Full Wang International

Supreme Administrative Court (2018)

Case:

Supreme Administrative Court overruled the administrative litigation filed by Full Wang International over sanctions imposed by the FTC

Keyword(s):

Presale home, advertising, floor plan

Reference:

Supreme Administrative Court Judgment (2018) Cai Tzu No. 411

Industry:

Real Estate Development Activities (6700)

Relevant Law(s):

Article 21(1) of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. When marketing the" Wing of the World" housing project (hereinafter referred to as the housing project) Full Wang International Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Full Wang International), the appellant, posted advertisements that include the "1F floor plan for all buildings" and "2F floor plan for all buildings" and claimed in the advertisements the housing project would include the "Ethan Gym," "Ju Yue Swimming Pool," "Shui Yang Spa," "Men's Sauna and Changing Room," "Women's Sauna and Changing Room" and "Children's Pool." As the public facilities were inconsistent with the information the building permit indicated, the FTC, the appellee, concluded that the appellant had violated Paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the Fair Trade Law for posting false and misleading advertising and imposed an administrative fine of NT$1.8 million on the appellant. The appellant found the sanction unacceptable and filed an administrative lawsuit that was later overruled by the High Administrative Court. Therefore, the appellant filed the administrative litigation with the Supreme Administrative Court.
2. The original sanction already clearly stated the advertising was inconsistent with the information the building permit indicated. According to the Taichung City Government, the local building authority, if the appellant intended to complete the project as indicated in the advertising, it would have to go through the procedure required for any changes of the design before the building use license was issued. Moreover, some of the changes associated with the aforementioned facilities involved review of total floor space; otherwise, it would be illegal. Yet, as of Mar. 10, 2016, the appellant still had not applied for change of design. Since the contents of advertising were inconsistent with what was indicated on the building permit for the housing project, it was without doubt that the appellant could foresee or could infer that the project could not be exactly the same as advertised when it was completed. Furthermore, the appellant never posted any clear and easily understandable wording to make known to consumers there were conditions for the project to be completed as advertised, such as the drawings in the advertisements were inconsistent with what was indicated on the building permit and the approval of the building authority for further engineering would be required to complete the public facilities. For this reason, the advertising was doubtlessly false and misleading and could cause potential consumers to have wrong perceptions and to make wrong decisions. Therefore, the FTC had made no mistake when citing Paragraph 1 of Article 21 and the first section of Article 42 of the Fair Trade Law to give the sanction. The appellant appealed against the original sanction by claiming the sanction had been contradictory to related regulations, but the true intention was to accuse the FTC of using its authority improperly in collection of evidence and recognition of facts, as well as to proclaim the arguments and decision of the FTC as ungrounded. The appellant did not concretely point out how the original sanction involved use of inapplicable regulations, improper application of regulations, or meet any of the conditions specified in the subparagraphs of Paragraph 2 of Article 243 of the Administrative Litigation Act. In other words, the appeal could not be considered associated with any concrete accusation of the original sanction being contradictory to related laws and regulations. Hence, according to related regulations, the appeal was considered unlawful.
3. According to the above reasoning, the appeal was considered unlawful and was therefore rejected.