Administrative Litigation Act Article 111

After the service of the complaint, the plaintiff may not amend his/her claim or raise additional claims, unless otherwise agreed by the defendant or determined appropriate by the administrative court.Where the defendant proceeds orally on the merits of the principal case without objecting to the amendment or addition of claims, he/she shall be deemed to have agreed to such amendment or addition.The amendment or addition of claims in case of any of the following circumstances shall be permitted:1. Where the claim shall be adjudicated jointly with regard to several persons and one or several such persons who are not parties are joined as parties;2. Where the claim is amended but the grounds of the pleadings remain the same;3. Where the change of circumstances makes it necessary to replace the original claim with another claim;4. Where a litigation of revocation was erroneously initiated while a litigation for a declaratory judgment shall be initiated;5. Where the amendment or addition of claims should be permitted pursuant to Article 197 or other laws;The preceding three Paragraphs shall not apply to the amendment or addition of claims to revoke an administrative disposition without going through administrative appeal procedure.The administrative court's decision determining that there is no amendment or addition of claims or allowing the amendment or addition of claims is not reviewable. However, in litigation of revocation with ground that such disposition has not gone through administrative appeal procedure, the court's decision may be appealed along with the final judgment.
中文原文 行政訴訟法第111條
訴狀送達後,原告不得將原訴變更或追加他訴。
但經被告同意或行政法院認為適當者,不在此限。
被告於訴之變更或追加無異議,而為本案之言詞辯論者,視為同意變更或追加。
有下列情形之一者,訴之變更或追加,應予准許:
一、訴訟標的對於數人必須合一確定,追加其原非當事人之人為當事人。
二、訴訟標的之請求雖有變更,但其請求之基礎不變。
三、因情事變更而以他項聲明代最初之聲明。
四、應提起確認訴訟,誤為提起撤銷訴訟。
五、依第一百九十七條或其他法律之規定,應許為訴之變更或追加。
前三項規定,於變更或追加之新訴為撤銷訴訟而未經訴願程序者不適用之。
對於行政法院以訴為非變更追加,或許訴之變更追加之裁判,不得聲明不服。
但撤銷訴訟,主張其未經訴願程序者,得隨同終局判決聲明不服。

English translation for reference only; the Chinese text prevails. Not legal advice.