August 2017
If only part of the joint litigants of one party is present, the court shall not render a default judgment upon motion on the ground that not all of the litigants of the other party are present except under circumstances where each joint litigant should be present to confirm the subject matter of the litigation(Taiwan)
Frank Sun
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-730 Civil Decision of May 4, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that if only part of the joint litigants of one party is present, the court shall not render a default judgment upon motion on the ground that not all of the litigants of the other party are present except under circumstances where each joint litigant should be present to confirm the subject matter of the litigation.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, since none of the 52 individuals from the Appellant and Appellee sides, who had been legally notified, appeared in court on the date of oral arguments, that was not a circumstance under any subparagraph of Article 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, a default judgment was rendered upon motion of the Appellees who were present.
According to the Decision, although the first part of Article 386, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if one of the parties fails to attend, a default judgment many be rendered upon motion of the party present. However, if not all of the litigants of one party are present while only some of the joint litigants of the other party are present, the court still shall not render a default judgment upon motion of one party except under circumstances under Paragraph 2 of the same article where each joint litigant should be present to confirm the subject matter of the litigation.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that the subject matter of the litigation, which was to seek joint and several payment of NT$1.5 billion from the Appellee and apologies published in the newspapers based on the legal relationship of tort, does not require all of the litigants of the Appellee to be present for confirmation. Therefore, the original trial court obviously had material procedural defects when it rendered a default judgment upon motion of the Appellees present with respect to the portion concerning the 52 individuals from the Appellant and Appellee sides, who had been legally notified but failed to be present on the date of oral arguments. Therefore, such portion of the original decision was reversed
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-730 Civil Decision of May 4, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that if only part of the joint litigants of one party is present, the court shall not render a default judgment upon motion on the ground that not all of the litigants of the other party are present except under circumstances where each joint litigant should be present to confirm the subject matter of the litigation.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, since none of the 52 individuals from the Appellant and Appellee sides, who had been legally notified, appeared in court on the date of oral arguments, that was not a circumstance under any subparagraph of Article 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, a default judgment was rendered upon motion of the Appellees who were present.
According to the Decision, although the first part of Article 386, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if one of the parties fails to attend, a default judgment many be rendered upon motion of the party present. However, if not all of the litigants of one party are present while only some of the joint litigants of the other party are present, the court still shall not render a default judgment upon motion of one party except under circumstances under Paragraph 2 of the same article where each joint litigant should be present to confirm the subject matter of the litigation.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that the subject matter of the litigation, which was to seek joint and several payment of NT$1.5 billion from the Appellee and apologies published in the newspapers based on the legal relationship of tort, does not require all of the litigants of the Appellee to be present for confirmation. Therefore, the original trial court obviously had material procedural defects when it rendered a default judgment upon motion of the Appellees present with respect to the portion concerning the 52 individuals from the Appellant and Appellee sides, who had been legally notified but failed to be present on the date of oral arguments. Therefore, such portion of the original decision was reversed
