The Administrative Proceedings Act clearly provides in Articles 29 and 30 that a party may file a motion for a new trial if there exists in the judgment delivered by an administrative court any circumstance giving rise to a statutory cause for a new trial, provided that the motion is filed within a period of two months as of the time of issuance of such judgment, unless such circumstance occurs or is known afterwards, in which case the period shall be counted from the time of occurrence of the circumstance or the same is known. Whether the circumstance alleged by the party as a legal ground for a new trial occurs or is known afterwards is subject to investigation to be carried out by the court ex officio. The Supreme Administrative Court Precedent T. T. 23 (Supreme Administrative Court, 1972), on which the Supreme Administrative Court order T. T. 27 (Supreme Administrative Court, 1983) was based, held to the effect that the circumstance involving the question whether there was any error in law in the original judgment existed at the time when the judgment became effective and was known to the party at the time of receipt of the issuance of such judgment, and thus it gave rise to no question of whether the party knew of such error afterwards. The Precedent is irrelevant in regard to counting the period wherein the party may legally file a motion for a new trial on the ground of and after an interpretation delivered by this Yuan upon a petition filed by the people with respect to the application of law in an irrevocable final decision, and it gives rise to no issue of constitutionality.