The Civil Procedure of the R.O.C. follows the principles of oral adjudication and discretional evidence-admitting order, and according to Article 196 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the litigants may establish means of“attacking”or“defending”before the conclusion of oral arguments. In addition, the litigants may, in accordance with Article 447 of the same Code, raise new claims or defenses before the conclusion of oral arguments of the second instance. Nevertheless, if the lawsuit is to be appealed to the third instance, the court that adjudicates said third instance, pursuant to Article 476, Paragraph 1, of the same Code, should base its judgment upon the facts established in the judgment of the court of the second instance, and the litigants are not permitted to present new means of“attacking”or “defending.” Thus, the aforementioned “conclusion of oral arguments” must denote a conclusion of the oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact in view of the evidence. The litigants, as permitted by law, may at any time, make “attacks” or “defenses” before the conclusion of oral arguments in a trial on the matters of fact. The litigants must raise all evidence already existing and known by them before the conclusion of oral arguments in a trial on the matters of fact. The above explains the reason that the time the binding power of an irrevocable final judgment comes into existence is the moment the oral arguments conclude. However, if the litigants, during litigation, deliberately withhold certain evidence already in existence and known by them before the conclusion of oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact, and subsequently file for a retrial by presenting the evidence withheld by the litigants after the irrevocable judgment of the foregoing litigation is rendered, it must be deemed an abuse of the retrial system, an action that not only transgresses the principle of judicial economy, but also adversely affects the irrevocability of final judgments. Precedent T.S.J. No. 1005 (Sup. Ct., 1940) states that: “the evidence discovered by litigants who did not take such evidence into consideration previously, pursuant to Article 492, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure (Article 496, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 13, in the Existing Code), denotes the kind of evidence that has already come to light before the oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact are concluded, where the evidence was not taken into consideration because the litigants were not aware of the existing evidence until after the oral arguments were concluded. Where the evidence only comes to light after the conclusion of the oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact, the concept of discovery stipulated in said Code is naturally not applicable, thus the evidence cannot be presented as grounds for a retrial.” The purpose of the foregoing precedent is to assure that during litigation, the litigants present all of the existing evidence known by the litigants before the conclusion of oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact, so as to prevent litigants from deliberately withholding known evidence and abusing the right to retrial after judgments have been rendered and become binding; thus maintaining and securing the irrevocability of judgments without contradicting the Constitution. Alternatively, if evidence comes into existence only after the conclusion of the oral arguments in a trial on matters of fact, though inadmissible as grounds for a retrial, it is to be admitted on a case-by-case basis depending on whether the facts proved by the aforementioned evidence may still be bound by the judgment concerned. Moreover, if evidence is produced which is based upon other evidence already in existence before the conclusion of oral arguments, the outcome may vary, according to the acknowledgment of facts and application of law, as to whether such evidence can be treated as “evidence discovered by litigants who did not take such evidence into consideration previously.”