The Supreme Court rendered the 107-Tai-Shang-Zi-1878 Civil Decision of March 14, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that except when laws and regulations are obviously violated or when a party has produced new litigation materials sufficient to reverse the original determination, the court and the parties shall not make any opposite determination or assertion about important issues which have been determined by the court in a lawsuit filed by the same party for such important issues.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant had filed two lawsuits relating to this lawsuit before this lawsuit was filed: (1) an earlier consolation payment case in which the Appellant asserted that since the Appellee had illegally invaded the Appellant’s personal legal interest such as privacy, freedom and residential tranquility in material aspects by building brick fences, setting up iron gates and installing surveillance cameras on the land at issue, consolation payment was asserted against the Appellee, but the Appellant’s claim was dismissed since it was concluded in that case that the Appellee did not violate the above interest of the Appellant; and (2) an earlier right-of-way case in which the court concluded that since the land at issue was a statutory vacant land and shall not be used for a major access road, the Appellant’s claim to confirm the existence of the right of way over the land at issue should not be granted; and since the land at issue was not solely owned by the Appellee, the Appellant’s request that the Appellee should provide the land at issue for use by the Appellant and that the Appellee should not engage in any act that undermines the Appellant’s access should not be granted, either. The Appellant brought this action again with the following assertion: since the Appellee had violated the Appellant’s right to use a statutory vacant land, right of way and residential tranquility by building brick fences and iron gates and the Appellant’s privacy by installing surveillance cameras on top of the iron gates and outer fences, a claim was asserted for the removal of the fences, iron gates and surveillance cameras. In this matter, the original trial court rendered a decision against the Appellant. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed this appeal.
It was first pointed out in this Decision that when the court has made a determination about important issues other than the object of litigation as indicated in the decision reasons based on the results of the parties’ arguments, unless laws or regulations are obviously violated or a party has produced new litigation materials sufficient to reverse the original determination, the court and the parties shall not make any opposite determination or assertion about important issues which have been determined by the court in a lawsuit filed by the same party for such important issues in order to comply with the principle of good faith under the Code of Civil Procedure.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that the parties had separately identified the following important issues in the final decisions on earlier consolation payment and right-of-way cases: whether the Appellee’s construction and installation of the objects on land violated the Appellant’s personal and identity-related legal interest such as privacy, freedom (meaning the impairment to the right of way) and residential tranquility, and whether the land at issue, which is a statutory vacant land, may be used for primary access roads for the Appellant. The parties both produced evidence and took their offensive and defensive measures to support their arguments concerning the issues. In addition, neither of them had any obvious violation of laws and regulations and the Appellant did not produce new litigation materials sufficient to reverse the original determination. Therefore, the original trial court dismissed the Appellant’s claim on the ground that no opposite claim can be asserted since the Appellant is bound by the res judicata of the final decisions on the two earlier consolation payment and right-of-way cases. Although such ground is not appropriate, still this does not change the result that a decision should be rendered against the Appellant. Since the original decision should be upheld, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.