A woman surnamed Zhao from Keelung City donated a house in Keelung City to her half-sister surnamed Xiong. Unexpectedly, in July of the year before last, a physical conflict broke out between Xiong and Zhao’s biological father. Xiong even called the police and applied for a protection order to drive Zhao’s father out of the house. Ms. Zhao was so angry that she filed a lawsuit in court to revoke the gift and demanded NT$340,000 in sales price and other expenses. After hearing the case, the Keelung District Court ruled that Xiong Nu had lost the case and that the de facto right to dispose of the house must be transferred to Zhao Nu and that she must return 340,000 yuan to Zhao Nu.
Ms. Zhao sued and claimed that in May 2024, she donated a house in Keelung City that was not registered with the Land Office and did not have a house ownership certificate to her sister Xiong. In September of the same year, Ms. Zhao gave 100,000 yuan to Ms. Xiong and asked her to move out, but Ms. Xiong refused to move. In January last year, she and Ms. Xiong reached a sales contract, agreeing that the total price of the house was 900,000 yuan, and she successively paid Ms. Xiong 340,000 yuan.
Please read on...
Unexpectedly, in July last year, Xiong Nu and Zhao's father had a dispute in the house. The two sides grabbed each other's aluminum rods and pushed each other, causing the two people to suffer contusions, bruises and other injuries. The conflict was determined by the criminal judgment of the district court. Both people were guilty of injury, and each was sentenced to 25 days of detention. Ms. Zhao believed that Ms. Xiong had intentionally harmed her biological father. In accordance with Article 416 of the Civil Code, "Provision against Unfilial Piety," she advocated revocation of the gift and required Ms. Xiong to return the house, change her tax registration, and return 440,000 yuan.
Ms. Xiong argued in court that it was Zhao's father who hit someone with an aluminum rod. She grabbed the aluminum rod and went back to the room to call the police. She was the victim and did not harm Zhao's father. However, after carefully reviewing the criminal case documents, the judge found that Zhao’s father’s injuries were not caused by a simple defensive act. He believed that Xiong had indeed committed a criminal act of intentionally injuring Zhao’s direct blood relatives, which was in compliance with the provisions of Article 416 of the Civil Code for revocation of donations, and ruled that Zhao’s request was justified.
However, in response to Ms. Zhao’s request for the return of 100,000 yuan, the judge reviewed the evidence provided by Ms. Zhao’s conversation records on the communication software between the two. He believed that the content of the conversation, such as “I hope I can find the house I’m looking for,” and “I don’t owe you any money anymore,” had unclear meaning. It was difficult to prove that the 100,000 yuan was related to the consideration for moving out of the house, and rejected this part of the request.
As for Ms. Zhao’s claim, the two parties entered into a house sales contract in January last year, and she had paid Ms. Xiong a price of 340,000 yuan. Later, in May of the same year, both parties agreed to terminate the contract. Ms. Xiong did not argue, but explained that on the day of the termination, she had returned 340,000 yuan to the agency on the spot. 00,000 yuan, but the agent testified in court that he had no impression or sight of it, and Ms. Xiong could not prove that she had repaid the money. The judge then based on the house sales contract, remittance order and cancellation of the sale and purchase deed tax documents of both parties, and ruled that Ms. Xiong must return another 340,000 yuan; she can appeal.
