August 2017
The provisions about default penalties under the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis to the total expense which shall be repaid by students receiving government scholarships and allowances if they fail to perform their obligation by passing the entrance examination and serving their obligated positions within the required period, provided that if the repayment is too high, the repayment may be reduced on a discretionary basis(Taiwan)
Jenny Chen
The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 105-Pan-59 Administrative Decision of February 4, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the provisions about default penalties under the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis to the total expense which shall be repaid by students receiving government scholarships and allowances if they fail to perform their obligation by passing the entrance examination and serving their obligated positions within the required period, provided that if the repayment is too high, the repayment may be reduced on a discretionary basis.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellant filed a complaint, alleging that since the Appellees, who had been students in its two-year police program and had graduated in June 2008 from the program, failed to pass the Special Police Examination and to be assigned to a position by December 31, 2010, the Appellant requested the Appellees to repay the entire cost they had caused during their study as students according to the provisions set forth in the admission flyers.
According to the Decision, Article 149 of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that in the absence of any relevant provision under an administrative contract, the provisions concerning default penalties under Article 250 through Article 252 of the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis. The Police Education Statute and all rules prescribed pursuant to its authorization do not stipulate when students receiving such education should pass the examination and be assigned to positions. In addition, they do not contain any relevant repayment provision concerning such liabilities. The major obligation of students receiving government scholarships and allowances is to work as police officers for a period of time after graduation. The "period by which they should pass the examination for police officers and be assigned to positions" is not the primary stipulation concerning their obligations. Since the nature is similar to the nature of default penalties under Article 250 of the Civil Code, relevant provisions concerning default penalties under the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis, including the provision that "if a portion of the obligations has been performed, the court my reduce the default penalty based on the benefit received by the obligee from the partial performance," and "if the default penalty so stipulated is too high, the court may reduce it to an appropriate amount." Therefore, the finding in the original decision was not erroneous.
Therefore, with respect to the original decision in which it was held that since the Appellees had not passed the examination to be assigned to their positions until three years and two years later after the required period expired, they shall respectively assume a default penalty equivalent to three fourths and two fourths of the repayment, since the original decisions was not unlawful, the Appellant's appeal was rejected.
The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 105-Pan-59 Administrative Decision of February 4, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the provisions about default penalties under the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis to the total expense which shall be repaid by students receiving government scholarships and allowances if they fail to perform their obligation by passing the entrance examination and serving their obligated positions within the required period, provided that if the repayment is too high, the repayment may be reduced on a discretionary basis.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellant filed a complaint, alleging that since the Appellees, who had been students in its two-year police program and had graduated in June 2008 from the program, failed to pass the Special Police Examination and to be assigned to a position by December 31, 2010, the Appellant requested the Appellees to repay the entire cost they had caused during their study as students according to the provisions set forth in the admission flyers.
According to the Decision, Article 149 of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that in the absence of any relevant provision under an administrative contract, the provisions concerning default penalties under Article 250 through Article 252 of the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis. The Police Education Statute and all rules prescribed pursuant to its authorization do not stipulate when students receiving such education should pass the examination and be assigned to positions. In addition, they do not contain any relevant repayment provision concerning such liabilities. The major obligation of students receiving government scholarships and allowances is to work as police officers for a period of time after graduation. The "period by which they should pass the examination for police officers and be assigned to positions" is not the primary stipulation concerning their obligations. Since the nature is similar to the nature of default penalties under Article 250 of the Civil Code, relevant provisions concerning default penalties under the Civil Code may apply mutatis mutandis, including the provision that "if a portion of the obligations has been performed, the court my reduce the default penalty based on the benefit received by the obligee from the partial performance," and "if the default penalty so stipulated is too high, the court may reduce it to an appropriate amount." Therefore, the finding in the original decision was not erroneous.
Therefore, with respect to the original decision in which it was held that since the Appellees had not passed the examination to be assigned to their positions until three years and two years later after the required period expired, they shall respectively assume a default penalty equivalent to three fourths and two fourths of the repayment, since the original decisions was not unlawful, the Appellant's appeal was rejected.
