A Payment Order Wrongful Conviction That Even a 'Unlawful' Judicial Ruling Could Not Save

A few days ago, a lawyer friend of mine came running enthusiastically to JRF's Editor Tung, holding a volume of a legal journal. Flipping open the journal with a look of excitement, my friend told Editor Tung that Professor Wu Tsung-wu of the Department of Law at National Taiwan University had written an article related to the amendment of the provisions on payment orders. Furthermore, Professor Wu mentioned in the article a successful retrial judgment regarding a payment order rendered by the New Taipei District Court (Sanchung Summary Court, 100年度重再簡字第1號 Judgment). The content of that judgment is roughly as follows:

A-ming, who lives in New Taipei City, received a compulsory enforcement notice from the New Taipei District Court one day in 2011, stating that his bank deposits were to be seized. After applying to review the case file at the New Taipei District Court, A-ming discovered that Asset Management Company A had informed the court that A-ming had once applied for a credit card with Bank B and had accumulated unpaid credit card debt. Bank B subsequently assigned this credit card debt to Asset Management Company A, and Company A then petitioned the court to issue a payment order against A-ming.

At the same time, A-ming discovered that the signature, household registration address, contact person, and occupation fields on the credit card application provided to the court by Company A when applying for the payment order were not written by him, and the relevant personal information was also incorrect. It was obvious that this credit card application was evidence forged by an unknown third party. Therefore, A-ming used this as grounds to file for a retrial, requesting the court to revoke Company A's payment order.

The first-instance judge was extremely meticulous. He retrieved all of A-ming's account establishment applications at post offices and banks, personal customer specimen signature cards, and savings deposit application forms, and conducted an on-site handwriting analysis. He discovered that the signature of A-ming on the credit card application provided to Company A was completely different from A-ming's signatures at these financial institutions!

Since the credit card application was forged, the judge naturally held in accordance with the law that A-ming did not have to pay a single penny to Company A, and Company A's payment order ought to be revoked.

After reading this judgment, my friend joyfully said, "This means there are judges who believe that if a debtor of a payment order claims that the evidence has been forged, even without obtaining a final guilty verdict against the perpetrator of the forgery, the debtor can still succeed in a retrial?!"

Although Editor Tung was also gladdened that there are still judges in Taiwan's judiciary courageous enough to challenge unreasonable laws, it cannot be denied that the first-instance judgment rendered by this judge indeed violated the provisions of Article 496, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In other words, this is a 'judgment where the judge "clearly violated the law," yet it is extremely "reasonable."' After all, why should someone who never applied for a credit card have to pay off credit card debt?

"So in this judgment, did Company A fail to appeal to the second instance, making it final at the first instance?" Editor Tung asked curiously.

"Actually I don't know either. Why don't we look it up."/>

As a result, after searching online, Editor Tung discovered that Company A not only subsequently appealed to the second instance, but also successfully "turned the tables" in the second instance (New Taipei District Court, 101年度再簡上字第1號 Judgment).

The main reason the second-instance court overturned the first-instance judgment was that the second-instance judge held that the first-instance judgment violated Article 496, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the first-instance judge was able to authenticate that the signature on the credit card application was not signed by A-ming, A-ming still had to first find the person who forged the signature on the credit card application and obtain a final criminal conviction against this forger before he could file for a retrial and request the court to revoke Company A's payment order.

In the end, A-ming still could not escape the civil wrongful conviction arising after the payment order became final. Without having applied for a credit card, he still had to pay off Company A's credit card debt.

After reading both judgments, Editor Tung could not help but sigh that the "civil wrongful convictions" arising after payment orders become final have reached such an absurd extent that even if a judge does not hesitate to issue an "unlawful judgment," it still cannot be saved...

---

The above story is excerpted and adapted from the contents of the "New Taipei District Court 101年度再簡上字第1號 Judgment." Furthermore, the aforementioned story content does not reflect the actual circumstances of the parties involved in that judgment, which is hereby stated.

If you are A-ming, or have encountered a situation similar to A-ming's, please immediately fill out the Payment Order Victim Grievance Form and join us in fighting against payment orders! If you do not know anyone in this situation, you are also welcome to share this post to help A-ming or friends facing similar plights.