有關台灣在日本法院之地位，主要從法令效力之認定、主權豁免(Sovereign Immunities)和當事者能力爲中心進行探討，而最重要的判例爲光華寮案。過去的判決認爲，「中華民國」存在的客觀事實並無絲毫變化，且許多案例顯示「未被承認國家」或「被取消承認的政府」也可擁有做爲原告的提訴權，故都承認「中華民國」做爲原告的資格，且採取有別於傳統國際法的理論，而傾向於「不完全的政府繼承說」，將光華寮的所有權判給「中華民國」，使「中華民國」在日本國內擁有國有財產。但依據最新日本最高法院的判決，這起訴訟的原告應爲中國這個國家，而其代表者已變更爲「中華人民共和國」，故在1972年9月27日即應停止訴訟，因而將該案駁回京都地方法院更審。本文將針對本案所涉及的國際法理論，按照各個層次分析，並簡單介紹其判決要旨，探討光華寮案判決的問題。

The Khoka-Ryo case is a leading case about the Taiwan's status in the court of Japan. Those past rulings on this case considered the fact of the existence of "R.O.C" was literally unchanged, let alone many precedents also indicate that "unrecognized countries" or "unrecognized governments" are able to be plaintiffs who possess the right to litigation. Thus those rulings admitted "R.O.C" was qualified to be a plaintiff, and instead of adopting conventional theories on International Law, the theory of "incomplete succession of governments" was taken to decide that Khoka-Ryo was belonged to "R.O.C", and "R.O.C" was able to possess national properties within Japan. Nevertheless, according to the latest ruling made by the Highest Court of Japan, the plaintiff of this case should be China, of which the recognized representative ought to be "P.R.C". Based on the Highest Court's decision, the whole legal procedure should have been ceased from 27 September of 1972, hence the case was returned to Kyoto district court for another trial. This article is aimed at analyzing relevant theories on International Law at different levels, and gives a brief introduction on the rulings aforementioned, in order to explore the issues involved in Khoka-Ryo case.