Relevant Legal Provisions

Civil Code Article 227, Paragraph 1：: Where incomplete performance is attributable to the debtor, the creditor may exercise their rights in accordance with the provisions regarding delay in performance or impossibility of performance.

Civil Code Article 231, Paragraph 1：Where the debtor is in delay, the creditor may claim compensation for damages arising from such delay.

Facts and Reasons

The plaintiff (our client) and the defendant entered into a lease agreement under which the plaintiff leased space to install solar photovoltaic power generation equipment and related facilities. However, during the lease period, the defendant repeatedly refused to allow the plaintiff to enter the leased premises to perform maintenance and servicing of the equipment. Subsequently, the parties executed a supplementary agreement stipulating that the defendant would cooperate with the plaintiff regarding entry for construction and maintenance at agreed times, would not obstruct the plaintiff from entering the premises, and would properly manage the site without affecting environmental cleanliness.
Unexpectedly, after signing the supplementary agreement, the defendant still reneged on their commitments and violated the terms of the agreement. Although the plaintiff had already sent a lawyer's letter requesting the defendant to properly perform the disputed supplementary agreement, the defendant ignored the request. As a result, the system became nonfunctional and damaged, causing the plaintiff to suffer substantial losses.

Judgment

The court ruled that the defendant shall perform the obligations under the signed supplementary agreement, cooperate with the plaintiff's construction and maintenance schedule, and refrain from obstructing the plaintiff's entry. In addition, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for the related losses, with interest calculated at an annual rate of five percent until the date of full repayment.

The defendant argued that because there was a pig farm located beneath the leased space and government regulations had allegedly become stricter, the plaintiff was required to wear protective clothing and masks when entering the premises. However, after the relevant county or city government was consulted by official correspondence, it was found that no such mandatory regulation existed. Measures concerning the prevention of animal infectious diseases, including personnel and vehicle control and biosecurity precautions, were merely recommended measures rather than compulsory requirements. Therefore, the alleged tightening of government regulations claimed by the defendant did not exist in this case.

Furthermore, when the plaintiff entered the premises to maintain the equipment, the plaintiff did not enter the interior of the pig farm. This fact was acknowledged by the defendant during the court proceedings. Accordingly, it was determined that the defendant had violated the terms of the supplementary agreement by unilaterally imposing additional restrictions not contained in the original contract and by obstructing the plaintiff from entering the premises for construction and maintenance work.

(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、Webber Huang