Frank Sun
The Supreme Court rendered the 108-Tai-Shang-2557 Decision of March 19, 2020 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that the reasons for a court judgment should include the opinions on the offensive or defensive methods and legal opinions; and if the opinions on the offensive or defensive methods are not included in the reasons for the judgment, the judgment would have insufficient grounds.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, Individual B, the legal representative of the Appellant (Company A) and not a party to this lawsuit, cooperated with the Appellee by contributing and remitting capital to accounts of the Appellee’s friends and relatives or of Individual C, an employee of the Appellant and not a party to the lawsuit, for land purchase with the capital registered under the Appellee’s name. The profit generated after deducting the construction cost from the payment received by the Appellant (hereinafter, the “Public Fund”) was equally shared between the Appellee and B. The remaining balance of the Public Fund in C’s bank account (hereinafter, the “Account at Issue”) was NT$3,807,707 after Construction Project X was closed. However, the Appellee instructed C to misappropriate the above amount in the Account at Issue and all of the Public Fund owned by the Appellant and held in the account of the Appellant’s dummy or Company D, not a party to this lawsuit. The total misappropriated amount of NT$15 million was used to purchase the land at issue, which was registered under the name of the Appellee’s younger brother or Co-defendant E in the first instance trial. Since the Appellee illegally misappropriated the above fund, the Appellant sought a decision to compel the Appellee to pay NT$3,807,707 in accordance with the first part of Article 184, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code.
According to the Decision, Article 226, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the reasons for a court judgment should include the opinions on the offensive or defensive methods and legal opinions; and if the opinions on the offensive or defensive methods are not included in the reasons for the judgment, the judgment would have insufficient grounds under Article 469, Subparagraph 6 of the same law.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that an observation of the bank book for the Account at Issue as produced by the Appellant shows that it is consistent with the copy of the bankbook for that account as produced by the Appellee. Therefore, it would seem that the Appellant’s assertion that the amount of NT$3,807,707 obtained by deducting NT$3 million first withdrawn by the Appellee and the amount used for profit sharing between B and the Appellee from the land payment totaling NT$53,909,183 remitted to the Account at Issue for Construction Project X was outward remitted and misappropriated is not entirely baseless. Since the original trial court failed to explain why the above copy of the bankbook was not acceptable and elected to make a determination unfavorable to the Appellant for his failure to substantiate, the original trial court was unlawful for insufficiency of grounds. Therefore, the gist of the appeal, which criticized the original decision for violating laws and regulations, was valid.