The Supreme Court rendered the 108-Tai-Shang-2361 Decision of December 4, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that admission means that a party admits to the fact asserted by the other party, and the fact asserted by a party is not required to be substantiated if it is admitted by the other party in a preparatory brief, oral arguments or before the commissioned judge or the assigned judge.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, Individual A borrowed NT$2.5 million (hereinafter, the “Loan at Issue”) from the Appellee by impersonating Individual B, who is not a party to this lawsuit, with the loan secured by the maximum mortgage on Individual B’s real estate. Individual A subsequently borrowed NT$6.5 million from the Appellant by impersonating Individual B again, and the Appellant used the NT$2.5 million of the loan to repay the Loan at Issue on behalf of Individual A. The Appellee collaborated by handling the cancellation of the mortgage. Individual B brought a declaratory action to declare that the consumer loan claim did not exist on the ground that he had been impersonated by Individual A. A final decision was subsequently rendered in favor of Individual B. The Appellant asserted that since Individual B did not borrow money from the Appellee, the Appellee had no reason to receive NT$2.5 million. Therefore, the Appellant’s repayment to the Appellee is not a debt repayment, and the Appellee should return such unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Appellant requested the Appellee to pay NT$2.5 million in accordance with Article 179 of the Civil Code.
According to this Decision, Article 279, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the so-called “admission” shall mean that a party admits to the fact asserted by the other party. The fact asserted by a party is not required to be substantiated if it is admitted by the other party in a preparatory brief, oral arguments or before the commissioned judge or the assigned judge.
Furthermore, according to the Decision, the agent-ad-litem of the Appellee stated the details about the Appellee’s receipt of NT$2.5 million on the date of the preparatory procedure. The Appellant also admitted the fact that Individual A had cashed a check before using NT$2.5 million to repay the Loan at Issue. The original trial court also concluded on such basis that the Appellee had received such payment from Individual A, and that the Appellee did not have any unjust enrichment. Therefore, a decision was rendered against the Appellant. The finding of facts and application of law of the original decision are not erroneous. Therefore, the appeal arguments criticizing the original decision for violation of laws and regulations and requesting its reversal are groundless.