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.