On August 12, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court issued Ruling No. 1 of 2026 (115年度大字第1號), unifying the legal interpretation as follows: “Where a juridical person violates Article 44 of the Employment Services Act by illegally retaining foreign nationals for work, it shall be penalized pursuant to Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the same Act.” 

■ Background and Legal Issue 

This case originated from an incident in which a construction company was found by the local competent authority to have illegally retained foreign nationals whose work permits had expired, in violation of Article 44 of the Employment Services Act, and was accordingly fined pursuant to Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the same Act. The construction company contested the disposition issued by the local competent authority and filed the relevant administrative remedies. However, as different High Administrative Courts had reached inconsistent conclusions on whether a juridical person violating Article 44 of the Employment Services Act should be penalized under Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 of Article 63 of the same Act, it became necessary for the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court to issue a unified legal interpretation. 

■ Legal Interpretation of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court 

Where the internal personnel of a juridical person perform an act in the course of executing their duties or for the benefit of the juridical person, resulting in the juridical person’s violation of an obligation under administrative law, the juridical person — rather than the individual who actually performed the act — shall, unless otherwise specifically provided by law, be the primary subject of punishment. In cases where the internal personnel of a juridical person, in the course of executing their duties or for the benefit of the juridical person, illegally permit foreign nationals to engage in work at a location under the juridical person’s control and management, it is the juridical person — not the individual who actually performed the act — that violates the prohibitory norm set forth in Article 44 of the Employment Services Act. Accordingly, where a juridical person violates Article 44 of the Employment Services Act, Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the same Act may serve as the basis for penalizing the juridical person. 

As for Article 63, Paragraph 2 of the Employment Services Act, which provides that “the same fine as set forth in the preceding paragraph shall also be imposed on the juridical person,” this provision should be understood as a clarification intended to prevent any misunderstanding that both a first-time violation and a repeat violation within five years by a juridical person would be subject to criminal penalties. It reaffirms that where a juridical person violates Article 44 of the Employment Services Act for the first time, an administrative penalty shall apply — and that this is not a provision that first enables the penalization of juridical persons.