Kagoshima v. State, 1998

原判決を破棄する。
被上告人の控訴を棄却する。
控訴費用及び上告費用は被上告人の負担とする。

The judgment of the second instance shall be quashed.
The koso appeal filed by the jokoku appellee shall be dismissed.
The jokoku appellee shall bear the whole costs of the koso appeal and the jokoku appeal.

上告代理人増井和男、同鈴木健太、同河村吉晃、同佐村浩之、同喜多剛久、同赤西芳文、同本多重夫、同山田敏雄、同大下勝弘、同奥田仁、同松原住男の上告理由について

Concerning the grounds for the jokoku appeal argued by the attorneys for jokoku appellant MASUI Kazuo, SUZUKI Kenta, KAWAMURA Yoshiaki, SAMURA Hiroyuki, KITA Takehisa, AKANISHI Yoshifumi, HONDA Shigeo, YAMADA Toshio, OSHITA Katsuhiro, OKUDA Hitoshi, and MATSUBARA Sumio

一　原審の適法に確定した事実関係及びこれに適用される法令等の概要は、次のとおりである。

１　被上告人は、昭和二三年五月五日に朝鮮人男性Ａを父とし、内地人女性Ｂを母として出生し、同年六月一七日にその旨の出生届が右両名の婚姻届とともに提出された。右出生届は、Ａによってされたものであり、認知届としての効力が認められる（以下、右出生届による認知を「本件認知」という。）。

２　現在、被上告人については、国籍を韓国とする外国人登録がされている。

３　Ｂは、平成元年九月、検察官を被告として、Ａとの婚姻の無効確認訴訟を提起し、同年一二月一日、右婚姻は無効であることを確認する旨の判決が言い渡され、同月一九日に確定した。

４　韓国併一九日に確定した。
(sic = extraneous text)

４　韓国併鮮 (sic = 韓国朝鮮)、台湾等の異法地域に属する者の間で身分行為があった場合、その準拠法は、共通法（大正七年法律第三九号）二条二項によって準用される法例（平成元年法律第二七号による改正前のもの。以下同じ。）の規定によって決定されることとなり、朝鮮人父が内地人母の子を認知した場合の認知の効力については、認知者である父の属する地域である朝鮮の法令が適用されることとされていた。そして、大正二年制令第一三号による改正後の朝鮮民事令（明治四五年制令第七号）一条、一一条によれば、旧民法（昭和二二年法律第二二二号による改正前のもの。右改正後のものを「新民法」という。）八二七条二項の適用を受け、子は、朝鮮人父の認知により、その庶子となるものとされていた。

５　共通法三条一項は、「一ノ地域ノ法令ニ依リ其ノ地域ノ家ニ入ル者ハ他ノ地域ノ家ヲ去ル」とし、同条二項は、「一ノ地域ノ法令ニ依リ家ヲ去ルコトヲ得サル者ハ他ノ地域ノ家ニ入ルコトヲ得ス」としており、異法地域に属する者の間で身分行為があった場合、一の地域の法令上入家という家族法上の効果が発生するときには、他の地域においても原則としてその効果を承認して去家の原因とすることを定めていた。その結果、戸籍に関しても、一の地域の戸籍から他の地域の戸籍への移動という効果を生ずることとされていた。そして、朝鮮人の親族相続に関しては、朝鮮民事令一一条により、前記認知に関する規定のように別段の規定があるものを除き、朝鮮慣習が適用されることとされており、朝鮮慣習によれば、朝鮮人父の認知により庶子となった子は、戸主の同意を要することなく、当然に朝鮮人父の家に入ることとされていた。

６　本件認知のあった昭和二三年六月一七日当時、共通法も朝鮮民事令も有効に存在しており、朝鮮民事令一条にいう民法とは、なお旧民法を指すものと解されるから、内地人母の子は、朝鮮人父の認知により、その庶子となり、戸主の同意を要することなく、当然に朝鮮人父の家に入る（父の戸籍に入籍する）こととなる。

７　昭和二七年四月二八日の日本国との平和条約（以下「平和条約」という。）の発効により、我が国が、朝鮮の独立を承認して、朝鮮に属すべき領土に対する主権を放棄したことに伴い、それまで日本の国内法上で朝鮮人としての法的地位を有していた人すなわち朝鮮戸籍令の適用を受け朝鮮戸籍に登載されるべき地位にあった人は、元来日本人で朝鮮人との身分行為によって朝鮮戸籍に入籍すべき事由の生じた人を含め、朝鮮国籍を取得し、日本国籍を喪失したものと解されている（最高裁昭和三〇年（オ）第八九〇号同三六年四月五日大法廷判決・民集一五巻四号六五七頁、最高裁昭和三三年（あ）第二一〇九号同三七年一二月五日大法廷判決・刑集一六巻一二号一六六一頁、最高裁昭和三八年（オ）第一三四三号同四〇年六月四日第二小法廷判決・民集一九巻四号八九八頁参照）。

I. The outlines of the facts legally determined by the judgment of the second instance and of applicable laws and regulations are as follows.

1. The jokoku appellee was born, on May 5, 1948, to a Korean (sic = Chosenese)) father, A, and a native Japanese (sic = Interiorite) mother, B. On June 17, her birth notification was filed with the marriage notification of her parents. The birth notification was filed by A and therefore it is regarded as being effective as an acknowledgement notification (the acknowledgment by the birth notification shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Acknowledgement").

2. At present, the jokoku appellee is registered as an alien with Korean (sic = Republic of Korea) nationality.

3. In September 1989, B filed a suit against the public prosecutor to seek declaration of nullity of her marriage to A. A court decision to declare nullity of the marriage was handed down on December 1, 1989, and the decision became final and conclusive on December 19.

4. In the past, where an act relating to the status of a person was conducted between people who belonged to regions where different laws were applicable such as Korea (sic = Republic of Korea / Chosen)] and Taiwan, the law applicable to the act should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Law Concerning Application of Laws in General (before amendment by Law No. 27 of 1989; hereinafter the same), which applied mutatis mutandis under Article 2(2) of the Common Law (Law No. 39 of 1918), and therefore the effect of an acknowledgement by a Korean father of a child born to a native Japanese mother was supposed to be governed by a law of Korea, the region to which the acknowledging person (the father) belonged. Articles 1 and 11 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea (Decree No. 7 of 1912) provided that Article 827(2) of the Old Civil Code (before amendment by Law No. 222 of 1947; the amended Civil Code shall be referred to as the "new Civil Code") should be applicable to the effect of such acknowledgement, and in consequence, a child born to a Korean father and a native Japanese mother was supposed to be an illegitimate child of the father by his acknowledgement.

5. Article 3(1) and (2) of the Common Law provided as follows: "A person who enters a family in a region under the law of the region shall withdraw from a family in another region"; "A person who may not withdraw from a family in a region under the law of the region may not enter a family in another region." Under these provisions, where an act relating to the status of person was conducted between people who belonged to regions where different laws were applicable, if such act brought about an effect under a family law of one of the regions, i.e. entry in a family, the effect of the act should in principle be recognized in the other region and should result in the withdrawal from a family in the other region. Consequently, such act was supposed to bring about the effect of transferring a person from a family register in one of the regions to a family register in the other region. Article 11 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea provided that Korean custom should be applicable to matters concerning relatives and inheritance of Korean people, except for those otherwise provided such as acknowledgement. According to Korean custom, a child who became an illegitimate child of a Korean father by his acknowledgment should necessarily enter the Korean father's family without the consent of the head of the family.

6. At the time of the Acknowledgement, i.e. June 17, 1948, the Common Law and the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea were effective. As the Civil Code set forth in Article 1 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea is construed to have referred to Article 1 of the old Civil Code, a child who was born to a native Japanese mother and a Korean father should become the Korean father's illegitimate child by his acknowledgment and should necessarily enter the father's family (family register) without the consent of the head of the family.

7. Upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty, Japan recognized the independence of Korea and renounced all rights, titles and claims to Korea. In consequence, people who had previously had legal status as Korean people under Japanese laws -- or more specifically, those who had been governed by the Decree on Korean Family Registration Chosen Family [Household] Register Decree and who should be entered in Korean family registers, including those who became to have a reason to be entered into Korean family register due to an act relating to the status of person that was conducted between Japanese people and Korean people -- are regarded as having acquired Korean nationality while losing Japanese nationality (See 1955(O)No. 890, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of April 5, 1961, Minshu Vol. 15, No. 4, at 657, 1958(A)No. 2109, judgment of the Grand Bench of the Supreme Court of December 5, 1962, Keishu Vol. 16, No. 12, at 1661, 1963(O)No. 1343, judgment of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court June 4, 1965, Minshu Vol. 19, No. 4, at 898).

二　被上告人は、前記一３記載の婚姻無効の判決の確定により、被上告人は日本人である母の非嫡出子として出生したことになるから、出生の時点において、旧国籍法（昭和二五年法律第一四五号による廃止前のもの）三条にいう「父カ知レサル場合又ハ国籍ヲ有セサル場合ニ於テ母カ日本人ナルトキ」に当たり、日本国籍を取得したものであり、前記出生届に認知の効力があるとしても、それにより日本国籍を失うことはないなどと主張し、上告人を被告として日本国籍の確認を求め、これに対し、上告人は、前記出生届は認知の効力を有するから、被上告人は、朝鮮戸籍に登載されるべきこととなった者であり、平和条約の発効に伴って日本国籍を喪失したと主張している。

II. The jokoku appellee argues as follows: following the court decision to declare nullity of the marriage that became final and conclusive as mentioned in I-3 above, the jokoku appellee is deemed to have been born as an illegitimate child of a Japanese mother, and therefore, the jokoku appellee acquired Japanese nationality at the time of birth on the ground of falling under the case "where the father is unknown or does not have nationality, and the mother is a Japanese national" as provided in Article 3 of the old Nationality Law (before abolishment by Law No. 147 of 1950); the jokoku appellee shall not lose Japanese nationality due to the birth notification even if it is effective as an acknowledgment notification. On the other hand, the jokoku appellant argues that the birth notification is effective as an acknowledgment notification, and therefore the jokoku appellee came to have a reason to be entered into a Korean family register and lost Japanese nationality upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty.

三　第一審は、本件認知当時の朝鮮の法令では、朝鮮人父がその子を認知した場合、直ちに子は父の家に入籍するという慣習法が存在したから、共通法三条一項の要件が満たされ、他方、当時の内地の法令においては、子は認知により当然に父の戸籍に入籍することとはされていなかったが、旧国籍法二三条では、日本人たる子が認知によって外国の国籍を取得したときは日本国籍を失うとされており、内地と朝鮮との間の戸籍の移動も旧国籍法の右規定と同様の条理、原則によって規律されるとすることには十分な合理性があるから、内地の法令の観点からみても、日本人たる子が朝鮮人父に認知された場合、朝鮮戸籍に入籍すると解するのに何ら支障はなく、その子は共通法三条二項の「一ノ地域ノ法令ニ依リ家ヲ去ルコトヲ得サル者」に当たらず、被上告人は、共通法三条により、朝鮮戸籍に入籍すべきことになり、朝鮮人としての法的地位を取得したというべきであって、平和条約の発効に伴って日本国籍を喪失したものであると判断した。

これに対し、原審は、朝鮮人父による認知がされた場合、父が属する朝鮮の民事実体法規である朝鮮民事令一条、一一条により適用されるべき朝鮮慣習によって被認知者である被上告人は認知者父の家に入ることとなるが、（一）朝鮮の右慣習法は、我が国の旧民法の基盤である家制度とほとんど同一の家制度に立脚するものであるところ、家制度は、新憲法が立脚する個人の尊厳と両性の本質的平等とは相いれず、これを我が国内において適用することは、新憲法の理念に真っ向から相反し、我が国の公の秩序、善良の風俗に反するから、法例二条の要件を欠き、法律と同一の効力を有しないものというべきであるし、また、（二）共通法二条によって準用される法例三〇条により、そもそも家制度に立脚する右慣習法によるべき旨を定める朝鮮民事令の右各条項自体、その適用が許されないから、本件認知につき認知者、被認知者双方に適用される法令は新民法とするのが相当であるとした上、新民法によれば、被認知者である被上告人は、本件認知により認知者の家に入ることもなく、内地の家を去ることもないから、共通法三条一項に該当せず、朝鮮戸籍に入籍され内地戸籍から除籍されるべき者とはならなかったものというべきであり、被上告人は平和条約発効によっては日本国籍を喪失しないと判断した。

III. The court of the first instance judged as follows. In Korea, at the time of the Acknowledgment, it was provided in customary law that a child who was acknowledged by a Korean father should immediately enter the father's family. This satisfies the requirement under Article 3(1) of the Common Law. In Japan, on the other hand, at the time of the Acknowledgment, no law provided that a child who was acknowledged by father should necessarily enter the father's family register, but Article 23 of the old Nationality Law provided that a Japanese child should lose Japanese nationality when he acquired foreign nationality due to acknowledgement. It is sufficiently reasonable to construe that the transfer of a person from a Japanese family register to a Korean family register shall be regulated by the same rule or principle as that of the said provision of the old Nationality Law. Consequently, even from the perspective of Japanese laws, there is no obstacle to considering that a Japanese child who is acknowledged by a Korean father shall enter the Korean father's family register. Such a child does not fall under the category of the "person who may not withdraw from a family in a region under the law of the region" set forth in Article 3(2) of the Common Law. In accordance with Article 3 of the Common Law, the jokoku appellee shall enter a Korean family register and acquire a legal status as a Korean person. In consequence, the jokoku appellee lost Japanese nationality upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty.

On the other hand, the court of the second instance judged as follows. According to Korean custom, which was applicable under Articles 1 and 11 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea (sic = Chosen Family Register Decree), a substantive civil law in Korea to which the jokoku appellee's father belongs, the jokoku appellee who was acknowledged by her Korean father is supposed to enter her father's family. (i) Such Korean custom is based on a family system that is almost the same as the Japanese family system, which was the foundation of the old Civil Code of Japan. However, such a family system is in conflict with individual dignity and essential equality of the sexes, which are the basis of the new Constitution, and its application in Japan is completely contrary to the philosophy of the new Constitution and against public order and good morals in Japan. Therefore, Korean custom that fails to satisfy the requirement under Article 2 of the Law Concerning Application of Laws in General does not have the same force as law. (ii) According to the provisions of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea mentioned above, Korean custom based on the family system was to govern the issue of acknowledgment and family register in accordance with Article 30 of the Law Concerning Application of Law in General, which should be applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 2 of the Common Law. It is unallowable in the first place to apply such provisions, and therefore it is reasonable to apply the new Civil Code to both the acknowledging and acknowledged parties involved in the Acknowledgment. Under the new Civil Code, the Acknowledgement does not require the jokoku appellee, the acknowledged party, to enter the acknowledging party's family nor leave her own Japanese family. Therefore, the jokoku appellee does not fall under the category of the person set forth in Article 3(1) of the Common Law or a person who should enter a Korean family register and withdraw from a Japanese family register. In consequence, the jokoku appellee did not lose Japanese nationality upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty.

四　しかしながら、原審の右判断は是認することができない。その理由は、次のとおりである。

１　韓国併合後も、朝鮮は異法地域とされ、かつ、法的規律が朝鮮慣習にゆだねられていた分野が多かったことからすると、朝鮮慣習の法的効力を判断するに当たり、明治四五年勅令第二一号によって朝鮮に施行されていた法例二条にいう「公ノ秩序又ハ善良ノ風俗」とは、朝鮮地域における公序良俗を指すものと解すべきであり、内地におけるそれに基づいて当該慣習の効力を判断すべきではない。そして、本件認知後である昭和三三年に公布された大韓民国民法も家制度を維持していたことなどからすると、前記の朝鮮慣習が本件認知当時の朝鮮地域における公序良俗に反するということはできない。したがって、原審の（一）の判断は是認することができない。

２　法例三〇条は、「外国法ニ依ルヘキ場合ニ於テ其規定カ公ノ秩序又ハ善良ノ風俗ニ反スルトキハ之ヲ適用セス」と定めているが、この規定の趣旨は、当該準拠法に従うならば、内国の私法的社会秩序を危うくするおそれがある場合に、右準拠法の適用を排除することにあり、したがって、外国法の規定内容そのものが我が国の公序良俗に反するからといって直ちにその適用が排除されるのではなく、個別具体的な事案の解決に当たって外国法の規定を適用した結果が我が国の公序良俗に反する場合に限り、その適用が排除されるものと解すべきである。

この理は、共通法二条二項において準用する法例三〇条の適用に当たっても同様というべきであり、朝鮮地域の法令の規定自体が内地の公序良俗に反することによって直ちにその適用が排除されるものではなく、朝鮮地域の法令の規定を具体的事案に適用した結果が内地の公序良俗に反するか否かを検討する必要がある。原審は、朝鮮慣習が家制度に立脚しているから、日本国憲法が立脚する個人の尊厳と両性の本質的平等と相いれないなどと説示したのみで、右朝鮮慣習によることを定める朝鮮民事令一一条等の適用を排除しているが、家の制度が日本国憲法及び新民法施行後の我が国の公序に反するからといって、直ちに当該朝鮮法令を準拠法として適用することが許されなくなるわけではなく、原審の（二）の判断には、法例三〇条の解釈適用を誤った違法があるといわざるを得ない。

右の観点から本件をみるに、本件認知によって庶子となった子が朝鮮民事令一一条により朝鮮慣習の適用を受けて父の家に入るとすれば、共通法三条等により、子は父の朝鮮戸籍に入り、内地から朝鮮への地域籍の変動を生ずること（その結果、国籍の変動を生ずること）にもなる。しかし、父に認知された際に、非嫡出子が母の戸籍にとどまるものとするか、父の戸籍に入籍するものとするかは、基本的には立法政策の問題であって、そのこと自体が直ちに個人の尊厳ないし男女平等主義に反するということはできない。これを地域籍ないし国籍の変動の問題としてとらえてみても、当時、施行されていた旧国籍法二三条は、子が認知によって父の国の国籍を取得した場合に日本の国籍を喪失する旨を規定していたところであり、このような規定にもかんがみると、認知により母の地域籍を去って父の地域籍に入ることは、平和条約の発効によって日本の国籍を喪失することにつながるとしても、内地の公序良俗に反するとまでいうことはできない。

そうすると、本件認知により被上告人が朝鮮人父の戸籍（地域籍）に入るということが内地の公序良俗に反するということはできないものと解するのが相当である。

なお、当時日本国内に施行されていた新民法及び戸籍法には子が父の戸籍に入ることを禁止する規定はなく、当時の旧国籍法二三条及び戸籍法二三条の規定にもかんがみると、被上告人が、内地の法令上家を去ることを得ざる者に当たるとして、共通法三条二項により朝鮮戸籍に入ることができないと解することはできず、被上告人は、本件認知によって、内地戸籍から除かれるべき者となったというべきである。

３　以上によれば、共通法三条の適用の結果、本件認知により被上告人が日本の国内法上朝鮮人としての法的地位を取得したことを否定することはできず、被上告人は、平和条約の発効とともに日本国籍を失ったものといわざるを得ない。

IV. However, the judgment of the second instance cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

1. Even after the annexation, Korea was regarded as a region in which different laws were applicable, and Korean custom were still used as standards for legal judgment in respect of various matters (sic = Even after the union of [the Empire of] Korea [with the Empire of Japan, at which time Korea was renamed Chosen], Chosen was regarded as a region with different laws, and, given that there were many fields in which legal ordering was left to Chosen customs . . . ). Consequently, "public order or good morals" prescribed in Article 2 of the Law Concerning Application of Laws in General, which was also effective in Korea under Imperial Order No. 21 of 1912, should be construed to refer to public order and morals in the region of Korea, and the effectiveness of Korean custom should not be judged in accordance with public order and morals in Japan. Considering that the Civil Code of the Republic of Korea promulgated in 1957, after the Acknowledgment was made, maintains the conventional family system, the Korean custom mentioned above cannot be construed to be against public order and morals in the region of Korea at the time of the Acknowledgment. Therefore, the judgment of the second instance mentioned in (i) above cannot be accepted.

2. Article 30 of the Law Concerning Application of Laws in General provides that "In the case where a foreign law is to govern, it shall not be applied if the provisions thereof are against public order or good morals." The purport of this provision is to exclude the application of a governing foreign law if social order between private parties in Japan would be harmed by applying such law. Consequently, it should be construed that the application of a foreign law shall not be excluded only on the ground that the provisions of the law are against public order and morals in Japan, but should be excluded only if public order and moral in Japan would be harmed by applying the provisions of the law in solving individual disputes.

This reasoning is also valid in terms of the application of Article 30 of the Law Concerning Application of Laws in General, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 2(2) of the Common Law. More specifically, the application of a law of the region of Korea shall not be excluded only on the ground that the provisions of the law are against public order and morals in Japan, but rather it is necessary to examine whether or not public order and morals in Japan would be harmed by applying the provisions of the law to individual disputes. The judgment of the second instance excluded the application of Article 11 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea, etc., which provided that Korean custom was to govern, only on the ground that Korean custom was based on a family system and therefore it was in conflict with individual dignity and essential equality of the sexes, which were the basis of the Constitution of Japan. However, the applicability of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea as a governing law shall not be denied only on the ground that the family system is against the Constitution of Japan and public order in Japan after the enforcement of the new Civil Code. Therefore, the judgment of the second instance mentioned in (ii) above should inevitably be construed to contain errors in interpretation and application of Article 30 of the Law Concerning Application of Law in General.

If the child who became an illegitimate child of a Korean father by the Acknowledgement enters the father's family according to Korean custom that is applicable under Article 11 of the Decree on Civil Affairs in Korea, the child is supposed, under Article 3 of the Common Law, etc., to enter the Korean father's family register, which would bring about a change of regional registry from Japan to Korea and also a change in nationality (sic = engender a change of regionality [regional registration / affiliation] from the Interior to Chosen [and in consequence, would engender a change of nationality (national registration / affiliation)]). However, whether an illegitimate child who was acknowledged by father shall remain in mother's family register or enter father's family register is basically a legislative issue, and this issue does not directly conflict with individual dignity and essential equality of the sexes. It can also be regarded as an issue relating to a change of regional registry or nationality. Article 23 of the old Nationality Law, which was effective at the time of the Acknowledgment, provided that a Japanese child should lose Japanese nationality when he acquired nationality of the father's country due to acknowledgement by father. In light of this provision, it is inappropriate to go so far as to say the effect of an acknowledgement, by which the acknowledged child shall leave mother's regional registry and enter father's regional registry, is against public order and morals in Japan, even if the child would lose Japanese nationality upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty.

Consequently, it is reasonable to construe that the transfer of the jokoku appellee's family register (regional registry) upon the Acknowledgment to the Korean father's family register cannot be deemed to be against public order and morals in Japan.

Under the new Civil Code and the Family Registration Law, which were effective at the time of the Acknowledgement, a child was not prohibited from entering father's family register. Also in light of the provisions of Article 23 of the old Nationality Law and Article 23 of the Family Registration Law, which were effective at the time of the Acknowledgement, it cannot be construed that the jokoku appellee cannot enter the Korean family register in accordance with the Article 3(2) of the Common Law on the ground of falling under the category of the person who may not withdraw from a family in Japan under the law of Japan. Rather, the jokoku appellee shall be deemed to be excluded from the Japanese family register due to the Acknowledgment.

3. For these reasons, it cannot be denied that, as a result of applying Article 3 of the Common Law, the jokoku appellee acquired a legal status as a Korean person under national laws of Japan due to the Acknowledgment, and the jokoku appellee should inevitably be construed to have lost Japanese nationality upon the effectuation of the Peace Treaty.

五　右と異なる原審の判断は、法令の解釈適用を誤ったものであり、この違法は原判決の結論に影響を及ぼすことが明らかである。論旨は理由があり、原判決は破棄を免れない。そして、さきに説示したところによれば、被上告人の本件請求は理由がないことに帰し、これと結論を同じくする第一審判決は正当であって、上告人の控訴は棄却すべきものである。

よって、裁判官全員一致の意見で、主文のとおり判決する。

最高裁判所第一小法廷

裁判長裁判官
  　　　　藤井 正雄
  裁判官  小野 幹雄
  裁判官  遠藤 光男
  裁判官  井嶋 一友
  裁判官  大出 峻郎

V. The judgment of the second instance, which is contrary to the above reasoning, has wrongly interpreted and applied laws, and this apparently has affected the judgment of the second instance. The jokoku appellant's argument is well-grounded, and the judgment of the second instance shall inevitably be quashed. According to the reasons mentioned above, in consequence, the jokoku appellee's claim is groundless. The judgment of the first instance that goes along with this conclusion is justifiable, and the koso appeal filed by the jokoku appellant shall be dismissed.

Therefore, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.

Presiding Judge Justice
          FUJII Masao
  Justice ONO Motoo
  Justice ENDO Mitsuo
  Justice IJIMA Kazutomo
  Justice ODE Takao

(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)
(* Translated by Judicial Research Foundation)