The Supreme Court rendered the 106-Tai-Shang-182 Civil Decision of June 21, 2017 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that if a land improvement owner objects to the amount of compensation or refuses the demolition while medication is conducted by the competent authority after the mediation by a land reconsolidation association fails, this does not change the nature of this matter as a private right dispute.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant in this case asserted that all buildings at issue were owned by the Appellee. Since such buildings had undermined the land reconsolidation project, a civil complaint was filed in accordance with Article 31, Paragraph 2 of the Rules for Encouraging Land Owners to Handle Land Reconsolidation (hereinafter, the “Rules”) after multiple negotiations were conducted and Taichung City Government notified that mediation had failed. The original trial court found in its decision that the disputes should have been separately resolved through administrative litigation procedure and ruled against the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this appeal.
According to the Decision, land reconsolidation by the private sector refers to land reconsolidation and allocation under the principle of private-law autonomy by a land reconsolidation association set up by land owners participating in the land reconsolidation pursuant to the Rules formulated with the authorization under Article 58, Paragraph 2 of the Statute for Equalizing Land Rights. Since the government does not delegate the government authority to a land reconsolidation association, the disputes between the land reconsolidation association and land owners over the demolition of buildings in the reconsolidated urban lands are certainly civil disputes and fall within the duty and authority of such association for implementing land reconsolidation. To complete the reconsolidation project, a civil complaint may be filed pursuant to Article 31, Paragraph 2 of the Rules. Therefore, the same article stipulates that if a land improvement owner or tomb owner objects to the compensation amount or refuses the demolition, the competent authority will mediate if mediation by the land reconsolidation association fails in order to shorten the duration of dispute resolution and effectively resolve the disputes between the land reconsolidation association and the land owner and accelerate the completion of land reconsolidation by the private sector. This does not change the nature of this matter as a private-law dispute.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that with respect to the demolition disputes in this case, the competent authority subsequently reached the conclusion that mediation had failed and notified that judicial adjudication should be sought in 30 days. The original trial court was certainly erroneous in jumping to the conclusion that the Appellant had no private-law right to request demolition by the land owners merely on the ground that mediation shall be conducted by the competent authority under Article 31, Paragraph 2 of the Rules. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.