August 2017
The court should first investigate and examine if a party's admission has been lawfully cancelled, or it should be cited as the basis of decision(Taiwan)
2016.08.18
Emily Chueh
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-1386 Civil Decision of August 18, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the court should first investigate and examine if a party's admission has been lawfully cancelled, or it should be cited as the basis of decision
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellee asserted that he had served as a joint guarantor and had delivered a promissory note. Since the Appellant had been repaid before presenting the promissory note for compulsory enforcement, an action was brought to confirm that the claim did not exist.
According to the Decision, an admission in litigation can effectively bind a court within the scope of the adversary system except when it is cancelled in accordance with Article 279, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court should hold that the fact admitted by such party is true and rely on it as a basis of adjudication.
It was further held in the Decision the since Appellee had made an admission by asserting that the parties had agreed to 60% monthly interest on the loan when the Appellee filed the complaint, the Appellant did not have to substantiate. However, the original trial court was certainly unlawful when it failed to investigate and examine if the admission was lawfully cancelled and made an unfavorable determination on the ground that the Appellant had failed to substantiate. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.
Emily Chueh
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-1386 Civil Decision of August 18, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the court should first investigate and examine if a party's admission has been lawfully cancelled, or it should be cited as the basis of decision
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellee asserted that he had served as a joint guarantor and had delivered a promissory note. Since the Appellant had been repaid before presenting the promissory note for compulsory enforcement, an action was brought to confirm that the claim did not exist.
According to the Decision, an admission in litigation can effectively bind a court within the scope of the adversary system except when it is cancelled in accordance with Article 279, Paragraph 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court should hold that the fact admitted by such party is true and rely on it as a basis of adjudication.
It was further held in the Decision the since Appellee had made an admission by asserting that the parties had agreed to 60% monthly interest on the loan when the Appellee filed the complaint, the Appellant did not have to substantiate. However, the original trial court was certainly unlawful when it failed to investigate and examine if the admission was lawfully cancelled and made an unfavorable determination on the ground that the Appellant had failed to substantiate. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.
