1. The purpose of the system of litigation in forma pauperis provided in the Code of Civil Procedure is to enable those who want to have their rights affirmed or defended but are destitute of means to pay the court costs and expenses to exercise their right of instituting legal proceedings. However, to avoid the possibility of abuse of this system by the institution of meaningless proceedings and thus unnecessarily increasing the workload of courts, the Act provides in the proviso to Article 107 that "this shall not apply where there is apparently no prospect for the person to win the case." The restriction is essential to the public interest and is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.

       2. While a settlement reached in a lawsuit has the same effect as an irrevocable judgment, a motion for further proceedings filed after a settlement was concluded will result in the resumption of a proceeding that has already ended, and must therefore be subject to a limitation of a period to maintain the order of law. Article 380 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in Paragraph 3 thereof that the provision in respect of the peremptory period for the institution of a petition for retrial as set forth in Article 500 of the Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to a motion for further proceedings under Paragraph 2 of said Article, is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.

       1. Civil litigation is a proceeding whereby parties request the judicial authority to determine their private rights for their personal interest. To be fair, all court costs and expenses incurred should of course be borne by the litigant parties. This is the reason that the Code of Civil Procedure has adopted the non-gratis principle, which has been clearly expounded in our Interpretation No. 225. For persons who are destitute of means of payment for the court costs and expenses, however, the Act permits proceedings in forma pauperis to enable the indigent to claim or defend their rights through the exercise of their right of instituting legal proceedings. Nonetheless, to avoid a possible increase in the workload of courts in consequence of the institution of meaningless proceedings that take advantage of this system, appropriate restrictions are necessary if, prima facie, there is no prospect of success for the claimant in the litigation. It is therefore set forth in the proviso to Article 107 of the Code that "this shall not apply where there is apparently no prospect for the person to win the case," and such restriction is essential to the public interest and is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. 

       2. The conclusion of a settlement in a lawsuit has the same effect as an irrevocable judgment under Paragraph 1 of Article 380 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as putting the proceedings to an end. Where there is a ground for nullification or revocation of the settlement, however, a motion for further proceedings may be filed, and a well-grounded motion for further proceedings will result in the resumption of a proceeding that has already been closed. The settlement which had the same effect as an irrevocable judgment will then become ineffective as soon as a new judgment is entered on the original action and becomes irrevocable. Such a motion must therefore be subject to the limitation of a period to maintain the order of law and ensure the safety of transactions in society. For this reason, Article 380 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in Paragraph 3 thereof that the provision in respect of the peremptory period for the institution of a petition for retrial as set forth in Article 500 of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a motion for further proceedings under Paragraph 2 of said Article, is not contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.  

*Translated by Raymond T. Chu.