On 8th January 2015, the Supreme Court reached a judgment in case no. TaiShanZhi 33 of year 2015. In said judgment, the Supreme Court held that, while both Art. 74 of the “Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area” (“CrossStrait Relations Act”) and Art. 42 of the “Act Governing Relations with Hong Kong & Macao” (“HK/Macao Relations Act”) concern the recognition of the effect of civil judgments/arbitral awards made in Mainland China and in Hong Kong/Macao and also the petition process for the compulsory enforcement thereof, the said two statutes are of different legislative designs; moreover, the legislative purpose of the HK/Macao Relations Act was to exclude the application of the CrossStrait Relations Act in Hong Kong and Macao areas. In view of the above, it could be inferred that the different legislative designs of the two statutes are indicative of the legislature’s intention to differentiate between the civil judgments/arbitral awards made in Mainland China and those made in Hong Kong/Macao areas, and hence judgments/rulings made by courts in Mainland China and arbitration awards made by tribunals convened in Mainland China, while being admissible to be enforced in Taiwan for purposes of giving effect to the specific payment or conduct as ordered in the said judgment, shall not have any res juricata effect in Taiwan.