Date of the judgment |
1998.03.26 |
Case number |
1996 (O) No.983 |
Reporter |
Minshu Vol.52, No.2, at 513 |
Title |
Judgment upon the case concerning whether a general obligee who did not file an objection to distribution on the date of liquidating distribution may demand return of unjust enrichment against another obligee(s) who received liquidating distributions |
Case name |
Case to seek return of unjust enrichment |
Result |
Judgment of the First Petty Bench, dismissed |
Court of the Second Instance |
Tokyo High Court, Judgment of January 31, 1996 |
Summary of the judgment |
A general obligee who did not file an objection to distribution on the date of liquidating distribution may not demand return of unjust enrichment against the other obligee(s) who received liquidating distribution, in respect of the monetary value equivalent to the amount at which he/she could not receive liquidating distribution due to such other obligee's receiving of liquidating distributions. |
References |
Article 703 of the Civil Code, Article 84, para.1, Article 85, and Article 89 of the Civil Execution Act Article 703 of the Civil Code A person who has benefited from the property or labor of others without legal cause and has thereby caused loss to others shall assume an obligation to return that benefit, to the extent the benefit exists. Article 84, para.1 of the Civil Execution Act (1) The execution court shall carry out liquidating distribution based on the table of distribution when a payment has been provided, except for the case provided in the following paragraph. Article 85 of the Civil Execution Act (1) The execution court shall draw up a table of distribution on the date for liquidating distribution. (2) The obligees listed in the items of Article 87, para.1 and the obligor shall be summoned on the date for liquidating distribution. (3) The execution court may, on the date for liquidating distribution, interrogate the obligees and the obligor present in court and examine documentary evidence which can be immediately examined, with regard to the drawing up of a table of distribution. (4) The table of distribution shall contain not only the amount of proceeds, principal and interest of every obligation-right and any other incidental obligation-right of respective obligees, the cost of execution, and the order and amount of distribution for each obligee. (5) The order and amount of distribution stipulated in the preceding paragraph shall be described in accordance with the agreement among all the obligees if it has been reached on the date for liquidating distribution, or otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, Commercial Code and any other laws. Article 89 of the Civil Execution Act (1) An obligee or obligor who is dissatisfied with an obligation-right or the amount of distribution of any obligee described in the table of distribution may file an objection (hereinafter referred to as "filing an objection for distribution") on the date for liquidating distribution. (2) The execution court shall carry out liquidating distribution to the extent that there is no filing an objection for distribution. |
Main text of the judgment |
The final appeal shall be dismissed. The cost of final appeal shall be borne by the appellant. |
Reasons |
As regards the reason for final appeal argued by the appellant's counsel, NOJIMA Junichi: The general obligee who did not file an objection for distribution on the date for liquidating distribution may not demand return of unjust enrichment against the other obligee(s) who received liquidating distributions, in respect of the monetary value equivalent to the amount at which he/she could not receive distribution due to such other obligee's receiving of liquidating distributions. This is considered to be proper because: In order for a person to have the right to demand return of unjust enrichment, it is required for him to suffer a loss as stipulated in Article 703 of the Civil Code. However, the general obligee only stands in a position that he/she is entitled to receive satisfaction of the claim from the obligor's general property, but does not have any substantive right to receive preferential performance for the object of specific execution. The contention that he could not receive liquidating distribution due to the other obligee's receiving of liquidating distributions does not necessarily mean he/she has suffered a loss from it. The same effect of reasoning stated in the court of second instance can be upheld as justifiable, and the appellant's argument can not be accepted. For these reasons, the Court shall pronounce judgment as stated in the main text unanimously by all the Justices. |
Presiding Judge |
Justice ODE Takao Justice ONO Motoo Justice ENDO Mitsuo Justice IJIMA Kazutomo Justice FUJII Masao |
| (This translation is provisional and subject to revision.) (* Translated by Judicial Research Foundation) |