民營電廠國光被台電請求新台幣24億餘元，一審駁回原告之訴Independent Power Producer Kuo Kuang was Requested for 2.4 Billion NT Dollars by Taipower – Plaintiff’s Complaint was Rejected by the First Instance.

說明
台灣電力股份有限公司(下稱台電公司)於民國(下同)104年間對本所當事人國光電力股份有限公司(下稱國光電力) 就聯合行為的行政訴訟提起民事損害賠償請求，民事訴訟期間台電公司數度變更聲明、追加請求事項等，對國光電力請求之金額至少為新台幣24億9千萬元，其請求之依據包括公平交易法第9條第2款、第15條、第20條第5款、第25條、第30條、第31條、第33條，及民法第184條、第245條之1、第227條之2第1項等規定，訴訟面向涵蓋公平交易法、民事侵權行為、債務不履行及情事變更等廣泛爭點，歷經將近三年繁複攻防審理，終於107年6月19日經承審法院判決駁回台電公司之訴，而獲致有利結果。
The Taiwan Power Co. (“Taipower”) filed a civil tort lawsuit against Kuo Kuang Power Co. Ltd. (“Kuokuang”), claiming for damages arising from the administrative litigation which is about cartel among independent power producers (IPPs). During the civil litigation, Taipower amended and added the claims several times, and claimed for at least 2.49 billion NT dollars in accordance with Articles 9.2, 15, 20.5, 25, 30, 31, and 33 of Fair Trade Act and Articles 184, 245-1 and Paragraph 1 of Article 227-2 of Civil Law and so on. There are issues regarding Fair Trade Act, civil tort, non-performance of obligations and change of circumstances (ie., clausula rebus sic stantibus) involved. This lawsuit lasted almost three years and included complex attack and defense between two parties. On 19th June 2018, the Court rejected Taipower’s case in the end.
台北地院認為，經訊問能源局負責主持及參與96年10月29日協商會議之主管及承辦人等共四位證人，均證稱該次會議中，兩造僅就燃料成本是否調整討論協商並達成合意，並未處理資本費率部分，既然兩造未就資本費率是否調整進行協商，自無於該次會議達成調整資本費率共識之可能。且以原告(即台電公司)提出之證據並無隻字片語表示被告(即國光電力)同意配套修約調整資本費率，因此原告主張乃屬無據。另外，由於民法第245條之1之要件係以契約未成立為前提，而請求因信賴訂立契約而付出之準備或商議所生之損害賠償。法院認為兩造已有簽訂購售電合約，且於102年1月28日已達成訴訟上和解，並就修約事宜達成合意，因此原告此部分主張礙難准許。
Taipei District Court ruled that, through interrogating four witnesses, managers and case officers of Bureau of Energy, who host and attended the consultation conference on October 29th, 2007, they all confirmed that in the conference, both parties only negotiated and reached an agreement on whether the fuel cost was adjusted but did not deal with the capital rate. Since both parties did not work on the capital rate, it was impossible that they met a consensus of adjusting the capital rate in such conference. Additionally, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (ie., Taipower) cannot support that the defendant (ie., Kuo Kuang) agreed to amend the contract and adjust the capital rate, thus the plaintiff lacks standing. Apart from that, the requirement of Article 245-1 of Civil Law is based on the condition that the contract does not constitute, so can request for damage compensation caused by preparation and negotiation of entering into the contract. The Court considered that both parties have signed the power purchase agreement, reached a settlement in litigation on January 28th, 2013, and reached an agreement on amending contract, therefore plaintiff’s assertion was unable to sustain.
台電對國光電力提出天價求償，前所未見，國光電力一直倍感壓力，也影響投資人投資意願，所幸法院最後駁回原告之訴，讓其獲得有利判決，著實鬆一口氣。
Kuo Kuang felt stressful at all time since they were requested for unprecedentedly huge compensation by Taipower. This also affected the investment willingness of investors. Luckily, the Court rejected plaintiff’s complaint, and Kuo Kuang received advantageous judgement.