In the case of a legally established legal person delegated by a government agency to exercise government power with respect to certain specifically designated matters, such a legal person shall have the capacity to be a party in an administrative procedure, but limited to specific matters for which administrative acts pursuant to such delegated government power have been performed. As such, any part of Precedent T.T. No.232 (Ad. Ct., 1971) which is contrary to the Interpretation stated above shall henceforth be inapplicable. 　Additionally, as the question of whether administrative procedure or civil procedure should be commenced under Article 84 of the Labor Standards Act is irrelevant to said Precedent of the Administrative Court, it is not considered in the present Interpretation. However, if the party involved had nevertheless commenced civil procedure and obtained a final and irrevocable judgment thereof, such party's right to commence legal action was thus never infringed upon.

　　　 Where a person’s rights and interests are considered infringed upon by an unlawful or improper administrative act of a central or local government agency and the person disagrees with the administrative act, such person shall be entitled to commence administrative appeal, administrative re-appeal or administrative procedure. This is clearly indicated by Article 1 of the Administrative Appeal Act and Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the Administrative Proceedings Act. Pursuant to Article 9 of the Administrative Proceedings Act, the defendant in an administrative procedure shall be the government agency that performed the alleged administrative act or decision. Normally, a legal person which is not a government agency is not permitted to be a defendant party in an administrative procedure. However, in the case of a legally established legal person delegated by a government agency to exercise government power with respect to certain specifically designated matters, insofar as such a legal person performs the functions of a government agency within the delegated authority, it shall have the capacity to be a party in an administrative procedure, but limited to specific matters for which administrative acts pursuant to such delegated government power have been performed. Precedent T.T. No.232 (Ad. Ct., 1971) states that, "As a state-owned enterprise established in accordance with the Company Act is not a government office, it does not have the capacity to be a defendant party. As such, commencement of an administrative procedure against it shall be prohibited by law." Insofar as the Precedent holds that a legal person which is not a government office does not have the capacity to be a defendant party, it is contrary to the present Interpretation and therefore shall henceforth be inapplicable. Additionally, as the question of whether administrative procedure or civil procedure should be commenced under Article 84 of the Labor Standards Act is irrelevant to said Precedent of the Administrative Court, it is not considered in the present Interpretation. However, if the party involved had nevertheless commenced civil procedure and obtained a final and irrevocable judgment thereof, such party's right to commence legal action was thus never infringed upon.