Relevant Legal Provisions

Civil Code Article 184：A person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully infringes upon the rights of another shall be liable for damages. The same applies where a person intentionally causes damage to another by means contrary to good morals.

Civil Code Article 767, Paragraph 1：An owner may demand the return of property from a person who possesses or seizes it without right. Where the ownership is interfered with, the owner may demand removal of the interference. Where there is a likelihood of interference with ownership, the owner may demand prevention thereof.

Civil Code Article 821：Each co-owner may, against a third party, assert claims based on ownership with respect to the whole of the co-owned property. However, a claim for restoration of the co-owned property may only be made for the benefit of all co-owners.

Facts and Reasons

Our client is the management committee of a community residential building. Because the original garbage disposal site of the community was reported by residents as an illegal accumulation located in the underground first-floor driveway, the competent authority conducted on-site inspections twice. Subsequently, a decision was made to re-establish the garbage disposal site on the first floor of a certain building within the community, and this plan was approved by resolution of the owners' meeting. However, a certain first-floor resident opposed the above resolution and filed petitions. The management committee also actively engaged in discussions with the resident.

Under the mediation of the Public Works Bureau, the management committee agreed to reduce the space used for management and maintenance and the scope of the garbage disposal site. The resident also promised to participate in subsequent design discussions and was willing to provide relevant assistance. Unexpectedly, the plaintiff later reneged and filed a lawsuit demanding demolition and return of the land.

Judgment

The plaintiff's claims and application for provisional enforcement were all dismissed. Litigation costs were borne by the plaintiff.

Upon investigation, after the disputed management and maintenance use space was submitted to and recorded by the New Taipei City Government, it was approved for water and electricity connection and use (as an office for the management committee). It is therefore difficult to directly conclude that the construction and installation of the disputed management and maintenance use space was unlawful. Furthermore, the defendant implemented the installation of the disputed management and maintenance use space on the disputed land in accordance with the relevant meeting resolutions, and did not do so with the primary purpose of harming the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that there was any agreement among the residents of the disputed building, or between the plaintiff and other unit owners, granting the plaintiff exclusive use of the disputed land, and failed to present other affirmative evidence for the court’s consideration. Accordingly, the request for the defendant to demolish and vacate the disputed management and maintenance use space and to return the land to the plaintiff and all other co-owners is without basis.

(Note: To protect the client's interests, certain case details and judgment images have been redacted and modified. For a full review of the case, please refer to  Judicial Yuan's judgment database)

Attorneys：Vincent Huang、Kevin Yu、Hsuan Su