2016.02.26

2014 (Ju) 1312

Minshu Vol. 70, No. 2

Judgment concerning the base time for calculating the value of estate in the case where a claim for payment of value is filed under Article 910 of the Civil Code

Case of final appeal to seek reimbursement of value and case of incidental final appeal to seek the same

Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of March 19, 2014

1. Where a person who has become an heir through filiation after the commencement of succession files a claim for payment of value against other co-heirs under Article 910 of the Civil Code, the base time for calculating the value of estate is the time when the claim for payment of value is filed.

2. With regard to the obligation of the other co-heirs to pay value under Article 910 of the Civil Code, a delay in performance would arise when the obligors receive a request for performance.

(Concerning 1 and 2) Article 910 of the Civil Code; (Concerning 2) Article 412 of the Civil Code



Civil Code

Article 910

In the case where a person who becomes an heir through affiliation after the commencement of inheritance intends to apply for a division of the inherited property, if other heirs have already divided the inherited property or made another disposition, he/she shall only have a claim of payment for value.

Article 412

(1) If any specified due date is assigned to the performance of an obligation, the obligor shall be responsible for the delay on and after the time of the arrival of such time limit.

(2) If any unspecified due date is assigned to the performance of a claim, the obligor shall be responsible for the delay on and after the time when he/she becomes aware of the arrival of such time limit.

(3) If no time limit is assigned to the performance of an obligation, the obligor shall be responsible for the delay on and after the time he/she receives the request for performance.

The final appeal and incidental final appeal are dismissed.

The appellant of final appeal shall bear the cost of the final appeal, and the appellees of final appeal shall bear the cost of the incidental final appeal.

Concerning the reasons for petition for acceptance of final appeal argued by the counsel for final appeal, MURATA Satoshi (except for the reasons excluded), and the reasons for petition for acceptance of incidental appeal argued by the counsel for incidental final appeal, MORITA Kenji, et al.

1. The appellant of final appeal/appellee of incidental final appeal (hereinafter simply referred to as the "appellant"), who has become an heir of P through filiation after the commencement of succession in relation to P, filed this action against the appellees of final appeal/appellants of incidental final appeal (hereinafter simply referred to as the "appellees"), who have already divided P's estate, to seek payment of value under Article 910 of the Civil Code. In this case, the parties dispute over the base time for calculating the value of the estate in the case where a claim for payment of value is filed under said Article and the time when a delay in performance would arise with regard to the obligation to pay such value.

2. The outline of the facts legally determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.

(1) P died on October 7, 2006. Q, who is P's wife, and the appellees, who are P's children, reached an agreement on the division of P's estate on June 25, 2007. As of said date, the total appraisal value of positive property in P's estate was 1,786,703,828 yen.

(2) In October 2009, the appellant filed an action for filiation, seeking to be adjudicated as P's child. A judgment upholding the appellant's claim was handed down and it became final and binding in November 2010.

(3) On May 6, 2011, the appellant filed a claim against the appellees to seek payment of value under Article 910 of the Civil Code. As of said date, the total appraisal value of the positive property in P's estate was 792,395,924 yen.

(4) In December 2011, the appellant filed this action. The court of first instance concluded oral argument on September 30, 2013, and the court of prior instance concluded oral argument on February 3, 2014, respectively. As of the date of conclusion of oral argument in the first instance, the total appraisal value of positive property in P's estate was 1,006,968,471 yen.

3 (1) It is appropriate to construe that in the case where a person who has become an heir through filiation after the commencement of succession files a claim for payment of value against other co-heirs under Article 910 of the Civil Code, the base time for calculating the value of estate is the time when the claim for payment of value is filed.

Regarding the case where a person who has been determined to be a child of the decedent through filiation after the commencement of succession applies for division of estate, the provisions of Article 910 of the Civil Code are designed to coordinate, if other co-heirs have already divided or disposed of estate, the interests between the other co-heirs and said person, by allowing said person to file a claim for payment of value while maintaining the effect of the division or disposal. It is deemed appropriate, from the perspective of equity between the parties, to have any change in the value of estate, which may occur up until the time when said person files a claim for payment of value, reflected in the amount payable by the other co-heirs, and to make it possible to calculate such amount immediately as of said time.

Accordingly, the base time for calculating the value of estate related to the appellant's claim for payment of value is considered to be May 6, 2011, the day on which the appellant filed the claim for payment of value against the appellees.

(2) It is also appropriate to construe that the obligation of the other co-heirs to pay value under Article 910 of the Civil Code is an obligation without a time limit for performance, and that a delay in performance would arise when the obligors receive a request for performance.

Accordingly, the day on which delay damages start to accrue with regard to the appellant's claim for payment of value is considered to be May 7, 2011, the day following the day on which the appellant filed the claim for payment of value against the appellees.

4. The determination by the court of prior instance on the points argued by the appeal counsel is in line with the above and affirmable. None of the appeal counsel's arguments can be accepted.

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

Justice ONUKI Yoshinobu

Justice CHIBA Katsumi

Justice ONIMARU Kaoru

Justice YAMAMOTO Tsuneyuki