Filing the complaint need not be the first court step in a Taiwan civil dispute. Article 369 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides for a pre-suit motion to preserve evidence. A US business preparing a claim against a Taiwan counterparty can therefore assess the location and condition of evidence while working on its complaint. Records may change before that drafting is finished.
Identify the ground for preservation
Article 368 permits an application where evidence risks being lost or becoming difficult to use, or where the other party consents. It also permits expert assessment, inspection or preservation of documentary evidence where establishing an existing state of affairs serves a legal interest and is necessary. The grounds are distinct.
What needs to be captured now? A concern about overwritten logs can be explained through retention settings and the scheduled deletion date. A request to establish an existing condition needs an account of how that condition relates to the legal interest involved. Those materials support the application; they do not guarantee approval. The court assesses the statutory ground and requested scope.
Location determines the pre-suit forum
Before suit, Article 369 directs the motion to the district court where the person to be examined is domiciled or resides, or where the evidence is located. After filing, apply to the court hearing the action. Urgent circumstances also allow an application to the district court identified by the pre-suit rule. The US headquarters address alone does not select a Taiwan court.
Locate the originals. Recording the responsible department, storage site and relevant person's place of residence supplies information needed to assess the forum. Where data are split between an overseas server and Taiwan devices, identify the material sought more precisely. These Taiwan procedural provisions alone do not resolve enforcement against evidence abroad.
Connect each item to a fact
Article 370 requires the motion to identify the opposing party, the evidence, the facts it would prove and the reasons for preservation. Explain any inability to identify the opposing party. The reasons for that inability and for preservation require a preliminary showing.
Does the document title identify enough? Transaction numbers, date ranges and custodians can make the requested scope clearer when linked to the facts to be proved. Equipment condition on an acceptance date and payment of the price concern different facts. They call for different evidence.
Approval comes by court ruling. Under Article 371, a ruling granting the motion must specify the evidence and the facts to be proved. Listing records in an application does not automatically secure them all. A denial may be challenged by interlocutory appeal; a ruling granting preservation is not reviewable under that provision.
Notice and the resulting record
The applicant must receive notice of the date for taking evidence. Article 373 also requires advance service on the opposing party of the motion or transcript and ruling, unless urgency or interference with preservation justifies an exception. An applicant cannot assume that the process will proceed without notice.
If the opposing party is unknown or cannot be notified in time, the court may appoint a special representative to protect that party's rights in the evidence-taking procedure (Article 374). The court ordering preservation keeps the examination record. If litigation is pending elsewhere, it sends the record to that court (Article 375).
An internal evidence inventory can pair each item with its original custodian, location and any expected change or deletion. That connects the evidence requested with the reason for seeking preservation now.
Official sources
- Code of Civil Procedure, Article 368: grounds
- Article 369: court receiving the motion
- Article 370: contents and preliminary showing
- Code of Civil Procedure: Articles 371 and 373–375 on rulings, notice and records
Sources checked October 14, 2026. This article concerns preservation through Taiwan civil procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Must a civil suit already be pending?
- No. Article 369 permits a pre-suit motion to the district court where the person to be examined is domiciled or resides, or where the evidence is located. After suit, the trial court is the usual forum; urgency also permits an application to that district court.
- Is a risk of destruction always required?
- Article 368 covers a risk of loss or difficult use, or the other party's consent. It also permits expert assessment, inspection or preservation of documentary evidence where there is a legal interest and necessity in establishing an existing state of affairs. The grounds should be distinguished.
- Will the other party receive notice?
- Under Article 373, the applicant receives notice of the evidence-taking date. Unless urgency or interference with preservation warrants an exception, the other party must also receive the motion or transcript and ruling before that date. A request does not guarantee proceedings without notice.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice on any individual matter.
