The transmission of personal information between government agencies involves the act of use and collection. Were the transmission done without permission of the person, the infringement of constitutional right to information privacy might be made. However, in the Personal Information Protection Act, no article could be used specifically to the matter regarding the transmission between government agencies; instead, with regard to the legality of transmission in practice, it is judged separately. As to the transmitting agency, it must fulfill the requirement under article 16 of the Personal Information Protection Act. For the receiving agency, obligation under article 15 of the act concerning the collection of information must be performed. This operation results in that the transmitting and the receiving agencies are both legitimate due to that they are performing their legal duties. Nonetheless, this operation, though, protects the information privacy right of that person, it left the government agencies less breathing spaces in performing legally. As to reconcile this tension, this study suggests that, for the reference of the German Information Protection Act article 15 section 1, the method of “unilat-eral-execution-of-legal-duty” could be adopted into the Personal Information Protection Act. In the administrative judgment No. 2 of Taiwan Taoyuan district court 2013, which stated that the transmission of illegal parking information could not be admitted as the factual evidence of tax penalty could be a profound and outstanding case to the further discussion regarding the topic.