In June 2023, the Executive Yuan's Improper Party Property Disposal Committee determined that the land and buildings at the former site of the KMT Taichung City Party Headquarters in Xitun District, Taichung City were property improperly obtained by the political party and should be returned to the city. At the end of August of the same year, the Taichung City Government registered the property rights as It is owned by the Central City Government; the Kuomintang was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit to request annulment of the Party Property Council's punishment. The Taipei High Administrative Court ruled against the Kuomintang in June last year. The Kuomintang appealed, and the Supreme Administrative Court found that the appeal was without grounds and ruled that it should be dismissed. The Taichung City Party Headquarters determined that it must be nationalized.
The old Taichung City Party Headquarters of the Kuomintang is adjacent to Taiwan Avenue. There are Evergreen Laurel Hotel and Yongfeng Hotel nearby. It is a 10-minute walk to the Taichung City Hall and is of great value. After the party-property committee punished it, it was reported that the Central City Government had yet to process the transfer. On August 30 of the same year, the city government completed the transfer registration of the land and buildings as owned by Taichung City, and the manager was the Finance Bureau of the Central City Government.
The Party Property Council determined that the land and buildings of the Taichung City Party Headquarters located on Dalong Road in Xitun District, Central City were purchased and built by the Taichung City Government with 35 million yuan of public funds. However, they have been registered in the name of the Kuomintang for many years. They are property improperly obtained by the political party in a manner contrary to democracy and the rule of law, and should be transferred back to the Taichung City Government.
According to an investigation by the Party Property Council, after World War II, the old Taichung City Hall building during the Japanese colonial period was occupied by the Kuomintang for many years as the joint office of the Taichung City Party Headquarters and the People's Service Cooperative. In the 1980s, the City Party Headquarters was moved to a new building in the fifth phase of rezoning. The city government allocated 35 million yuan to subsidize the People's Service Cooperative in the name of relocation compensation. In 1985, the People's Service Cooperative purchased and built a house from the city government and registered it under the name of the People's Service Cooperative as the city party headquarters.
The Party Assets Association pointed out that correspondence between the KMT Central Committee and the Provincial Party Headquarters can prove that the land purchase and building construction project for the relocation of the Taichung City Party Headquarters came from 35 million yuan invested by the Central City Government; in 2009, the Civil Service Society sold the real estate to the KMT and registered it under the name of the KMT Central Committee for use by the Taichung City Party Headquarters. The Party Assets Association determined that it was an improper acquisition of party property and ordered the KMT to transfer the land and buildings to the Central City Government within one month after the announcement.
The judgment of the North High Court pointed out that the Taichung Civil Service Co., Ltd. is only a civil society legal person, but in the name of relocation compensation, it made the Central City Government pay 35 million yuan to purchase land and build houses. This is obviously improperly obtained property. Although the 35 million yuan was formally obtained by the Civil Service Co., Ltd., the relocation compensation was not included in the compensation. The use has always been controlled by the Kuomintang. The land and buildings were finally obtained by the Kuomintang for free, which complied with the requirements of improperly obtained property in the Party Property Regulations. After the hearing process, the Party Property Council determined that the property was improperly acquired and ordered the Kuomintang to transfer it to the Central City Government. There was no violation and the Party Property Council won the case.
The Kuomintang appealed, and the Supreme Administrative Court pointed out that its grounds for appeal only restated the claims that were not accepted by the first instance. It generally stated that the first instance's judgment violated the law, but did not specify how it violated the law. The appeal was illegal. Therefore, it ruled to reject the appeal and the entire case was confirmed.
