Demanding an exorbitant amount! Owner hired lawyer to demand money from thief, but was sued for millions... Court ruled him to lose the case

A man who claimed to be a legal manager for a business has lost his lawsuit seeking over NT$1 million in unpaid wages and commissions. The New Taipei District Court ruled that the relationship between the man, identified by the surname Liu, and the business owner, surnamed Chang, was one of commission rather than employment.

Liu had sued Chang, alleging he was hired in July 2023 as a legal manager at a monthly salary of NT$50,000. He claimed his duties included handling theft cases, writing legal documents, and appearing in court. Liu also asserted that he was entitled to 50% of any compensation recovered from theft case settlements as a special bonus. He sought payment for wages from July 2023 to March 2024, totaling NT$406,668, and additional compensation for alleged wrongful termination when Chang ended their contract in March 2024.

Chang denied the existence of an employment relationship, stating that Liu was only commissioned to handle three theft cases. She argued that any agreed-upon compensation would be split only if actual damages were recovered, and that no monthly salary of NT$50,000 was ever finalized. The court sided with Chang, noting that Liu had considerable discretion in his work, including the ability to delegate tasks, which is inconsistent with the characteristics of an employment relationship where an employee must personally perform work under the employer's supervision.

The court also found a lack of concrete evidence for the alleged monthly salary. While Liu presented LINE messages mentioning "NT$50,000 a month to work," Chang did not respond definitively, and the overall conversation focused on legal proceedings rather than salary specifics. Regarding commissions, the court determined that for one case where NT$37,000 was recovered, Liu was entitled to NT$18,500 but had already received NT$22,000. For the other two cases, settlement or recovery had not yet occurred, thus not meeting the conditions for commission payment. Consequently, Liu's claims for confirmation of employment, wages, retirement contributions, and case commissions were all dismissed.