有關法律解釋的方式在法學文獻之上早有論述。然而，除此之外，政治解釋其實也層出不窮。遺憾的是，國內學者對此議題卻是興趣缺缺。經由對最高法院四十七年臺上字第一六三五號與六十二年臺上字第一六一八號兩號判例的深入研究，吾人可以發現在民法領域之中亦有政治解釋的存在。這二則「反攻大陸」判例雖將房屋租賃契約之「租至反攻大陸時爲止」附款定性爲不確定期限，唯由於反攻大陸是否實現並非確定之事，故在條件說方爲正確。我國民法學者對於最高法院的錯誤見解卻毫無質疑之聲。這種怪異現象之所以產生，癥結出在「反攻大陸」是戒嚴時期的主流意識形態。儘管反攻在客觀上難有實現之望，唯爲避免身陷文字獄之害，最高法院於是作出背離法理的判決。

It is well-known that the law needs to be interpreted. And there are various interpretation methods developed by scholars accordingly. However, the judge does not always abide by them in reality. Instead, he might apply the law in a way that does not correspond with the theory. One of the reasons for such a discrepancy lies in politics. The judge misinterprets the law on purpose for fear of the political power. The thus existing political interpretations happen quite often in Taiwan where the rule of law is not generally respected by politicians. This article will try to tackle two judicial precedents, which exemplify the influence of politics on the court in the civil law par excellence. Although they were de jure obviously wrong, the Supreme Court made them respectively in 1958 and 1973. Both cases were related to the rental agreement with a clause saying that it would not end until the achievement of the reunification of China. Theoretically, this clause should be classified as a ”condition” since its realization was not certain. Nevertheless, all the participating courts regarded it as a ”indefinite date” (incertus quando). That means, the achievement of the reunification of China would come true sooner or later. Such an interpretation was in accordance with the omnipotent ideology during the reign of the Martial Law. Unfortunately, political interpretations still exist nowadays in different fields of the law not only due to a new ideology but also because of personal ambitions of the jurists.