The Code of Civil Procedure provides in Article 501, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 that a party instituting the proceeding for a retrial shall state clearly in his/her petition the cause for such trial and the evidence pertinent to such cause and to the fact that the peremptory period of limitation has been observed. The evidence required in relation to the peremptory period includes documents and materials to be presented in addition to and in company with the petition or written statement filed with the court, and must be distinguished from the petition or statement referred to in Article 121, Paragraph 1, of the Code as being made inconsistent with the proper form required. Thus, it gives rise to no question of the necessity of amendment by reason of procedural defects. If, however, the party has stated the cause for a retrial and the evidence pertinent to his/her cause for a retrial, but has failed to produce evidence to prove his/her compliance with the peremptory period requirement, we see no reason that the court, in the exercise of its power of inquiry and taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, should be denied the power to order the production of the required evidence. The Supreme Court Precedent Tai-Kang No. 538 of 1971, being in agreement with our opinion given above, does not violate the Constitution in protecting the people's right to bring action.

　　　 It must be noted that the people shall have the right to petition and to bring administrative appeals and the right of instituting legal proceedings under Article 16 of the Constitution. The so-called "right of instituting legal proceedings" denotes the people's right to enjoy judicial benefit, namely, the right to entreat the court to hold timely trial in case one’s right is encroached upon, and this right of instituting legal proceedings includes the right to apply for a hearing, due process, an open trial, and equality in procedures. The retrial proceeding provided in the Code of Civil Procedure is a special remedial system, making it possible for a case determined by an irrevocable final judgment to be put under trial once again. In order to ensure that the lawsuit will proceed in an equal and fair procedure for both parties and to maintain the stability of an irrevocable final judgment, the Code of Civil Procedure imposes relatively strict restrictions on the institution of the retrial proceeding, and such restrictions do not contradict the intent of the Constitution in protecting the people's right of instituting legal proceedings.　　

　　　 While the form of the motion for a retrial is set forth in Article 501, Paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the clause "evidence pertinent to the cause and to the fact that the peremptory period of limitation has been observed" contained in Subparagraph 4 thereof, which requires that the party shall "state clearly the cause for a retrial and the evidence pertinent to the cause and to the fact that the peremptory period of limitation has been observed," refers to the documents and materials to be presented in addition to and in company with the petition or written statement filed with the court rather than the form of the petition or written statement itself, and thus is not a matter subject to amendment. Failure to produce such evidence will merely give rise to the question of whether there are grounds for making the judgment, and must be distinguished from the situation specified in Article 121, Paragraph 1, of the Code where the petition or written statement is not made in the proper form required and the situation mentioned in Article 501, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 1 through 3, inclusive, with respect to defects in the form of the petition or statement.　　

　　　 The retrial system is so designed and provided in the Code of Civil Procedure that the possibility for the party to make his/her own independent decision is taken into consideration and substantial fairness between the parties is maintained. Thus, it does not give rise to the problem of amendment by reason of formality defects. If, however, the statement presented by the party is not clearly understandable or is incomplete, the presiding judge must exercise his power of inquiry and order the party to make clarification or supplementary statement. It follows therefore that the Supreme Court Precedent Tai-Kang No. 538 of 1971, in holding that "while a party instituting the proceeding for a retrial shall state clearly in his/her petition the cause for such trial and the evidence pertinent to such cause and to the fact that the peremptory period of limitation has been observed (the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 501, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4), no order for amendment is necessary if no such statement has been made" is in agreement with our opinion given above and does not violate the Constitution in protecting the people's right to bring action.