If there is an appeal against the ruling without the payment of court costs, the presiding judge shall fix a period and order the defects to be amended within such period, and shall not immediately dismiss the appeal by a ruling.　Although Precedent T.K.T. No. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1961) is not in accordance with the above-mentioned opinion, since courts of each grade did not adjudicate on the subject matter of an action in the present case, according to the laws the parties may still bring the same action for remedies again. Thus, this irrevocable ruling applying the above Precedent is not a matter of whether the laws or regulations applied by an irrevocable final decision violate the Constitution or not.

　　　 The point of this petition may be briefly stated as follows.　There was a case of a dispute over a pension payment between the petitioner and the Taiwan Power Company.　The petitioner was not content with the ruling of dismissal of the case by the court of the first grade, and appealed against the ruling.　Because the petitioner failed to pay the court costs, the court of first appeal immediately dismissed the appeal without an order to amend it.　The ruling by the court of first appeal was appealed as well; the Supreme Court applied the Precedent T.K.T. No. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1961), and therefore dismissed this appeal for the same reason.　The petitioner asserted that the ruling by the Supreme Court had infringed upon his right of instituting legal proceedings and could be unconstitutional, so he petitioned for an interpretation.

　　　 According to Article 16 of the Constitution, “The people shall have the right of presenting petitions, administrative appeals, or instituting legal proceedings.”　As for the so-called right of instituting legal proceedings, it is a judicial beneficiary right for the people, and it means not only that people may file lawsuits when they believe their rights have been infringed upon, but also that the court shall particularly regard this right, facilitate people’s complaints, and shall not cause any hindrance to it.　And this is why Paragraph 1 of Article 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “If the petition or the written statement is not made in proper form or is defective in other respects, the presiding judge shall fix a period and order the defects to be amended within such period.”　If there is an appeal against the ruling without the payment of court costs, since it still could be amended, the presiding judge shall fix a period and order the defects to be amended within such period, and shall not immediately dismiss the appeal by a ruling.　Precedent T.K.T. No. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1961) reveals: “If there is an appeal against the ruling without the payment of court costs, the court may decide against fixing a period and ordering the defects to be amended within such period.”　Although this Precedent is not in accordance with the above-mentioned opinion, since courts in each grade did not adjudicate on the subject matter of an action in the present case, which means there will not be any substantial certainty effect on the matter, according to the laws the parties may still bring the same action for remedies again.　Thus, this irrevocable ruling applying the above Precedent is not a matter of whether the laws or regulations applied by an irrevocable final decision violate the Constitution or not.