Defendant indicated a warning text which indicated that "if application for lump sum old-age payment is made," no change can be made after it is approved. Therefore, with respect to the legal effect of the lump sum payment option, when the Plaintiff's agent handled this matter on his behalf, it was difficult to claim negligence on the ground of ignorance. Therefore, the Plaintiff still could not exercise the cancellation right on the ground that the agent had made a mistake in the indication of the intent. Hence, the original decision was reversed and remanded since application could not be filed to change the old-age benefit payment option on such basis.
Emily Chueh
The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 106-Pan-648 Decision of November 22, 2017 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that application for old-age benefit under labor insurance is an actus solemnis in writing; and if an application made by the insured has indicated the selected benefit items, an approval should be made based on what the application shows.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Plaintiff was an insured of the labor insurance. He submitted an application for old-age benefits under the labor insurance in which he selected "lump sum payment (payment of one-time old-age benefit or application for lump sum payment of the old-age benefit) to the Defendant (i.e., the Labor Insurance Bureau under the Ministry of Labor) for old-age benefit payment. The Defendant approved the application via the original disposition. The Plaintiff subsequently asserted that the clerk of the group insurance applicant he was affiliated with had made a wrong selection which did not reflect his intention to apply for monthly payment of old-age pension. After filing an application for reconsideration which was rejected, he brought an administrative action by following relevant procedures. The original trial court subsequently rendered a decision to compel the Defendant to render an administrative disposition that pays the old-age pension on a monthly basis. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed this appeal.
It was first pointed out in this Decision that application for old-age benefit under labor insurance is an actus solemnis in writing; and if an application made by the insured has indicated the selected benefit items with no need to inquire any further, an approval should be made based on what the application shows rather than an intent which runs counter to the literary description.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that even if the applicant made an error in conveying the intent, in which case relevant provisions of Articles 88, 89 and 105 of the Civil Code may apply by analogy. However, if an intent as to the existence of an error is conveyed by an agent to the extent that the effect of the intent is affected, a decision shall be made with respect to the agent. In this case, since the Plaintiff entrusted the clerk of the group insurance applicant to handle the application, the cancellation right should be exercised by considering if the agent was absolutely erroneous. However, application for old-age benefit payment under labor insurance as well as the front side of the payment receipt printed by the Defendant indicated a warning text which indicated that "if application for lump sum old-age payment is made," no change can be made after it is approved. Therefore, with respect to the legal effect of the lump sum payment option, when the Plaintiff's agent handled this matter on his behalf, it was difficult to claim negligence on the ground of ignorance. Therefore, the Plaintiff still could not exercise the cancellation right on the ground that the agent had made a mistake in the indication of the intent. Hence, the original decision was reversed and remanded since application could not be filed to change the old-age benefit payment option on such basis.
