The High Administrative Court shall be the court of first instance for cases for ordinary proceedings. However, the District Administrative Court shall be the court of first instance for the following types of cases:
1. tax cases when the assessed amount of tax is 1,500,000 New Taiwan Dollars or smaller.
2. cases that arise from an administrative penalty of 1,500,000 New Taiwan Dollars or a smaller amount, or other accompanying punitive or administrative regulatory acts.
3. other cases related to property relations in public law, and the value of the subject matter is 1,500,000 New Taiwan Dollars or less.
4. other cases that should be adjudicated by the District Administrative Court per statutory law or as designated by the Judicial Yuan.
The amount of 1,500,000 New Taiwan Dollars in the preceding Paragraph may be raised by the Judicial Yuan, if needed, to 10,000,000 New Taiwan Dollars through an Order.

To initiate a litigation, a complaint shall be submitted to the administrative court and indicate the following matters:
1. The parties;
2. Statement for initiating litigation; and
3. The claim and the occurrence giving rise to such claim.
It is advisable to indicate in the complaint, matters related to the applicable procedures, evidence and other matters in preparation of oral argument; where there was an administrative appeal, the appeal decision shall be appended.

Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the litigation provided in Article 4 and Article 5 shall be filed within a peremptory period of two months after the day which the administrative appeal decision is served. However, where the fact becomes known thereafter to the person who has interests in the litigation other than the administrative appellant, the period shall calculate since the date which he/she knows.
It is not allowed to file a litigation as provided in Article 4 and Article 5 if it has been over three years after the date which the administrative appeal decision is served.
If no administrative appeal procedure is required before filing a litigation as provided in Article 4 or Paragraph 2 of Article 5, the litigation shall be filed within a peremptory period of two months after the day which the administrative disposition is served or published.
If no administrative appeal procedure is required before filing a litigation as provided in Paragraph 1 of Article 5, the litigation can only be filed after the expiration of the period to conduct the prescribed action; no litigation can be filed if such period has expired for three years.

In any of the following circumstances, the administrative court shall dismiss the plaintiff's complaint by a ruling. However, if the defect is rectifiable, the presiding judge shall order the plaintiff to rectify the defect within a time period before dismissing the complaint:
1. The case, by its nature, shall not be adjudicated by an administrative court, and no transfer of the case may be made.
2. The administrative court in which the litigation is pending does not have jurisdiction over the litigation; neither can a court be designated to adjudicate the case, nor can a transfer of the case by ruling be made;
3. The plaintiff or defendant lacks the capacity to be a party to the litigation;
4. When acting in litigation, the plaintiff or defendant is not legally represented by his or her agent designated a statute, representative, or administrator.
5. The litigation was initiated by the agent of the party to the litigation, and the agent lacks the authority to do so.
6. The litigation was not initiated within the period required by the statutes;
7. The litigation was initiated while the same litigation was initiated earlier and is still pending at an administrative court or other courts.
8. The litigation was initiated again while the same claim was adjudicated, decided by a final judgment, and then withdrawn by the claimant.
9. The subject matter of the claim was adjudicated by a final judgment, settlement, or mediation.
10. The litigation was not initiated through the formality required by statutes, or it fails to satisfy other statutory requirements.
11. The litigation was initiated maliciously, improperly, or to abuse the procedure, or with serious negligence, and the factual or legal claims lack a reasonable basis.
The preceding Paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to a litigation to revoke administrative acts or a litigation demanding the performance of certain obligations in which the defendant agency is misnamed in the plaintiff's complaint.
If the plaintiff's claim satisfies one of the following conditions, the administrative court may dismiss the claim through a judgment without oral argument. However, if the defect may be rectified, the presiding judge shall designate a period for the plaintiff to rectify it before dismissing the plaintiff's claim:
1. Except the circumstances set out in Paragraph 2, the party to litigation cannot sue or be sued, or there are no public-law rights to be protected.
2. The facts alleged by the plaintiff are manifestly groundless in law.
In the circumstances provided for in the preceding three paragraphs, the defects may not be rectified after the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for failure to rectify within the deadline.
The judgments and rulings as provided for in Paragraphs 1-3 may set out only the important parts. They may include motions filed by the plaintiff, the minutes of court proceedings, or other documents as an appendix.
When an administrative court dismisses the plaintiff's claim under Subparagraph 11 of Paragraph 1, the court may impose on the plaintiff, his or her representative, administrator, or agent a penalty equal to or less than 120,000 New Taiwan Dollars.
The penalty referred to in the preceding Paragraph shall be set out together with the ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The ruling shall note that the persons punished may offer adequate security and stay the enforcement of the penalty.
If the plaintiff appeals against the ruling dismissing the plaintiff's claim, the penalty set out in the same court ruling is also considered appealed.
Paragraphs 1 and Paragraph 4 to Paragraph 8 apply mutatis mutandis to the matters regarding applications or motions.

Except where the plaintiff's case is dismissed or transferred by the administrative court in accordance with the preceding Article, the court shall serve the complaint on the defendant and may order the defendant to provide opinion in its answer.
The original administrative agency which rendered the administrative disposition, the defendant agency or the agency with jurisdiction of administrative appeal shall, upon receiving notification by the administrative court, submit the case files to the administrative court.

Whenever the presiding judge deems that it is suitable to conduct oral argument, he/she shall promptly designate a date for the oral-argument session.
Except in urgent cases, there shall be a preparation period scheduled for at least ten days between the day the complaint is served and the day scheduled for the oral-argument session as provided in the preceding Paragraph.

No litigation will be affected by the fact that the legal relation as the subject matter of the claim has been transferred to a third party when such litigation is pending. However, subject to the consent of both parties, the third party may move for assuming the litigation for a party.
In the case provided in preceding Paragraph, if only the opposing party disagrees, either the transferor party or the third party may move the administrative court for a ruling to permit the third party to assume the litigation.
An appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph.
In cases where the administrative court is aware of the transfer of the subject matter of the claim, the court shall immediately notify the third party the fact that the litigation is pending in writing.
In cases where the legal relation as the subject matter of the claim has been transferred to a third party after the administrative appeal decision has been made, the transferee may file a litigation of revocation.

After the service of the complaint, the plaintiff may not amend his/her claim or raise additional claims, unless otherwise agreed by the defendant or determined appropriate by the administrative court.
Where the defendant proceeds orally on the merits of the principal case without objecting to the amendment or addition of claims, he/she shall be deemed to have agreed to such amendment or addition.
The amendment or addition of claims in case of any of the following circumstances shall be permitted:
1. Where the claim shall be adjudicated jointly with regard to several persons and one or several such persons who are not parties are joined as parties;
2. Where the claim is amended but the grounds of the pleadings remain the same;
3. Where the change of circumstances makes it necessary to replace the original claim with another claim;
4. Where a litigation of revocation was erroneously initiated while a litigation for a declaratory judgment shall be initiated;
5. Where the amendment or addition of claims should be permitted pursuant to Article 197 or other laws;
The preceding three Paragraphs shall not apply to the amendment or addition of claims to revoke an administrative disposition without going through administrative appeal procedure.
The administrative court's decision determining that there is no amendment or addition of claims or allowing the amendment or addition of claims is not reviewable. However, in litigation of revocation with ground that such disposition has not gone through administrative appeal procedure, the court's decision may be appealed along with the final judgment.

The defendant may, prior to the conclusion of the oral argument session, raise a counterclaim with the administrative court where the principal litigation is pending. However, no counterclaim can be raised for a litigation of revocation and a litigation demanding performance of certain obligations.
The plaintiff cannot raise another counterclaim in response to the defendant's counterclaim.
No counterclaim may be raised if it is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another administrative court or if it is neither related to the plaintiff's claim in the principal litigation nor related to the defendant's means of defense.
The administrative court may dismiss a counterclaim without prejudice where it is raised by the defendant for purposes of delaying litigation.

The plaintiff may, before the judgment has become binding, voluntarily dismiss the case in whole or in part, but the plaintiff cannot dismiss the case if such dismissal would be detrimental to protecting the public interest.
Where the defendant has proceeded orally on the merits of the principal case, such dismissal shall be subject to the defendant's consent.
A voluntary dismissal shall be made by pleadings. Notwithstanding, it may be made orally in the court session.
A voluntary dismissal made orally shall be indicated in the transcript and in the case where the opposing party was not present, such transcript shall be served on the opposing party.
The defendant is deemed to have agreed to the voluntary dismissal if the defendant does not object to such dismissal within ten days from the day of the court session in the case where the defendant appeared and did not express whether the defendant agreed or disagreed, or from the day of service of the transcript provided in the preceding Paragraph or the dismissal pleading in case where the defendant failed to appear in the court session or where the dismissal is made by pleadings.

Where the administrative court deems the voluntary dismissal of case as provided in the preceding Article is detrimental to the protection of the public interest. the court shall order, by a court ruling, to disallow such dismissal.
No appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph.

If a district administrative court adjudicates a case through an ordinary proceeding because of a change in, or a partial withdrawal of, the plaintiff's claim, it becomes one of the categories that shall be adjudicated through small claims proceeding or traffic adjudication proceeding, the originally commissioned judge of the district administrative court shall adjudicate through small claims proceeding or traffic adjudication proceeding.
If a case is adjudicated by a district administrative court through an ordinary proceeding because of an addition to, a change in, or a counterclaim, the case or a part of it becomes one in the category which a high administrative court shall adjudicate, the matter shall be transferred through a court ruling to the high administrative court with jurisdiction.
If a case is adjudicated by a high administrative court through an ordinary proceeding, because of a change in, or a partial withdrawal of, the plaintiff's claim, the case becomes one in the category which a district administrative court shall adjudicate, the high administrative court shall transfer the case by a ruling to the district administrative court with jurisdiction.

Article 245, Article 246, Article 248, Article 252, Article 253, Article 257, Article 261, Article 263 and Article 264　of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in this Section.

The execution of the original disposition or decision shall not be stayed by initiating an administrative litigation unless otherwise provided in applicable laws.
Where an administrative litigation is pending and the administrative court deems that the execution of the original disposition or decision will cause irrevocable harm and there is a pressing situation, the court may, on motion or on its own initiative, order to stay execution by a ruling. However, if the stay will substantially affect the public interest or the plaintiff's claim is manifestly without legal grounds, no stay shall be allowed.
Prior to the initiation of an administrative litigation, if the execution of the original disposition or decision will cause irrevocable harm and there is a pressing situation, the court may also, on motion raised by the person subject to the administrative disposition or the administrative appellant, order to stay execution by a ruling. However, if the stay will substantially affect the public interest, no stay shall be allowed.
The administrative court shall, prior to rendering rulings provided in the preceding two Paragraphs, request for opinion by the parties. If the original government agency which made the administrative disposition or decision has, on motion or on its own initiative, ordered to stay execution, the court shall order to dismiss the motion by a ruling.
A ruling to stay the execution has the effect to stay the effect of the original disposition or decision, the execution or extension of proceeding of the disposition or decision in whole or in part.

The preceding Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to litigations in declaring the invalidity of an administrative disposition.

Where the grounds to stay the execution no longer exist or there are changes in circumstances, the administrative court may, on motion or on its own initiative, order to revoke the ruling that grants the stay of execution.

An appeal may be taken from the ruling which orders to stay the execution or to revoke the ruling that grants the stay of execution.

The plaintiff shall submit to the court a preparatory pleading in preparation of the oral argument.
It is advisable that the defendant submit its answer no later than a half of the preparation period in preparation of the oral argument.

The administrative court may, prior to the oral argument session, take the following measures if it considers necessary to do so in order to expedite the closing of oral argument session:
1. To order the parties, their statutory agents, representatives or administrators to appear in person;
2. To order the parties to produce drawings/illustrations, schedules/lists, translations of documents written in a foreign language, or other documents and objects;
3. To conduct inspections, or order expert testimony, or request an agency or organization to conduct an investigation;
4. To notify witnesses or expert witnesses, and to order documents or objects, or order a third party to produce documents or objects; or
5. To require a commissioned judge or an assigned judge to take evidence.
In order to elucidate or ascertain relations involved in the litigation, the administrative court may, during the oral argument session, take the measures as provided in Subparagraphs 1 to 3 inclusive of the preceding Paragraph, and may temporarily retain in the court the documents and objects produced by a party or a third party.

Oral-argument sessions start with the parties' stating their respective claims.
The parties shall make factual and legal statements regarding matters involved in the litigation.
The parties shall not quote documents in lieu of oral statements, except where it is necessary to quote certain passages from the documents and then, the party may do so by reading the essential part.

If the parties to the litigation, witnesses, expert witnesses, or other persons relevant to the litigation do not speak the language of the Republic of China, the administrative court should appoint an interpreter for the proceedings. The same also applies when the judge does not understand the dialects used by the persons relevant to the litigation.
If the persons relevant to the litigation have a hearing impairment, articulation problems, or speech problems, the administrative court should appoint an interpreter, ask questions in written form, or make them respond in written form.
The rules regarding expert witnesses shall apply mutatis mutandis to the interpreters as provided for in the preceding two paragraphs.
When there are circumstances as provided for in Paragraph 2, the spouse, direct blood relative, or indirect blood relative within three degrees, head of the family, family members, medical doctor, psychologist, counselor, social worker, or any person trusted by the persons relevant to the litigation may accompany such persons in court proceedings if permitted by the presiding judge.

Unless otherwise provided, the administrative court shall take evidence in the oral argument sessions.
The parties shall state the evidence used in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of Chapter I of Part II.

The presiding judge shall start, direct and conclude the oral argument session and announce the administrative court's decision.
The presiding judge may prohibit any person from speaking who disobeys his/her direction on oral argument.
When the oral argument needs to be continued, the presiding judge shall promptly designate the date for continuation.

An administrative court shall, on its initiative, investigate the factual relationships, and shall not be bound by the parties' factual claims and assertions about the evidence.
The parties to the litigation shall cooperate with the investigation referred to in the preceding Paragraph.
The presiding judge shall strive to allow the parties to examine and debate the facts and the law adequately and comprehensively.
The presiding judge shall question or inform the parties, direct them to make factual representations, offer evidences, or make other necessary statements and representations. If the statements, representations, or types of litigation are ambiguous or incomplete, the presiding judge shall direct the presenting party to clarify or complete them.
After informing the presiding judge, the associate judge may question or inform the parties.

After seeking opinions from the parties to the litigation, the presiding judge may set a deadline and order the parties to the litigation to do the following:
1. make statements about facts or point out the methods of proof.
2. submit the documents or objects that the parties to the litigation have legal obligations to submit.
If the parties to the litigation miss the deadline described in the preceding Paragraph to make statements about facts, point out the methods of proof, or submit the documents or objects, and if all the following conditions are met, the administrative court may, unless otherwise stipulated by law, make judgments or rulings regardless of such statements about facts or methods of proof:
1. missing the deadline hinders the conclusion of the litigation.
2. the parties to the litigation fail to demonstrate that missing the deadline was not attributable to them.
3. the presiding judge notified the parties to the litigation beforehand of the consequences of missing the deadline.

To clarify the relationships involved in the litigation, an administrative court may, when necessary, order a judicial affairs officer, based on his or her professional knowledge, to explain the facts and the law.
The particular professional knowledge provided by the judicial affairs officer to the administrative court may only be adopted as the basis of a judgment or ruling if the parties to the litigation are given opportunities to examine such special professional knowledge.

The presiding judge shall appoint a judge who is to be commissioned to act in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Unless otherwise provided, any request to be made by the administrative court shall be made by the presiding judge.

The administrative court may order arguments to be held jointly where multiple litigations were initiated separately but are based on the same or same types of factual or legal grounds.
Arguments of several litigations that have been ordered to be held jointly may be decided jointly.

The administrative court clerk shall prepare an oral argument transcript, indicating the following matters:
1. The place and date of the oral argument;
2. The full names of the judges, the court clerk, and the interpreter;
3. The subject matter of the litigation;
4. The names of the appearing parties, statutory agents, representatives, administrators, advocates, assistants, and other persons who were summoned to appear; and
5. A statement as to whether the argument was held in public, and, if not, the reason therefor.

The oral argument transcript shall indicate the purport of the progress of the argument and the following matters with particularity:
1. Any abandonment, admission of claims, admission of facts and voluntary dismissal of case.
2. Any statement or withdrawal of evidence and any objection to the violation of provisions regulating litigation procedure;
3. Any other important statements or representations made by the parties and the circumstances where the parties were informed but chose not to make statements or representations;
4. Any other statements or representations which are required to be indicated in the transcript by this Act
5. Any testimony of a witness or an expert witness, and any inspection findings;
6. Matters that were ordered to be recorded pursuant to the presiding judge's instruction;
7. Decisions other than those which must be made in writing and included in the dossier; and
8. Announcement of the decision.

The transcript, the documents referenced in the transcript that are either included in the dossier or appended to the transcript, indicating matters specified in Subparagraphs 1 to 6 inclusive of the preceding Article, shall, on motion, be read aloud to the person who has interests in the litigation in the court or such person may be permitted to inspect them, and a note to such effect shall be made in the transcript.
Where the person who has interests in the litigation objects to the entries in the transcript, the administrative court clerk may rectify or supplement such entries. If the objection is considered meritless, the administrative court clerk shall make a note of the objection in the transcript.
If machinery is used to record the oral argument session, the implementation regulations shall be prescribed by the Judicial Yuan.

If there are available technological audio-visual transmission devices between the place of residence or location of the parties, their representative, administrator, advocate, assistant, witness, expert witness or other related persons, or the court located at that place and the administrative court, which can be used by the court to examine the case directly, and the administrative court considers it appropriate, it may, on motion or on its own initiative, use the devices to examine the case.
In the circumstances provided in the preceding Paragraph, the location at which the parties shall appear that is indicated in the summons for the session shall be the location of such devices.
The transcript and other documents to be signed by the person who makes the statement for the procedure conducted in accordance with Paragraph 1, shall be transmitted by the administrative court to the place where the person who makes the statement locates; and after such transcripts and documents have been confirmed and signed by the person who makes the statement, the transcript and documents shall then be transmitted back to the administrative court via telefax or other technological devices.
The implementation regulations for the examination as provided in Paragraph 1 and the transmission of documents as provided in the preceding Paragraph shall be prescribed by the Judicial Yuan.

The following provisions concerning the court's or presiding judge's authority shall apply mutatis mutandis to the preparatory proceedings conducted by the commissioned judge:
1. The amended Administrative Litigation Act: Paragraphs 3 to 6 of Article 49, Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 8 of Article 49-1, Paragraph 1 of Article 49-2, Article 55, Paragraph 1 of Article 66, the proviso of Article 67, the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 100, Paragraph 2 of Article 100, the proviso of Paragraph 1 of Article 107, Paragraph 2 of Article 107, the proviso of Paragraph 3 of Article 107, Paragraph 4 of Article 110, Subparagraphs 1 to 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 121, Paragraph 2 of Article 121, Article 122-1, Article 124, Article 125, Article 125-1, Article 125-2, Article 130-1;
2. The Code of Civil Procedure: Article 49, Paragraph 1 of Article 75, Paragraph 1 of Article 120, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 121, Article 200, Article 207, Article 208, Paragraph 2 of Article 213, Article 213-1, Article 214, Article 217, Article 268, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 268-1, Paragraph 1 of Article 268-2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 371, and Article 372

The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in this Division: from Article 195 to Article 197, Article 200, Article 201, Article 204, Article 206, Article 208, Article 210, Article 211, Article 213, Paragraph 2, Article 214, Article 215, from Article 217 to Article 219, from Article 265 to Article 268-1, Article 268-2, Article 270, Paragraph 1, from Article 270-1 to Article 271-1, from Article 273 to Article 276.

The administrative court shall, on its own initiative, take evidence.

Even if a party has admitted to the facts alleged by the opposing party, the administrative court shall consider other necessary evidence on its own initiative.

Where a party intentionally destroys or hides a piece of evidence, or makes it difficult to use, for the purpose of obstructing the use of such evidence by the opposing party, the administrative court may, in its discretion, take as the truth the opposing party's allegation with regard to such evidence or the disputed fact to be proven by such evidence.
In the case provided in the preceding Paragraph, the parties shall be accorded an opportunity to present their arguments before a decision is rendered.

Unless otherwise provided in this Act, Article 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in this Section.

A party has the burden of proof with regard to custom and foreign laws which are unknown to the administrative court. Notwithstanding, the administrative court may investigate on its own initiative.

The administrative court may request the civil court, other government agencies, a school or an organization to conduct necessary investigation of evidence.

Where the administrative court considers it appropriate, it may designate a member of court to act as the commissioned judge or request another administrative court to designate a judge to conduct the evidence-taking.

Where the administrative court in which the litigation is pending takes evidence prior to the oral-argument sessions, or the evidence is taken by the commissioned judge or the assigned judge, the court clerk shall make a transcript of such evidence-taking.
Articles 128 to 130 inclusive shall apply mutatis mutandis to the transcript provided in the preceding Paragraph.
The transcript of the evidence-taking conducted by the commissioned judge shall be forwarded to the administrative court in which the litigation is pending.

The parties shall be directed to present argument on the outcome of evidence-taking.
Where the evidence is taken outside the administrative court in which the litigation is pending, the parties shall state the outcome of such evidence-taking in the oral-argument sessions. Notwithstanding, the presiding judge may order the administrative court clerk to read aloud the evidence-taking transcript or other documents as substitute.

Unless otherwise provided in applicable laws, every person is under a general duty to testify in an administrative litigation between others.

Where a witness who has been legally summoned fails to appear without giving a justifiable reason, the administrative court may impose a fine not exceeding NTD 30,000 by a ruling.
Where a witness who has been fined in accordance with the provision of the preceding Paragraph, and still fails to appear after he/she has been summoned again, he/she may again be fined for an amount not exceeding NTD 60,000 and may also be apprehended to appear.
The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the apprehension of a defendant shall apply mutatis mutandis to the apprehension of a witness; where the witness is a soldier, the apprehension shall be executed by the superior officer concerned who is requested to do so by a warrant.
An appeal may be taken from a ruling imposing a fine upon a witness; the execution of such ruling shall be stayed pending such appeal.

If a witness cannot participate in a court proceeding, or there are other necessary circumstances, the administrative court may examine the witness where the witness is present.
If the witness has to make statements based on documents or materials, or if the administrative court considers the nature of the matter or the situation of the witness to warrant the decision, the administrative court may order the parties to the litigation to make written statements together with witnesses in front of notaries public.
Witnesses may also make written testimony outside of administrative court if the parties to the litigation consent to the admissibility of such written testimony.
Even though written testimony is made per the preceding two paragraphs, if the administrative court considers that the written testimony of the witness requires explanation or one party to the litigation applies to question witnesses, the administrative court may require the witness to participate in the court proceedings.
When witnesses make testimony in written form, the truth of the testimony shall be attested to by the witnesses and notarized by notaries public. If the witnesses are examined following Article 130-1, such witnesses shall attest to the truth of their testimony before or after the examination.

Where a witness is or was a public officer or a national representative and is to be examined with regard to the matter which he/she is obliged to keep confidential by virtue of his/her duties, he/she shall be examined with the permission of his/her supervising officer or the representative organ.
The permission provided in the preceding Paragraph may not be withheld except that such examination will encumber highly confidential national information.
The preceding two Paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances where the witness is commissioned to perform public functions by a government agency.

A witness may refuse to testify in case in which the testimony of the witness may sufficiently expose the witness or any person who has the following relationship with him/her to criminal prosecution or embarrassment:
1. The witness's spouse, former spouse, a relative by blood within the fourth degree of relationship, a relative by marriage within the third degree of relationship, a person who had the aforesaid relative relationship with the witness, or a person who was engaged to the witness; and
2. The witness's guardian or ward.

A witness may refuse to testify in any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the witness is in one of the situations provided for in Article 144;
2. Where the witness is or was a doctor, a pharmacist, a pharmacy operator, a psychologist, a midwife, a religious teacher, an attorney-at-law, a certificated public accountant, or other persons who engage in similar affairs, or persons who assist the aforesaid persons, or persons who have ever assumed such duty, and the matters to be examined relate to other persons' confidential information which the witness obtained in the course of conducting business;
3. Where the sought testimony relates to the witness' technical or professional secrets.
The preceding Paragraph does not apply to the circumstance in which a witness has been relieved of the confidentiality obligation.

Where the witness may be permitted to refuse to testify in accordance with the preceding two Articles, the presiding judge shall so inform such witness before the examination or at the time when such case is known to the presiding judge.

Where a witness refuses to testify without specifying the reason and the facts giving rise to his/her refusal, or continues to refuse to testify after the ruling denying his/her refusal has become binding, the administrative court may by a ruling impose upon him/her a fine not exceeding NTD 30,000.
An appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph; the execution of the ruling shall be stayed pending such appeal.

The presiding judge shall order each witness to sign a written oath prior to examination. Notwithstanding, where it cannot be ascertained in advance that a witness will need to sign a written oath, the oath-signing shall be conducted after examination.
Before the witness signs the written oath, the presiding judge shall inform the witness of his/her obligation to sign a written oath and of the penalty of perjury.
The provisions of the two preceding Paragraphs do not apply to the case where a witness makes statements by pleadings.

Where a witness is under the age of sixteen or is mentally retarded or with other intellectually disabilities and therefore cannot understand the meaning of a written oath and the effects thereof, the witness shall not be ordered to sign a written oath.

The court may exempt a witness from signing a written oath if the witness is one of the following:
1. The witness is a party's spouse, former spouse, a relative by blood within the fourth degree of relationship or a relative by marriage within the third degree of relationship; or the witness had the aforesaid relationship with the party, or the witness has engaged to a party;
2. Where there is a circumstance as provided in Article 145 and the witness does not refuse to testify; and
3. A party's employee or cohabitant.

A witness may refuse to sign a written oath on matters with direct interests with him/her or with the persons provided in Article 145.

Article 148 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances where the witness refuses to sign a written oath.

A party may move the presiding judge to conduct a necessary examination of a witness or, after informing the presiding judge, conduct such examination himself/herself on matters concerning the facts to be proven and the witness's credibility.
In the examination provided in the preceding Paragraph, the presiding judge may, on motion or its own initiative, limit or prohibit questions which are irrelevant to the facts to be proven, repetitious, leading, insulting, or involving other inappropriate circumstances.
The administrative court shall rule on an objection raised with regard to the limitation placed on or prohibition of the examination.

The administrative court shall pay the witness daily fees and travel expenses; the witness may claim for the fees and expenses after the completion of the examination. However, no witness daily fees or travel expenses shall be paid if the witness is apprehended to appear or refuses to sign a written oath or to testify without giving a justifiable reason.
An appeal may be taken from a ruling on daily fees and travel expenses as provided in the preceding Paragraph.
A witness's necessary travel expenses may be paid in advance upon request.

Unless otherwise provided, the provisions regarding examination of witnesses in this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to expert testimony.

Anyone who possesses the required academic or technical knowledge, is engaged in the trade or profession needed for expert testimony, or has been commissioned by a government agency to provide expert opinion, is obliged to be an expert witness in administrative litigation.
An expert witness shall disclose the following information before the appointment. If the information is discovered after the appointment, he or she shall disclose the information to the presiding judge and the parties to the litigation immediately:
1. academic credentials and professional experiences, areas of specialty, and prior experiences of participation in litigation procedure, non-litigation procedure, or court mediation procedure because of his or her professional knowledge or experiences.
2. whether he or she has had any division of labor or cooperation with the parties to the litigation, assistive joined parties, assistive persons, or their agents concerning the professional knowledge and experiences and the preparation or submission of the relevant materials.
3. concerning the professional knowledge and experiences and the preparation or submission of the relevant materials, whether he or she has been compensated for or financially supported by the parties to the litigation, assistive joined parties, assistive persons, or their agents; if so, the amount of value of such compensation or financial support.
4. concerning the particular matter, anyone who provides compensation or financial support, and the amount or value of such compensation or support.
5. any other circumstance that is enough to find that the expert witness may not be able to carry out his or her duties impartially and independently.

No expert witness may be apprehended.

Where an expert witness refuses to give expert testimony for whatever reason other than those provided in this Act, the administrative court may relieve him/her from the duty to act as an expert witness if the administrative court considers the reason given to be justifiable.

An expert witness may claim for reasonable compensation in addition to the legally prescribed daily fees and travel expenses.
Upon the request of the expert witness, the expenses needed for giving expert testimony may be paid in advance.
An appeal may be taken from the ruling on the requests provided in the preceding two Paragraphs.

Article 160 of this Act and Articles 335 to 337 inclusive of the Code of the Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances where the administrative court requests a government agency, a school or an organization to give expert testimony or to review the expert testimony given in accordance with Article 138. Where an explanation is needed, such explanation shall be provided by the person appointed by such agency, school or organization.

Whenever necessary, the administrative court may consult the persons who engage in the academic study regarding professional legal issues in the litigation, and to request such persons to provide their legal opinion in writing or to state their opinion in the court session.
For the opinion provided in the preceding Paragraph, the court shall inform the parties of such opinion before rendering the decision for the parties to present their arguments.
The provisions of expert witness shall apply mutatis mutandis to the persons who provide their opinion in accordance with Paragraph 1; however, such persons shall not be ordered to sign a written oath.

A party has the duty to produce the following documents:
1. Documents to which such party has made reference in the course of the litigation proceeding;
2. Documents which the opposing party may require the delivery or an inspection thereof pursuant to the applicable laws;
3. Documents which are created in the interests of the opposing party;
4. Documents which are created for the matters relating to the legal relations in this litigation; and
5. Commercial accounting books.

The administrative court may order a document which is in an official's possession or in a government agency's custody. If the government agency is party to the litigation, it has a duty to produce such document.
In the circumstances provided in the preceding Paragraph, no refusal is acceptable unless the disclosure of document will encumber highly confidential national information.

Where a party disobeys an order to produce documents without giving a justifiable reason, the administrative court may, in its discretion, take as the truth the opposing party's allegation with regard to such document or the fact to be proven by such document.
In the case provided in the preceding Paragraph, the parties shall be accorded an opportunity to present their arguments before a decision is rendered.

Where a document identified to be introduced as documentary evidence is in a third party's possession, a party shall move the administrative court either to order such third party to produce such document or to designate a period of time within which the party who intends to introduce it as evidence shall produce such document.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the motion provided in the preceding Paragraph.
A preliminary showing shall be made with regard to the fact that the document is in a third party's possession and the reason why the third party has the duty to produce such document.

Where the administrative court considers that the fact to be proven is material and that the motion initiated by the party who intends to introduce it as evidence is just, it may order, by a ruling, the third party to produce the document or to designate a period of time within which the party who intends to introduce it as evidence shall produce such document.
Before making the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph, the administrative court shall accord the third party an opportunity to be heard.

With regard to a third party's duty to produce documents, Articles 144 to 147 inclusive, and Subparagraphs 2 to 5 inclusive of Article 163 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Where a third party disobeys an order to produce documents without giving a justifiable reason, the administrative court may, by a ruling, impose a fine not exceeding NTD 30,000; where necessary, the administrative court may also, by a ruling, order for compulsory measures to be taken.
Article 306 shall apply to the execution of compulsory measures as provided in the preceding Paragraph.
An appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in Paragraph 1; the execution of such ruling shall be stayed pending such appeal.

A third party may claim the expenses for producing documents.
Article 155 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstance provided in the preceding Paragraph.

The authenticity of a document may be proven by comparing the handwriting or the impression of seals.
The administrative court may order the parties or a third party to produce documents which may be used for making the comparison. The provisions regarding inspection shall apply to any comparison of handwriting or seal impressions.

Where there is no suitable handwriting available for comparison, the administrative court may order the person in whose name the document is issued to write the words designated by the court for the purpose of comparison.
Where the person in whose name a document is issued disobeys the order provided in the preceding Paragraph without giving a justifiable reason, Article 165 or Article 169 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
The words written for the purpose of comparison shall be annexed to the transcript; the same applies to other documents which are produced for the purpose of comparison and need not be returned.

The provisions of this Act concerning documents shall apply mutatis mutandis to non-documentary objects which have the same function as documents.
Where the content of a document or an object provided in the preceding Paragraph is accessible only through technological devices or it is practically difficult to produce its original version, a writing representing its content along with a proof of the content represented as being true to the original version will be acceptable.

Articles 164 to 170 inclusive shall apply mutatis mutandis to inspection.

The motion for the preservation of evidence shall be made after litigation has been initiated in the administrative court where the litigation is pending. Where litigation has not been initiated, such a motion shall be made in the district administrative court where the person to be examined domiciles/resides or where the tangible evidence is located.
In urgent cases, a motion for the preservation of evidence may be made, even when the litigation has been initiated in the district administrative court provided in the preceding Paragraph.

When the administrative court conducts the preservation of evidence, it may order a court administrator to assist the evidence-taking.

The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Section: Article 215, from Article 217 to Article 219, Article 278, Article 281, Article 282, from Article 284 to Article 286, from Article 291 to Article 293, Article 295, Article 296, Article 296-1, from Article 298 to Article 301, Article 304, Article 309, Article 310, Article 313, Article 313-1, from Article 316 to Article 319, Article 321, Article 322, from Article 325 to Article 327, from Article 331 to Article 337, Article 339, from Article 341 to Article 343, from Article 352 to Article 358, Article 361, from Article 364 to Article 366, Article 368, from Article 370 to Article 376-2.

When the decision on an administrative litigation is premised upon the existence or non-existence of civil legal relations to be determined in another litigation which is pending and not concluded, the administrative court shall by a ruling stay the proceeding.
In addition to the circumstances provided in the preceding Paragraph, if there is another civil, criminal or other administrative litigation that is relevant to the decision of the administrative litigation, the administrative court shall by a ruling stay the proceeding until the civil, criminal or other administrative litigation is concluded.

(Repealed.)

An administrative court shall stay the proceeding by a ruling when it opines that the statutory law applicable to the litigation is unconstitutional and applies to the Constitutional Court for a judgment that declares the statutory law as unconstitutional.

When a person who becomes party to a litigation on behalf of another person in his/her own name based on a certain qualification either loses such qualification or dies, the proceeding shall be stayed automatically until another person with the same qualification assumes the litigation.
When all of the appointed or designated persons to be parties to litigation as provided in Article 29 lose their qualification, the proceeding shall be stayed automatically until all of the parties sharing the same interests, or a newly appointed or designated person to be party to litigation assume the action.

Article 179 does not apply where the party concerned is represented by an advocate; in such cases, however, the administrative court may rule, in its discretion, to stay the proceeding.

After the proceeding is stayed, a person assuming the litigation in accordance with the applicable laws shall submit statement for assumption of the litigation as soon as he/she is able to assume the litigation.
The opposing party may also submit statement for assumption of the litigation.

When the proceeding is stayed automatically or by a ruling, neither the administrative court nor the parties may conduct acts of litigation concerning the principal case. Notwithstanding, if the proceeding is stayed automatically after the conclusion of the oral-argument sessions, the decision based on such oral argument may be announced.
When the proceeding is stayed automatically or by a ruling, all relevant periods of time shall cease to run, and then continue to run from the end of the stay.

The parties may stay the proceeding by consent, except that the stay is detrimental to protecting the public interest.
The consent provided in the preceding Paragraph shall be notified by both parties to the administrative court.
If the administrative court determines that the consent provided in the first Paragraph is detrimental to protecting the public interest, the court shall order by a ruling within one month to continue the litigation.
No appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph.
The running of a peremptory period shall not be affected by the stay by consent provided in Paragraph 1.

In addition to the ruling provide in Paragraph 3 of the preceding Article, if the parties who consented to stay the proceeding fail to continue the proceeding within four months after notifying such consent to the court, the case shall be deemed dismissed voluntarily. The parties may stay the proceeding by consent again only for another time, after continuing the proceeding from a stay by consent. If the parties notify the court again to stay the proceeding by consent, the case shall be deemed dismissed voluntarily.

The fact that both parties failed to appear in the oral-argument sessions without giving a justifiable reason will be deemed a consent to stay the proceeding, unless the stay is detrimental to protecting the public interest. If the parties fail to continue the proceeding within four months thereafter, the case will be deemed dismissed involuntarily. Nonetheless, the administrative court may, as it considers necessary, continue the proceeding on its own initiative.
When the administrative court orders to continue the litigation in accordance with the proviso of the preceding Paragraph, if both parties still fail to appear without giving a justifiable reason, the case shall be deemed dismissed voluntarily.
When the administrative court deems that the stay of proceeding as provided in the first Paragraph is detrimental to protecting the public interest, unless otherwise provided in applicable laws, the court shall order by a ruling to continue the action within one month after such date.
No appeal may be taken from the ruling provided in the preceding Paragraph.

Articles 168 to 171 inclusive, Article 173, Article 174, Articles 176 to 181 inclusive, Articles 185 to 187 inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Section.

Except for decisions to be rendered in the form of a judgment as provided by this Act, all decisions shall be made in the form of a ruling.

Unless otherwise provided, a decision of an administrative litigation shall be based on the parties' oral arguments.
For a judge who did not participate in the oral argument session on which a decision is based, he/she may not participate in making the decision.
A ruling may be made without oral argument session.
Unless otherwise provided, where a ruling is made without oral argument session, the court may order the persons who have interests in the litigation to present their statements in writing or oral.

Unless otherwise provided, in making a decision, the administrative court shall take into consideration the entire purport of the oral argument and the result of evidence-taking and apply the rules of logic and experience in determining the facts.
Where a party has proven injury but is unable to or is under great difficulty to prove the exact amount, the court shall, taking into consideration all circumstances, determine the amount by its evaluation.
The judgment shall specify the reasons on which the evaluation is based.

Where the administrative litigation is mature for decision, the administrative court shall render a final judgment.

Where part of a claim or one of several claims raised in the litigation is mature for decision, the administrative court may enter a partial final judgment.
The preceding Paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where one of several litigations ordered to be argued jointly is mature for decision.

Where one of the grounds of attack or defense presented separately is mature for decision, the administrative court may enter an interlocutory judgment; the same applies to cases where the ground and amount of a claim are both disputed and the administrative court finds the ground just.

Where a procedural issue relating to the administrative litigation proceedings is mature for a decision, the administrative court may first enter a ruling on such issue.

Where the administrative litigation is related to the protection of public interest and both parties fail to appear in the oral argument session without giving a justifiable reason, the administrative court may, on its own initiative, investigate the facts and enter a judgment without oral argument session.

If a party refuses to make statements during oral arguments, such refusal shall be deemed an absence. The same applies to the circumstances where the agent of litigation for a party fails to participate in an oral argument governed by the first Paragraph of Article 49-1.

Where the administrative court determines that the plaintiff's claim is meritorious, unless otherwise provided, the court shall render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff; where the claim is determined meritless, the court shall render a judgement to dismiss the case.
In a litigation of revocation, if the judgment is to amend the original disposition or decision, the judgement cannot be made in a manner less favorable to the plaintiff than the original disposition or the decision.

Where the administrative disposition has been executed and the administrative court enters a judgement to revoke the administrative disposition, the court may, on motion by the plaintiff and as it deems appropriate, rule in the judgment that the government agency shall take appropriate measures for restoration.
In the course of a litigation of revocation, if the original disposition has been executed and there is no likelihood for restoration or the disposition has voided, in cases where the plaintiff has legal interests in the declaratory judgment, the administrative court may, on motion, rule to declare the administrative disposition illegal.

In a litigation of revocation, if the subject matter of the administrative disposition concerns payment of cash or other replaceable things or confirmation thereof, the administrative court may order payment of a different confirmed amount or a different confirmation.

Where the administrative court adjudicates a litigation of revocation and finds that although the original disposition or decision is illegal but the revocation or amendment of the disposition will be materially detrimental to the public interest, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's case if it deems that the revocation or amendment of the original disposition or decision is manifestly contrary to the public interest after considering the harm suffered by the plaintiff, the compensation degree, measures of prevention and all other circumstances.
In the preceding Paragraph, it should be declared in the main text of the judgment that the original disposition or decision is illegal.

Where the administrative court renders a judgment as prescribed in the preceding Article, the court shall order the defendant agency to provide compensation to the loss suffered as a result of the illegal disposition or decision in accordance with the plaintiff's statement.
If the plaintiff fails to raise the statement as provided in the preceding Paragraph, it may claim for damage award with the administrative court within one year after the judgement provided in the preceding Article becomes binding.

In a litigation initiated by a person pursuant to Article 5 demanding for an administrative disposition or an administrative disposition with certain content, the administrative court shall render a decision in the following manners:
1. Where the plaintiff's claim is not in conformity with the applicable laws, the court shall dismiss the case by a ruling.
2. Where the plaintiff's claim is meritless, the court shall dismiss the case by a judgment.
3. Where the plaintiff's claim is meritorious and the facts and evidence of the claim are clear, the court shall order the government agency to render the requested administrative disposition as the plaintiff has petitioned.
4. Where the plaintiff's claim is meritorious but the facts and evidence of the claim are still unclear and concerns the discretion of the administrative agency, the court shall order the administrative agency to render a decision in response to the plaintiff's claim in line with the legal opinion stated in the judgment.

Where an administrative disposition was rendered by the administrative agency ex officio, the administrative court may revoke such disposition only when the acts or omission of acts exceed its powers or constitute an abuse of powers.

Where a party has either abandoned or admitted the claim during oral argument session, the administrative court shall, based on such abandonment or admission, enter a judgment against such party provided that the party has the authority in disposing of the right of the claim and no public interest is involved.

If there is change of circumstances which was not predictable then after the constitution of a contract under public law, and if the performance of the original obligation arising therefrom will become obviously unfair, the administrative court may, on motion by a party, render a judgement for increasing or reducing the payment, or altering or lifting the original obligation.
If a party is an administrative agency, it may initiate the motion as provided in the preceding Paragraph for the purpose of preventing or avoiding causing manifest harm to the public interest.
The preceding two Paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to pecuniary award occurred as a result of other grounds in public law.

Judgments shall be published; judgments for which oral arguments were conducted shall be announced except for cases where parties explicitly express his or her absence on or fail to appear on the announcement day.
A judgment shall be announced on the day of the last oral-argument session or on a later date that is designated on the day of the last oral-argument session.
The date designated for announcing the judgment provided in the preceding Paragraph shall be no later than three weeks from the day of the conclusion of the oral argument session, except where cases are complex or there exist special circumstances.
The publication of a judgment shall be made by publishing the main text of the judgment on the administrative court's bulletin board or posting it on the administrative court's website. The administrative court clerk shall produce a report evidencing such fact noting the hour, date, month and year and attach such report in the dossier.

A judgment announced will take effect irrespective of whether the parties appear in person to hear the announcement.
After a judgment is announced or published, the parties may, without waiting for its service, conduct acts of litigation on the basis of such judgment.

The administrative court rendering the judgment becomes self-bound after the judgment is announced; in cases where no announcement is made, it becomes self-bound after the judgment is published.

A ruling made with oral argument shall be announced. Notwithstanding, in cases where the parties explicitly express his or her absence or fail to appear on the announcement day, the ruling may be instead published.
A ruling which concludes a litigation shall be published.

The administrative court, the presiding judge, commissioned judge or assigned judge who enters a ruling becomes self-bound after such ruling is announced; in cases where a ruling is not announced, it becomes self-bound after such ruling is published or served. Notwithstanding, the above provision does not apply to a ruling concerning the direction of proceedings or conditions otherwise provided.

Judgment shall be made in a written form, indicating the following matters:
1. The full name and domicile or residence of the parties; in case of a juridical person, agency or association, its name and location, principal office or place of business;
2. The full name and domicile or residence of such party's statutory agent, representative or administrator;
3. The full name and domicile or residence of the advocate, if any;
4. In the case of a judgment based on oral argument, the date of the conclusion of the oral argument session;
5. The main text;
6. The facts;
7. The reasons;
8. The date, month and year; and
9. The administrative court.
Under the heading "facts", the parties' statements and purport of the means of attack or defense presented at the oral-argument sessions shall be indicated; when necessary, pleadings, transcripts and other documents may be appended to the judgment.
Under the heading "reasons", the court's opinion on the means of attack or defense and legal opinion shall be indicated.

Authenticated copies of the judgment shall be served upon parties. Upon consent by the party to be served, authenticated copy of the judgement can be a record in electronic form, except that service of judgement upon a prisoner cannot be made by delivering electronic record.
The service provided in the preceding Paragraph shall be effectuated no later than ten days from the day when the administrative court clerk received the original copy of the judgment.
Where an appeal may be taken from a judgment, the period of time within which an appeal may be taken, and the administrative court to which the appeal pleading shall be submitted, shall be indicated in the authenticated copies of the judgment to be served upon the parties.
Where the period of time notified in the preceding Paragraph is incorrect and is shorter than the period fixed in applicable laws, such legally prescribed period shall prevail. Where the period of time notified is longer than the period fixed in applicable laws, the administrative court clerk shall issue a notice to rectify the time period no later than twenty days after the authenticated copy of the judgment is served and the period fixed in applicable laws shall run from the date after the notice to rectify the time period is served.
Where a party does not observe the period for taking an appeal from a judgment due to the failure by the administrative court to notify in accordance with Paragraph 3, or in case of error of notification, a notice to rectify was not issued in accordance with the preceding Paragraph, it should be regarded as a reason not imputable to such party and such party may move for restoration to status quo ante within one year after the judgement is served in accordance with Article 91.

A judgment from which no appeal may be taken shall not be affected by reasons of an incorrect notice.

A judgment becomes binding upon the expiration of the period of time for taking an appeal from a judgment. Notwithstanding, a timely appeal taken from a judgment in conformity with the law shall prevent that judgment from becoming binding.
A judgment from which no appeal may be taken becomes binding upon its announcement, or, if it is not announced, upon its publication.

Res judicata exists as to a claim adjudicated in a final judgment with binding effect.

In addition to all parties, a judgment with binding effect is binding on a person who becomes a party's successor after the initiation of the litigation and on a person who possesses the claimed object for the parties or their successors.
A judgment with binding effect in which a party has acted as the plaintiff or the defendant for another person is also binding on such other person.

A judgement which revokes or amends the original administrative disposition or decision shall also be binding on a third party.

A judgement which revokes or amends the original administrative disposition or decision shall also be binding on all relevant government agencies for the same matter.
Where the original administrative disposition or decision is revoked by a judgment and the government agency is ordered to render a new administrative disposition or decision, it shall be made in line with the instruction of the judgment.
Where the judgment provided in the preceding two Paragraphs points out that the legal opinion relied upon by the government agency is incorrect, the government agency shall be bound by the judgement and should not render a contrary or deviated decision or disposition.
The preceding three Paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to other types of litigations.

Paragraphs 2 to 4 inclusive of Article 204, Article 205, Article 210 of this Act and Article 228 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to a ruling.

Article 244, Article 227, Article 228, Article 230, Article 232, Article 233, Article 236, Article 237, Article 240, Article 385, Article 386, Article 388, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 396, and Article 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances as provided in this Section.

If a party to the litigation has the right to dispose of the subject matter and the settlement does not harm the public interest, the administrative court may attempt to mediate a settlement at any time, irrespective of the phase of the proceeding. If necessary, the settlement may include matters that are not the subject matter of the litigation.
The commissioned or assigned judge of the administrative court may also attempt to mediate a settlement referred to in the preceding Paragraph.
A third party may participate in the settlement with permission granted by the administrative court. If the administrative court considers it necessary, it may instruct a third party to participate in the settlement.

For purposes of seeking settlement, the parties or their statutory agents, representatives or administrators may be ordered to appear in person.

Where settlement is reached, a settlement transcript shall be made.
Articles 128 to 130 inclusive of this Act and Articles 214, Article 215, Articles 217 to 219 inclusive of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the transcript provided in the preceding Paragraph.
Within ten days from the day when settlement is reached, an authenticated copy of the settlement transcript shall be served upon the parties and any third party who participates in the settlement.

Where a settlement is reached, Article 213, Article 214 and Article 216 shall apply mutatis mutandis to its effect.

Where grounds exist for nullifying or revoking the settlement, a party may move for continuing the litigation proceeding.

A motion for continuing the litigation proceeding must be initiated within a peremptory period of thirty days.
The period provided in the preceding Paragraph starts to run from the time when the settlement is reached, or from the time when the ground for nullifying or revoking the settlement became known at a later date.
A motion for continuing the litigation proceeding may not be initiated after a period of three years has elapsed from the time when the settlement is reached, except where the parties have claimed that they were not legally represented.

Where the motion for continuing the litigation proceeding is not in conformity with the applicable laws, the administrative court shall rule to dismiss the motion by a ruling.
Where the motion for continuing the litigation proceeding is meritless, the court may rule to dismiss the motion by a judgement without conducting oral arguments.

Where the terms of the settlement have been revised as a result of the motion for continuing the litigation proceeding, Article 282 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

If a settlement between the parties and a third party is invalid, or grounds exist for revoking such a settlement, a litigation may be initiated in the original administrative court seeking a declaratory judgment that the settlement is invalid or to seek a judgment to revoke the settlement.
For the situation referred to in the preceding Paragraph, a party to the litigation may move to consolidate the adjudication of the aforesaid litigation with that of the original litigation.

Articles 224 to 226 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article.

The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Section: Article 377-1, Article 377-2, and Article 380, Paragraph 3.

When a party to the litigation has the right to dispose of the subject matter of the litigation, and the mediation of the litigation does not harm the public interest, the administrative court may, at the consent of both parties to the litigation, move the case to mediation when the case is pending.
The commissioned or assigned judge of the administrative court may also attempt to mediate the case, as referred to in the preceding Paragraph.
When necessary, mediation may include matters that are not the subject matter of the litigation.
With permission granted by the administrative court, a third party may participate in the mediation. If the administrative court considers it necessary, it may instruct a third party to participate in mediation on its initiative or upon the application of a party.

The original administrative court or the commissioned or assigned judge of the administrative court may appoint one to three mediators to mediate the case without judges. Mediators may request the presence of judges after mediation or in other circumstances. Judges may mediate a case directly whenever they consider it appropriate.
When parties to the litigation object to the mediators appointed by judges per the preceding Paragraph, judges may appoint other mediators.

The administrative court should prepare a roster of individuals who are fit to serve as mediators so that judges find it convenient to appoint them. The Judicial Yuan shall determine the qualifications, periods of service, appointment, firing, information that shall be disclosed, per diem, travel expenses, compensation, etc.
When a judge finds it necessary in a matter of mediation, he or she may appoint as mediator a person not listed on the roster referred to in the preceding Paragraph.
The per diem, travel expenses and compensation are borne by the State.

The following provisions of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Section: Article 85, Article 87, Paragraph 2, Article 87, Paragraph 3, Article 130-1, Article 220, Article 221, Paragraph 2, Article 221, Paragraph 3, from Article 222 to Article 228-1.

The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Section: Article 84, Paragraph 1, Article 407, Paragraph 1, Article 407-1, Article 410, Article 413, Article 414, Article 420, Article 420-1, Paragraph 2, Article 420-1, Paragraph 1, Article 422, and Article 426.

District administrative courts shall adjudicate the first instance of cases subject to small claims proceedings.
The small claims proceeding, as provided for in this Chapter, shall apply to the following types of administrative litigation unless otherwise provided for in this Act:
1. Litigations concerning tax assessments where the amount of tax is not more than NT$500,000;
2. Litigations regarding objections to an administrative fine imposed by a government agency where the amount of the fine is not more than NT$ 400,000;
3. Other litigations concerning relationships in public law where the price of the property or the value of the claim is not more than NT$ 500,000.
4. Litigations concerning objections to disciplinary warnings, reprimands, the recording of points for violation, the recording of the times of the violation; reformatory courses, supplemental training classes, or similar minor disciplinary actions imposed by an administrative agency;
5.Litigations over administrative detention cases concerning the National Immigration Agency, the Ministry of the Interior (hereafter referred to as "the National Immigration Agency"), or a joint claim for a damage award or other pecuniary awards; and
6. Other circumstances in which the small claims proceeding shall apply pursuant to applicable laws.
Where necessary, the Judicial Yuan may order a reduction in the amount provided in the preceding Paragraph to NT$ 250,000 or increase it to NT$ 750,000.
The cases provided for in Subparagraph 5 of Paragraph 2 shall be adjudicated by district administrative courts where the person is currently or was detained, and Article 13 shall not apply. However, if the person has never been detained, the case shall be adjudicated by the district administrative court where the defendant agency is located.

Where any of the litigations referred to in Paragraph 2 of the preceding Article, due to an amendment of the claim or partial withdrawal of the claim, becomes a matter that should be adjudicated by district administrative courts applying ordinary proceedings or as a matter of traffic adjudication, the matter should thereafter be adjudicated through ordinary proceedings or as a matter of traffic adjudication. The same applies when a new claim is added to the litigation, or a counterclaim is raised, and the oral argument and adjudication of such a new claim or counterclaim is combined with the original claim.
In the situations referred to in the preceding Paragraph, if a high administrative court should adjudicate the whole or a part of the litigation, the district administrative court shall, through a court ruling, transfer the case to the high administrative court with jurisdiction.

Initiation of the litigation and other statements or representations not presented at court sessions may be made orally.
Where the litigation is initiated orally, the transcript shall be served upon the opposing party.

Small claims proceedings are conducted by and before one judge.
If the residence, place of work, office, principal place of work, or principal place of business of one party to the litigation is located too far from the court, at the discretion of the administrative court after consulting the party that has to travel a distance, small claims proceedings may be conducted through video-conferencing, circuit court, or other convenient manners. The standard by which to judge whether a region is too far away from the court, the manner of adjudication, and the court rules for circuit courts referred to in the preceding Paragraph shall be promulgated by the Judicial Yuan.

The summons for the oral-argument session shall be served on the opposing party together with the pleadings or the transcript provided in Paragraph 2 of Article 231.
In a summary proceeding for which oral arguments were conducted, a date for announcing the judgment shall be designated no later than two weeks from the day of the conclusion of the oral argument session, except where the cases are complex or there exist special circumstances.

The judgment delivered by the court may state the facts and reasons under the same heading and may indicate only the relevant parts, leaving out the less relevant descriptions.
District administrative courts may, when announcing the judgment, order the courtroom reporter to write down the minutes of the oral argument or judgment, the holding of the judgment, and the important facts and reasons, and do not enter a separate document for judgement.
The minutes or their summary referred to in the preceding Paragraph should be noted separately, signed by the court reporter, and stamped with the court's seal.
The service of the minutes or their summary referred to in Paragraph 2 has the same effect as the service of the judgment.

(Repealed.)

(Repealed.)

Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, the provisions of an ordinary proceeding shall apply to a summary proceeding.

(Repealed.)

(Repealed.)

Article 430, Article 431 and Article 433 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in this Chapter.

Traffic adjudication cases regulated by this Act refer to the following matters:
1. A litigation of revocation or a litigation for declaratory judgment initiated against the decisions made pursuant to Article 8 and Paragraph 6 of Article 37 of the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act;
2. A joint claim demanding for retrieval of the paid administrative fine, withheld driver license, taxi driver business registrations or vehicle license plates, that are related to the decision provided in the preceding Subparagraph.
Where a litigation other than the litigations provided in the preceding Paragraph is initiated jointly, such litigation should be governed by the respective summary proceeding or ordinary proceeding.
Article 237-2, Article 237-3, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 237-4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances provided in the preceding Paragraph.

Traffic adjudication cases shall be adjudicated by the district administrative courts at the place of the plaintiff's residence, place of short stay, or place of current presence, or the place where the illegal acts were committed.

Traffic adjudication cases shall be initiated, in the district administrative court with jurisdiction, against the administrative agency that made the administrative act.
Litigation to revoke an administrative act in traffic adjudication cases shall be initiated within the thirty-day period of the service of the administrative act.
In the litigation referred to in the preceding Paragraph, if the administrative agency that made the administrative act fails to notify the plaintiff or makes a wrong notification, causing the plaintiff to file a complaint with the administrative agency that made the administrative act within thirty days of the service of the administrative act, it shall not be considered a violation of the thirty-day requirement. The administrative agency receiving the complaint shall immediately transmit the complaint to the administrative court that has the jurisdiction.

After receiving the complaint as provided for in the preceding Article, the district administrative court shall serve a duplicate copy of the complaint on the defendant.
The defendant shall re-examine the lawfulness and appropriateness of the original decision within twenty days after receiving a duplicate copy of the complaint and take the following actions:
1. Where the plaintiff initiates litigation for revocation, if the defendant finds that the original decision is unlawful or inappropriate, the defendant shall revoke the original decision or amend the initial decision on its own but shall not render a decision that is more disadvantageous to the plaintiff;
2. Where the plaintiff initiates litigation for a declaratory judgment, if the defendant finds that the original decision is invalid or unlawful, the defendant shall so declare;
3. Where litigation demanding the performance of certain obligations is initiated by the plaintiff, if the defendant finds that the plaintiff's claim has merits, the defendant shall immediately perform the obligations; and
4. After re-examining the case, if the defendant determines not to take the measures as requested by the plaintiff, the defendant shall submit an answer together with the re-examination records and all other necessary relevant documents to the district administrative court that has jurisdiction.
Where the defendant has taken measures per Subparagraphs 1 to 3 of the preceding Paragraph, the defendant shall promptly inform the district administrative court that has jurisdiction. Where the defendant has taken every measure requested by the plaintiff before the first-instance final decision takes effect, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the case when the defendant informed the administrative litigation division of the district court with jurisdiction.

Court costs will be collected for traffic adjudication cases in accordance with the following rules:
1. In initiating a litigation, court costs of NTD 300 shall be collected;
2. In initiating an appeal from judgment, court costs of NTD 750 shall be collected;
3. In initiating an appeal from ruling, court costs of NTD 300 shall be collected;
4. In initiating a rehearing, court costs shall be collected in accordance with Subparagraphs 1 and 2 based on the respective instance of the court with which the action is initiated; in initiating a rehearing against a ruling with binding effect, court costs of NTD 300 shall be collected; and
5. In initiating the motions in accordance with any of the Subparagraphs of Article 98-5 of this Act, court costs of NTD 300 shall be collected.
For the cases of a voluntarily dismissal of case as provided in Paragraph 3 of the preceding Article, the court shall return on its own initiative the court costs that were paid.

If a case, or part of it, falls outside the category of traffic adjudication cases due to an amendment or addition to the plaintiff's claim, the district administrative court shall adjudicate the case through small claims or ordinary proceedings. If the court has no jurisdiction to conduct an ordinary proceeding, the case shall be transferred through a court ruling to a high administrative court with jurisdiction.

A decision of traffic adjudication cases may be rendered without conducting oral argument.

When the administrative court renders a decision on litigation expenses, the amount of expenses shall be determined.
In the circumstances provided in the preceding Paragraph, the administrative court may order the parties to submit the document calculating the expenses and the document explaining the expenses.

The provisions concerning small claims proceedings shall apply mutatis mutandis to traffic adjudication cases unless otherwise provided in this Chapter.

Detention sanction cases regulated by this Act refer to the following matters:
1. An objection against the detention sanction, an application to continue the detention sanction or an application to extend the detention period initiated in accordance with the Immigration Act, the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area and the Laws and Regulations Regarding Hong Kong and Macao Affairs.
2. A petition to cease detention initiated in accordance with this Act.

District administrative courts shall adjudicate the first instance of detention sanction cases.
Despite Article 13 of this Act, the cases provided in the preceding Paragraph shall be adjudicated by the district administrative court where the detained person is located.

When the administrative court reviews the cases concerning an objection against the detention sanction, a petition to continue the detention sanction or a petition to extend the detention period, the court shall examine the person detained; the National Immigration Agency shall also appear to present its statement.
When the administrative court reviews the cases as provided in the preceding Paragraph, the court may seek opinion of the National Immigration Agency, Ministry of the Interior, to explore the possibility of other alternative measures in lieu of a detention sanction in order to consider the necessity of the detention sanction.

After the administrative court determines to continue the detention or to extend the detention period, the person detained and the person who is eligible to raise an objection against the detention sanction may move the court to cease the detention sanction alleging that the grounds for detention have vanished, there is no necessity for detention or there are reasons that detention shall be prohibited.
When the administrative court reviews the cases as provided in the preceding Paragraph and deems it necessary, the court may examine the person detained or to seek opinion of the National Immigration Agency; in such circumstances, Paragraph 2 of the preceding Article shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Where the administrative court determines that the objection against the detention sanction and the petition to cease detention are meritless, the court shall rule to dismiss the case by a ruling. If the court determines that the petitions are meritorious, it shall render a ruling to release the person detained.
Where the administrative court determines that the petition to continue the detention and the petition to extend the detention period are meritless, the court shall rule to dismiss the case by a ruling. If the court determines that the petitions are meritorious, the court shall render a ruling to continue the detention or to extend the detention period.

Where the administrative court renders a ruling to continue the detention or to extend the detention period, the court shall announce the decision during the court hearing prior to the expiration of the detention period or serve the authenticated copy of the ruling on the person detained. If the court fails to conduct the actions prior to the expiration of the detention period, it should be regarded that the ruling which orders to continue the detention or to extend the detention period is revoked.
When the authenticated copy of the preceding paragraph is made in electronic files, the court shall request the chief officer at the detention place to print out a copy of the ruling and serve the same on the person detained to effectuate service.

If a petitioner, the person against whom the ruling is rendered, or the National Immigration Agency intends to appeal against the ruling rendered by a district administrative court, the appeal shall be filed at the High Administrative Court with jurisdiction within five days of the service of the ruling. No appeal may be made against the ruling rendered by an appellate court.
Unless otherwise provided for in the preceding Paragraph, Part Four shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal against rulings.
If a ruling concerning a detention sanction case becomes final and there are circumstances provided for in Article 273, applications for rehearing may be initiated, to which Part Five shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Provisions of Section 5 of Chapter 4 of Part I concerning litigation expenses shall not apply to the detention sanction cases under the review of the administrative court, except for fees collected under Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 98-6.
Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, the provisions concerning summary proceeding shall apply mutatis mutandis to detention sanction cases.

Any individual person, local self-governing body or other public juridical persons, whose rights or legal interests are jeopardized as a direct result of the Urban Plan, or as a result of the application of the Urban Plan, or is likely to be jeopardized within an expected period of time by the Urban Plan announced by the competent administrative agency in accordance with the Urban Planning Law, has the right to initiate a litigation in accordance with this Chapter against the agency which approved the Urban Plan in the High Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the case and to claim for the declaration by court that the Urban Plan is invalid.
The litigation cannot be consolidated with other litigations which are not subject to the procedure in accordance with this Chapter.

Any litigation initiated in accordance with the preceding Article shall be exclusively governed by the High Administrative Court at the location of the Urban Plan.

Any litigation initiated in accordance with this Chapter is subject to a preemptory period of one year after the Urban Plan is announced. If the unlawful grounds occur after the announcement of the Urban Plan, the preemptory period commences from the time of occurrence of the unlawful grounds.

The High Administrative Court, after receiving the complaint, shall serve a duplicate copy of the complaint to the defendant.
The defendant shall re-examine the lawfulness of the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid by the plaintiff within two months after receiving a duplicate copy of the complaint, and shall act in accordance with the followings:
1. If the defendant finds that the Urban Plan has been made in violation of applicable procedure but such defective procedure can be corrected, it shall correct the defective procedure and inform the High Administrative Court;
2. If the defendant finds that the Urban Plan is unlawful, it shall report to the High Administrative Court regarding the unlawful grounds and adopt necessary measures;
3. If the defendant confirms that the Urban Plan is lawful, it shall provide explanation in its answer.
The defendant shall provide an answer along with the original Urban Plan, its re-examination file and other necessary documents to the High Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the litigation. The defendant shall also submit to the court all other materials which are inseparable from the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid.

The provisions stipulated in Section 4, Chapter 3 of the preceding Part in relation to intervention are not applicable to cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning that are adjudicated by the High Administrative Court.

The High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, order a third party to intervene in the litigation or grant the motion for intervention by a third party, if it finds that such third party's rights or legal interests would be directly jeopardized if the Urban Plan is declared invalid or illegal.
Paragraph 2 of Article 42, Article 43, Article 45 and Article 47 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.
The parties who intervene in a litigation in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article are parties to the litigation.

For cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning, the High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, order a third party to intervene in the litigation if such third party has interests in the litigation and it is necessary for such third party to assist either party in the litigation. A third party who has interests in the litigation may also apply to intervene in the litigation.
Articles 59 to 61 inclusive, and Articles 63 to 67 inclusive of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.

In adjudicating the cases under the Review Procedure of Urban Planning, the High Administrative Court shall order ex officio the agency which proposed the Urban Plan and the agency which announced the Urban Plan to appear at the court session to give statement, and the Court may, at its discretion, notify the administrative agency whose authority is likely to be affected by the Urban Plan to appear at the court session to give statement. The administrative agency whose authority is likely to be affected by the Urban Plan may file a motion to appear at the court session to give statement.

If, when a case reviewing an urban plan is pending at the Court and has not been concluded, if the same urban plan was declared unconstitutional by a judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court, the High Administrative Court may, at its discretion, stay the proceeding by a ruling pending the conclusion of the judicial interpretation.

If the High Administrative Court determines that the Urban Plan is not unlawful, it shall dismiss the plaintiff's case by a judgement. The same shall apply when the Urban Plan is found violating procedural rules and such violation has been corrected in a lawful manner prior to the conclusion of the oral-argument session in the first instance.

If the High Administrative Court determines that the Urban Plan sought to be declared invalid is unlawful, the Court shall declare the Urban Plan invalid. If the Court determines that matters in the same Urban Plan that are not sought to be declared invalid but are inseparable from the portion sought to be declared invalid, are unlawful, the Court shall simultaneously declare such matters invalid.
In the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph, if the unlawful grounds occur after the Urban Plan has been announced, the Court shall declare that the Urban Plan is invalid starting from the date of occurrence of such unlawful grounds.
If the Urban Plan is unlawful and the only legal consequence is to declare such Urban Plan unlawful pursuant to the applicable laws, the Court shall declare the Urban Plan unlawful.
The judgment with binding effect rendered pursuant to the three preceding Paragraphs shall have legal effect upon third parties.
In the circumstances prescribed in Paragraph 1 of this Article, if the Court determines that another Urban Plan that is inseparable from the portion sought to be declared invalid is also unlawful, the Court may indicate its determination in the reasons of the judgement.

For the Urban Plan that has been declared invalid or illegal by a judgment with binding effect, the authenticated copy of the judgement shall be served to the administrative agency which announced the Urban Plan, and such agency shall publicize the main text of the judgment by using the method adopted in announcing the Urban Plan.
If the preceding judgement would render a criminal decision with binding effect unlawful, an extraordinary appeal may be filed pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The legal effect of the decision with binding effect outside the scope of the preceding Paragraph shall remain. However, for the part of the decision that has not been executed or the execution has not been completed, starting from the date when the judgment declaring the Urban Plan invalid becomes binding, no execution action shall be taken in relation to the part that has been declared invalid.
The preceding Paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis to the binding administrative dispositions rendered pursuant to the Urban Plan that has been declared invalid in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article in terms of its legal effect and subsequent execution.
If an Urban Plan is declared unlawful in a binding judgment in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the preceding Article, the relevant administrative agencies shall take appropriate measures in accordance with the judgment.

If there is necessity to prevent material harm or imminent danger caused by a disputed Urban Plan, a motion may be filed to the Administrative Court which has jurisdiction over the case to temporarily withhold the application or execution of the Urban Plan or to adopt other appropriate measures.
Articles 295 to 297 inclusive, Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4 of Article 298, Article 301 and Article 303 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the circumstances prescribed in the preceding Paragraph.
Paragraph 1 of the preceding Article shall apply mutatis mutandis in circumstances where the Administrative Court grants the motion filed in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article. The same shall apply when the court ruling is reversed, amended or revoked.

Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, Chapter 1 of this Part shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Review Procedure of Urban Planning.