Paragraph 50 (5) of the Precautionary Matters on Handling Compulsory Execution, amended and published on October 18, 1982, by the Judicial Yuan, specifies that the notification of a real-property auction date should contain the following statement: "A creditor who declares willingness to bear the expenses of a re-auction before the re-auction date may assume the　property to be at the lowest bid price of the previous auction." This provision is enacted under Articles 91 and 92 of the Compulsory Execution Law to facilitate the exercise of people's rights in a timely manner；therefore, it is not unconstitutional.　　

　　　 The Judicial Administration Agency issues the judicial administration orders.　If such orders are cited by the judge in the decision at hand, the party may seek interpretation by the Constitutional Court of this Yuan, which delivered Interpretation No. 216. The Precautionary Matters on Handling Compulsory Execution are cautious judicial administration orders issued by the Judicial Administration Agency and were cited by the judge in the decision at hand.　Thus, the petition for interpretation shall be granted for review.

　　　 Article 91 of the Compulsory Execution Law mandates that if the real property being auctioned is not sold, or if the buyer’s bid price is lower than the minimum required price, the auction agency should set the minimum price at the lowest bid price, transfer the real property to the creditor, and set a new auction date. According to previous regulations, the new minimum price cannot be discounted more than 20 percent from the original price. Following this rule, the new minimum price should be lower than the previous minimum price.

　　　 Paragraph 50(5) of the Precautionary Matters on Handling Compulsory Execution, amended and published on October 18, 1982, by the Judicial Yuan, specifies that the notification of a real property auction date should contain the following statement: “A creditor who declares willingness to bear the expenses of a re-auction before the re-auction date may assume the property to be at the lowest bid price of the previous auction.” This statement is consistent with the regulation and is therefore not unconstitutional.

　　　 The abovementioned regulation presents no problems if the two auction dates are not far apart and prices are not rising. If inflation occurs, however, and the property is not re-evaluated and the period of assumption is not defined, it is possible that the property to be assumed may be undervalued. The agency should therefore consider the special circumstances and amend the relevant regulations accordingly.