Go to Content Area :::

Constitutional Court R.O.C. (Taiwan) Logo

Home Sitemap 中文版
   

Decisions

Home > Decisions > Docket Search > Before 2022
:::
:::
  • Interpretation
  • No.132
  • Date
  • 1972/02/21
  • Issue
    • Is the right of the debtor to claim withdrawal from the court of the property lodged by him for payment of a debt barred by lapse of time if not exercised within the period of prescription specified by the Civil Code?
  • Holding
    •        The term "lodgment" in this Yuan’s Interpretation No. 39 does not include lodgment made for the purpose of payment of a debt. Needless to say, however, where the person making such lodgment is legally entitled to withdraw the property lodged, the provision of Article 125 of the Civil Code will govern.
  • Reasoning
    •        This Yuan’s Interpretation No. 39 is intended to address the questions of application of Interpretation Yuan-tze No. 3239, and the expressions therein contained, to wit, "moneys paid into court in respect of a lawsuit, which must be legally refunded to the party" and "the claim for withdrawal of the property lodged" refer only to lodgment made for safe custody and do not include lodgment made by a debtor for the creditor under Article 326 of the Civil Code for the purpose of payment of a debt. This will become more easily understandable by reading the following text in Interpretation Yuan-tze No.3239: "The deposit made in a criminal action and all moneys paid into the court in a civil litigation, which the party is legally entitled to withdraw, must be kept by the court in safe custody before being returned to the party." However, while the person making the lodgment is entitled under either Article 11 or 13 of the Lodgment Act to withdraw the property lodged, the Lodgment Act is silent on the period within which the claim for withdrawal must be brought. Obviously, Article 125 of the Civil Code will apply in such a case.  With regard to the petitioner*s assertion that the notice required to be given after the lodgment has been made is not an essential element for the lodgment to become effective, and that the ten-year period specified in Article 330 of the Civil Code shall begin from the day following the date of lodgment, we see no disagreement there with the opinion of the Supreme Court as given in 1958 in its judgment No. Tai-Shang-1702. Nor does it raise any doubt as to our Interpretation No. 39, and therefore needs no interpretation to be made by us. 
      
    • *Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
Back Top