The Supreme Court rendered the 103-Tai-Shang-1349 Civil Decision of July 3, 2014 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that although a close relationship between the employee's abusing his position and using opportunities available to him in his position and the time and location for the performance of his job duties exists in the employee's act, the employee should still be found to have illegally violated the rights of others during the performance of his/her job duties, despite the act conducted in his/her own interest, due to the performance of his/her job duties as long as it can be objectively established that the act is related to the performance of his/her job duties and illegally violated the rights of others.

According to the facts underlying the Decision, Individual C worked at Ching Ting Co. as the Manager and Trader of the Wealth Management Department, and Individual B asserted that Individual C solicited him to open an account at Ching Ting Co. and claimed that stable profits would be generated. As a result, Individual B wired NT$15 million to the account. However, losses subsequently occurred even though Individual C still prepared a transaction statement in which he misrepresented that the transactions were continuously profitable until the reality was finally exposed. Individual A asserted that Individual C also used another individual's account without authorization and misappropriated the money wired into the account and prepared transaction reports and statements accordingly. Individual A and Individual B further claimed joint and several damages from Ching Ting Co. and Individual C in accordance with Articles 184 and 188 of the Civil Code. The original trial court held in its decision that according to relevant account opening documents Individual A and Individual B illegally asked Individual C to operate the transactions and share profits with him and further determined that this was an offense committed by Individual C personally and not an act of performing his job duties.

The first part of Article 188, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code provides: "If an employee illegally violates the rights of others due to the performance of his/her job duties, the employer and the actor shall be jointly and severally liable." According to the Decision, since an employer expands its scope of activities and enjoys benefits by using its employees and it is usually difficult for trading third parties to determine the scope of the employee's job duties, the employer should be jointly and severally liable for damages when third-party rights are infringed as long as the act of the employee objectively carries the characteristics of performance of job duties so as to protect the security of transactions. To wit, although a close relationship between the employee's abusing his position and using opportunities available to him in his position and the time and location for the performance of his job duties exists in the employee's act, the employee should still be found to have illegally violated the rights of others during the performance of his/her job duties, despite the act conducted in his/her own interest, due to the performance of his/her job duties as long as it can be objectively established that the act is related to the performance of his/her job duties and illegally violated the rights of others.

In this matter, Individual C, who is an employee of Ching Ting Co., used the opportunities available to him as a trader at Ching Ting Co. to invite Individual A and Individual B to open an account. It was determined in the Decision that regarding whether Individual C's act is not an act that reflects a close relationship between using the opportunities available to him in his position and the time or location where his job duties were performed, there is still room for discussion regarding whether such act is objectively related to the performance of his job duties and thus falls within the scope of performance of job duties. Therefore, the original decision was held to be legally flawed since the offense of the individual was rashly concluded to be irrelevant to the performance of his job duties at Ching Ting Co. Based on the foregoing reasons, the original decision was reversed and remanded to the Taiwan High Court in this Decision.