Revolutionary Institute Case: KMT Wins Lawsuit, Avoids Paying NT$3.2 Billion – Supreme Administrative Court Ruling Details Revealed

The Ill-Gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee determined that the 'Zhongxing Villa' site in Muzha District, Taipei City—formerly the location of the Kuomintang's (KMT) Revolutionary Institute of the Chinese Nationalist Party—constituted property improperly acquired by the KMT. Since the land had already been transferred to a private developer, the committee issued a disposition in 2022 ordering the KMT to pay NT$3.20375 billion in compensation. The KMT contested the decision through administrative litigation, and the Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, rejecting the committee's appeal. As a result, the case is now final, and the KMT is exempt from the NT$3.2 billion compensation.

The case originated from a petition filed by a Mr. Yeh with the committee, claiming that his father had involuntarily transferred multiple land parcels in what was then Muzha Township, Taipei County, to the KMT Central Committee and the Revolutionary Institute in 1964 at prices grossly disproportionate to market value. The KMT later transferred the land to a construction company through a sale.

Following a public hearing, the committee issued its ruling on February 8, 2022, determining the land as improperly acquired by the KMT. Since the property had already been transferred to a third party and could not be reclaimed, the committee ordered the KMT to pay NT$3.203758986 billion from its other assets. On the same day, the construction company that acquired the land reached a settlement with the committee, agreeing to donate NT$813.4 million to the national treasury.

However, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that at the time the Party Assets Act came into effect, the land was no longer owned by the KMT but by the construction company. To apply the Party Assets Act and impose monetary compensation, the court emphasized that it must be proven the KMT originally acquired the land either 'free of charge' or 'at a grossly disproportionate price.'

The court noted that based on the original land sale contract between Mr. Yeh’s father and the KMT, there was insufficient evidence to conclude the KMT deliberately undervalued the transaction. Furthermore, the committee’s disposition failed to clearly explain how it determined the acquisition was 'free of charge' or 'at a grossly disproportionate price.' It also did not clarify why the amount the KMT originally paid for the land was not deducted from the compensation if the price was indeed disproportionate.

Therefore, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that the committee’s decision lacked sufficient reasoning and legal basis, and annulled the original disposition. The committee appealed, but the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision, finalizing the KMT’s victory.

Related reports: - Cheng Li-wen proposes amendments to the Party Assets Act; Huang Kuo-chang states the Taiwan People’s Party will not support - Why did the court rule against the Party Assets Committee? Chuang Jui-hsiung highlights 'the issue lies in evidence': The court did not deny it was improperly acquired - KMT avoids paying NT$1.1 billion! Former KMT headquarters ruled 'not improper party asset'—committee loses case definitively