The Supreme Court rendered the 104-Tai-Shang-137 Civil Decision of January 23, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), in which it was expounded that the application of collateral estoppel requires that the parties to two lawsuits are the same, that the determination of major issues in the earlier lawsuit did not obviously violate laws or regulations, and that the parties fail to provide new litigation information sufficient to reverse the original determination.

According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellee asserted that he had obtained the ownership of the house at issue through a court auction before he found that the Appellants cohabitated in the house which they had no right to occupy and requested that the Appellants vacate and return the house at issue in accordance with Article 767 of the Civil Code.

According to the interpretation of collateral estoppel in this Decision, if a court has decided on the results of the parties' arguments with respect to major contentions of the parties other than the subject matters of the litigation as indicated in the reasons in a final decision, the same parties shall not make any contradictory assertion in another lawsuit filed with respect to such major contentions, and the court shall not make any contradictory determination in order to meet the principle of good faith under the Code of Civil Procedure.

It was further pointed out in the Decision that the parties to another final decision cited by the original trial court are the Appellant, the Appellee and a non-party person in this matter. Two other Appellants in this matter are not parties to such matter. Therefore, collateral estoppel does not apply. The original trial court was erroneous in holding that it was bound to the findings of such final decision based on the theory of collateral estoppel and was not thorough in its investigation due to its failure to further consider if the evidence submitted by the Appellant was new litigation information sufficient to reverse the findings in the other final decision. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.