Facts and Reasons

In this case, the plaintiff and defendant signed a contract for the construction of a building (hereinafter referred to as the "Disputed Contract"), wherein the defendant provided their land to jointly develop and construct the building. According to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Disputed Contract, the defendant was entitled to an allocation of 569.02 ping in area. If the defendant obtained an area exceeding the allocated amount, per Article 3, Paragraph 6 of the Disputed Contract, the defendant was required to compensate the plaintiff (our client) for the excess area by paying in cash or negotiable instruments at a rate of 90% of the base selling price multiplied by the excess area. Subsequently, the parties also signed supplementary terms to the construction contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Disputed Supplementary Terms"), which clarified the defendant's housing selection range. However, disputes arose due to differing interpretations of the calculations for building areas, parking spaces, etc., leading to litigation.

Judgment

It was determined that "the area of the disputed building allocated to the defendant" should be calculated based on the registered area, as previously stated. Since the defendant's allocated area exceeded the agreed construction area, the parties were obligated to compensate for the difference. According to Article 3, Paragraph 6 of the Disputed Contract, the plaintiff’s claim for compensation in the amount of NT$79,413,750 for the excess building area was substantiated.

Additionally, the parties did not dispute that the disputed buildings and land obtained through housing selection by the plaintiff and subsequently transferred to the defendant have been handed over, and that the defendant has yet to pay the remaining construction fee of NT$400,000 to the plaintiff. Therefore, pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Disputed Contract, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of NT$400,000 from the defendant was also justified.

Attorneys：Vincent Huang、Kevin Yu