Two decades has passed since the establishment of the regulation of third-party opposition proceeding in 2003. The original goal of such amendment was to “cure” procedural defects, while fulfilling the needs of efficiency of procedural economy and resolving related disputes at a time. Such regulation remains has been controversial since its conception, and is still surrounded by related disputes and confusions to this very day. In order to address these controversies, this article proposes a series of suggestions regarding possible future amendments of the regulations of third-party opposition proceeding in Taiwan by examine and comparing the differences between existing regulations of third-party opposition proceeding in Code of Civil Procedure of France, third-party opposition proceeding in the Act of Administrative Proceedings in Japan, and third-party revocation proceeding in Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, in hope to mitigate the tension between remedial measures of procedural defects and the systematic purpose of the maintenance of legal certainty.