2017.10.17

2017 (Gyo-Hi) 44

Minshu Vol. 71, No. 8

Judgment concerning the point in time from which extinctive prescription starts to run for the right to a due installment of a disability pension under Article 47 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 34 of 1985)

Case claiming disability pension

Judgment of the Third Petty bench, dismissed

Sapporo High Court, Judgment of October 13, 2016

The extinctive prescription of the right to a due installment of a disability pension (i.e., the right to receive insurance benefits payable in each due month of payment) under Article 47 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 34 of 1985) starts to run from the time when the payment falls due as set forth in Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act, even if no ruling of the disability pension has been made.

Article 166, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, Article 30 and Article 31, paragraph (2) of the Public Accounting Act, Article 47 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 34 of 1985), Article 33 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 109 of 2007), and Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act



Civil Code
Article 166
(1) The extinctive prescription commences to run when it has become possible to exercise the right.

Public Accounting Act
Article 30 Any right of the State to receive payment of money shall, unless any other law contains provisions on extinctive prescription of such right, lapse by extinctive prescription if such right has not been exercised for a period of five years. The same applies to any right against the State to receive payment of money.

Article 31
(2) The relevant provisions of the Civil Code (Act No. 89 of April 1896) shall apply mutatis mutandis to any right of the State to receive payment of money, unless any other law contains provisions applicable to the renewal or suspension or any other matter (other than the matter provided for in the preceding paragraph) of the extinctive prescription of such right. The same applies to any right against the State to receive payment of money.


Employees’ Pension Insurance Act
(Prior to amendment by Act No. 34 of 1985)
Article 47
(1) If a person who suffers disease or injury at any time during the period when he/she is an insured is in a state of disability at any of the degrees listed in Table I due to such disease or injury on the day one year and six months have elapsed from the date on which such disease or injury was first diagnosed (from the date, on which such disease or injury has cured, if any (including the day, if any, on which the symptoms of such disease or injury have become fixed and no treatment effect can be expected anymore; the same applies hereinafter); hereinafter referred to as the “Disability Certification Date”), such person shall be paid a disability pension according to the degree of his/her disability.

(2) If a person who suffers disease or injury at any time during the period when he/she is an insured is not in a state of disability at any of the degrees listed in Table I on the Disability Certification Date but falls into a state of disability at any of the degrees listed in the said table due to such disease or injury at any time during the period up to the day five years have elapsed from the date on which such disease or injury was first diagnosed, such person may claim payment of the disability pension referred to in the preceding paragraph within such period.

(3) If a claim is made under the preceding paragraph, the person who made such claim shall be paid the disability pension referred to in paragraph (1), notwithstanding the provisions of the said paragraph.

(4) No disability pension shall be paid to a person whose total of the periods listed in the items of paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the Act on General Rules on Aggregate Pension prior to the month to which the date on which the relevant disease or injury was first diagnosed belongs is less than six months.

(5) The provisions of Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3), Article 7 and Article 9, paragraph (1) of the Act on General Rules on Aggregate Pension shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Employees’ Pension Insurance Act
(Prior to amendment by Act No. 109 of 2007)
Article 33 Any right to receive insurance benefits shall be ruled by the Director-General of the Social Insurance Agency at the request of the holder of such right (hereinafter referred to as the “Eligible Recipient”).

Employees’ Pension Insurance Act
Article 36
(1) Payment of a pension shall commence from the month following the month in which the event for which the pension shall be paid occurred and shall end in the month in which the right to receive the pension lapses.

(2) If any event for which payment of a pension shall be suspended occurs, the pension shall not be paid during the period from the month following the month in which such event occurred through the month in which such event ceases to exist.

(3) A pension shall be paid in six installments each year, in February, April, June, August, October and December, for the two months preceding each due month of payment; provided, however, that any pension that should have been paid in any previous due month(s) of payment or any pension corresponding to any period during which the right to receive payment of the pension lapsed or payment of the pension was suspended shall be paid without waiting for the next due month of payment.

The appeal is dismissed.

The cost of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

Reasons for the petition for acceptance of final appeal filed by the counsel for the appeal , IKEDA Shigenori



1. The appellant, who was an insured under the Employees’ Pension Insurance, suffered injury due to a traffic accident which resulted in the amputation of his left lower leg in June 1970. In June 2011, the appellant requested a ruling of, and claimed payment of, a disability pension under Article 47 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 34 of 1985; the same applies hereinafter). In August 2011, the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare made a ruling of a disability pension, in which the Minister acknowledged that the appellant had obtained the right to receive benefits in June 1970. On the other hand, the Minister did not pay the appellant such portion of the disability pension as was past due for five years counting from each due month of payment set forth in Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act (prior to amendment by Act No. 86 of 1989 with respect to the portion that had accrued prior to February 1, 1990; the same applies hereinafter), on the grounds that the appellant’s right to receive such portion of benefits had lapsed by extinctive prescription. In this case, the appellant seeks from the appellee payment of the aforementioned portion of the disability pension that was not paid, claiming that the extinctive prescription of the aforementioned right starts to run from the time of the aforementioned ruling

2. The right to a due installment of a disability pension (i.e., the right to receive insurance benefits payable in each due month of payment) under Article 47 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act lapses if it has not been exercised for five years (Article 4 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act on Special Provisions concerning Extinctive Prescription for Insurance Benefit of Employees’ Pension Insurance and Benefit of National Pension and Article 30 of the Public Accounting Act), and this extinctive prescription starts to run from the time when the right becomes available for exercise (Article 31, paragraph (2) of the Public Accounting Act and Article 166, paragraph (1) of the Civil Code). While the aforementioned right to a due installment accrues when the payment falls due as set forth in Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act, the Eligible Recipient cannot receive payment of the installment before he receives a ruling of the disability pension.

However, the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act contains clear provisions regarding the requirements for accrual of the right to receive a disability pension, the times of payment and the amount of a disability pension, etc. A ruling of a disability pension only authoritatively acknowledges the existence or non-existence of the aforementioned requirements for accrual at the request of an Eligible Recipient (see Supreme Court, 1991 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 212, Judgment of the Third Petty bench of November 7, 1995, Minshu Vol. 49, No. 9, p. 2829). By making a request for a ruling an Eligible Recipient will receive a ruling whose details are pursuant to the provisions of the same act and which entitles him/her to receive payment of a disability pension. The Court should therefore conclude that a failure to receive a ruling does not preclude the extinctive prescription of the aforementioned right to a due installment from running.

Therefore, it is reasonable to understand that the extinctive prescription of the aforementioned right to an installment starts to run from the time when the payment falls due as set forth in Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act.

3. The conclusion of the court of prior instance that, based on the same view as above, such part of the appellant’s disability pension for his aforementioned injury as was past due for five years counting from each due month of payment set forth in Article 36 of the Employees’ Pension Insurance Act lapsed by extinctive prescription, is acceptable as legitimate. The appellant’s reasons for appeal are not acceptable.

Accordingly, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text.

Justice KIUCHI Michiyoshi

Justice OKABE Kiyoko

Justice YAMASAKI Toshimitsu

Justice TOKURA Saburo

Justice HAYASHI Keiichi