Date of the judgment
 2004.11.05 
Case number
 2002(Ju)No. 808 
Reporter
 Minshu Vol. 58, No. 8 
Title
 Judgment that regarded a person who contributed all of the person's property to join an association whose objective was to create a communal society based on "common ownership/no private ownership" and then withdrew from the association as being entitled to claim restoration of unjust enrichment from the association to the extent that seems reasonable and appropriate 
Case name
 Case to seek damages 
Result
 Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed 
Court of the Second Instance
 Tokyo High Court, Judgment of February 27, 2002 
Summary of the judgment
 Where a person, X, contributed all of X's property to join an association, Y, whose objective was to create a communal society based on "common ownership/no private ownership", and then withdraw from Y, when X made the contribution for the purpose of and on the assumption of spending the rest of X's life under the care of Y and X had actually lived under Y's care for a certain period, while knowing that X's contribution would also be used for Y and its other members, X is entitled to claim restoration of unjust enrichment from Y to the extent that seemed, at the time of X's withdrawal, reasonable and appropriate in light of the total amount of property contributed by X, the period of time during which X lived under the care of Y, the total amount of benefits received by X during such period under the case of Y, X's age and working capability, and various other circumstances and rules of reason. 
References
 Article 703 of the Civil Code
A person who has, without any legal ground, received benefits from the property or services of another, and thereby causing loss to the latter, is bound to return such benefits to the extent that it still exists.		 
Main text of the judgment
 The jokoku appeal shall be dismissed.
The jokoku appellant shall bear the whole cost of the jokoku appeal.		 
Reasons
 Concerning the ground for the petition for accepting the jokoku appeal argued by the attorney for jokoku appellant FUJIMORI Katsumi
1. The outline of the facts legally determined by the judgment of the second instance is as follows.
(1) Yamagishi-kai is an association of social activities established by people who were in sympathy with Yamagishi-ism, a concept of an ideal society advocated by A in 1953. Its objective was to create a "communal society based on common ownership/no private ownership," which was refereed to as "the Yamagishi-ism society."
In the Yamagishi-ism society, "private ownership" is regarded as preventing property from being reasonably used by those in need of it and causing conflicts over property, and "egoism" is regarded as an obsession with one's own ideas that would hinder people from getting along with one another. For these reasons, the primary goal in the Yamagishi-ism society is to do away with "private ownership" and "egoism," or in other words, to live by the policy of "no private ownership" and "no egoism."
The jokoku appellee is an unincorporated body that consists of the followers of Yamagishi-ism as members and operates in 39 sites in Japan and seven sites overseas as Yamagishi-ism communes.
Yamagishi-ism communes are places where the jokoku appellee's members live and realize Yamagishi-ism life. In the communes, there are chicken farms, pig farms, cattle farms, and fields for vegetable production, and the members produce agricultural products and processed products. The members are, in principle, required to work and live in the communes, and they receive everything they need for the commune life from the jokoku appellee.
The jokoku appellee refers to the joining of an outsider as a new member in the jokoku appellee group as "participation." In order for an outsider to accomplish "participation," the outsider has to take part in the special training on Yamagishi-ism provided by the jokoku appellee for seven nights and eight days (hereinafter referred to as the "special training") and also enroll in and complete the two-week course at the Yamagishi-ism training school (hereinafter referred to as the "training school"). Those who have completed the training and course and are admitted to participate in the jokoku appellee group are required to contribute all their property to the jokoku appellee in line with the practice of "no private ownership."
Since February 1991, the jokoku appellee has taken the measure to accommodate new participants in preparatory residences where they stay for three to six months in order to get accustomed to Yamagishi-ism life as preparation for starting commune life. Since 1993, the jokoku appellee has refunded almost all property contributed by those who withdraw their intention of participation while staying in preparatory residences.
(2) The jokoku appellant is a woman born in 1948. After her husband's death in 1984, she lived with her three children (two daughters and a son). Subsequently, she built a condominium with proceeds from the sale of part of her inherited land, and lived on the rent income.
The jokoku appellant consulted with a Yamagishi-kai member in charge of the region where she lived for advice on how to deal with her elder daughter who had become delinquent during the period when the jokoku appellant looked after her sick husband. On the recommendation of the member, the jokoku appellant took part in the special training provided by the jokoku appellee and enrolled in the training school three times from November 1986.
At the third enrollment in the training school, the jokoku appellant was attracted by the cheerful disposition of the participants and their interesting conversation about their experience, and decided to participate in the jokoku appellee group, considering that her children would be happy if they saw her living a serious life as a member of the jokoku appellee group. On June 15, 1989, the jokoku appellant applied for participation in the jokoku appellee group, with her son and younger daughter, by submitting an application form for participation, detailed application form for contribution, and written oath to the jokoku appellee, which accepted the application. The detailed application form for contribution stated as follows: "I hope to live the Yamagishi-ism life for the rest of my life, and therefore contribute all of my human and financial resources as indicated below." The written oath stated as follows: "I, hereby participate in the Yamagishi-ism Commune Administrative Organization for the purpose of living the Yamagishi-ism life in the most appropriate manner, and therefore unconditionally entrust all articles written below, all tangible and intangible property, and all rights and interests to the Yamagishi-ism Commune Administrative Organization, with title certificates and other relevant instruments; I will not claim any rights or refund of property." The jokoku appellant also applied for the participation of her elder daughter, but the jokoku appellee rejected the application because her delinquency had become worse.
From the end of June until the beginning of July 1989, the jokoku appellant provided the jokoku appellee, for participation, with her cash in hand, bank passbooks, pension book, pension certificate, title certificates for real estate (her own residence and the condominium), and registered seal, and started to live in the jokoku appellee's Toyosato Commune in Mie Prefecture. The jokoku appellee converted the non-monetary property provided by the jokoku appellant into money by selling the real estate.
(3) The total amount of the property contributed by the jokoku appellant at the time of the participation in the jokoku appellee group was 288,454,052 yen. After the participation, during the period from August 1989 until December 1994, the jokoku appellant obtained a pension of 3,193,941 yen in total through the bank account designated by the jokoku appellee. The total amount including the property contributed at the time of the participation and the pension was 291,647,993 yen.
(4) The person at the jokoku appellee involved in the procedures for the jokoku appellant's participation committed no acts that were inappropriate to social standards.
At the time of the participation, the jokoku appellant agreed with the fundamental philosophy of Yamagishi-ism, and contributed all her property to the jokoku appellee on the assumption of spending the rest of her life under the care of the jokoku appellee, while knowing that her contribution would also be used for the jokoku appellee and its other members.
(5) In April 1991, the jokoku appellant left the commune and started to live with her elder daughter because her elder daughter was subjected to probationary supervision by a family court decision and required to live with her guardian.
The jokoku appellant's son and younger daughter continued to live in the commune after she left. However, subsequently, her son left the commune in August 1992 because of suffering bullying and her younger daughter also left the commune in March 1993 because of going on to a high school run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. They started to live with the jokoku appellant in the apartment outside the commune.
The jokoku appellant started to consider withdrawal from the jokoku appellee because of her relationship with other members becoming worse. On December 14, 1994, the jokoku appellant applied to the jokoku appellee for withdrawal, and in the early 1995, withdrew from the jokoku appellee group with its consent. At the time of the withdrawal, the jokoku appellant lived with her son and younger daughter who earned no income.
Upon the withdrawal, the jokoku appellant requested refund of at least 93 million yen in total as property to which her three children were entitled, but the jokoku appellee only refunded 40.3 million yen as property to which the elder daughter was entitled.
The jokoku appellee paid living expenses for the jokoku appellant and her children for the period during which they lived in the commune, and also paid living expenses for them, including housing expenses, for the period during which they lived in the apartment outside the commune from when the jokoku appellant left the commune until when she withdrew from the jokoku appellee group.
Since withdrawing from the jokoku appellee group, the jokoku appellant makes a living by engaging in door-to-door sales of underwear.

2. This is a case brought by the jokoku appellant to seek, from the jokoku appellee, damages due to an unlawful act as a principal claim, and restoration of unjust enrichment as a preliminary claim on the ground that the trust contract or consumption bailment contract had been terminated or the jokoku appellee had been unjustly enriched by the total amount of the property contributed by the jokoku appellant.

3. The court of the second instance upheld the jokoku appellant's claim against the jokoku appellee only to the extent to seek payment of 100 million yen and delay damages thereon as restoration of unjust enrichment. The jokoku appellant argues that the judgment of the second instance wrongly interpreted laws on public order and morals.
According to the facts mentioned above, the jokoku appellant decided to participate in the jokoku appellee after taking part in the special training and enrolling in the special school, and understanding the jokoku appellee's philosophy as well as objective and contents of its activities, concluded a contract with the jokoku appellee to contribute all her property, and actually contributed all her property to the jokoku appellee under the contract. It is obvious that the jokoku appellant concluded the contract on contribution and contributed all her property to the jokoku appellee as a practice of the concept of "no private ownership" as required in Yamagishi-ism society, and the jokoku appellant committed these acts for the purpose of and on the assumption of living the rest of her life according to Yamagishi-ism under the care of the jokoku appellee. However, because of the changes in the circumstances after the participation in the jokoku appellee group as mentioned above, the jokoku appellant withdrew from the jokoku appellee group with its consent. It is reasonable to construe that, upon the withdrawal, the purpose or assumption of the contract on contribution and of the jokoku appellant's act of making the contribution lapsed. In consequence, the contract on contribution is deemed to have lost ground and also lost effect for the future at the time of the withdrawal. The jokoku appellant's act of making the contribution lost legal ground due to the jokoku appellant's withdrawal from the jokoku appellee, and therefore the jokoku appellant is entitled to claim restoration of unjust enrichment from the jokoku appellee for the property that the jokoku appellee contributed.
Next, we examine the extent to which the jokoku appellant may claim restoration of unjust enrichment from the jokoku appellee. The claim for restoration of unjust enrichment is based on the fact that the jokoku appellant's act of making the contribution lost legal ground, ex post facto, due to the jokoku appellant's withdrawal from the jokoku appellee. For a considerable period of time until the withdrawal, the jokoku appellant lived the Yamagishi-ism life with her son and younger daughter under the care of the jokoku appellee, and the jokoku appellee paid all living expenses for them during the period. The jokoku appellant contributed all her property to the jokoku appellee, knowing that her contribution would also be used for the jokoku appellee and its other members. In light of these facts, it is unreasonable to construe the jokoku appellant as being entitled to claim restoration of all the property that the jokoku appellant contributed to the jokoku appellee. Rather, it is reasonable to construe the jokoku appellant as being entitled to claim restoration of unjust enrichment from the jokoku appellee to the extent that seemed, at the time of the jokoku appellant's withdrawal from the jokoku appellee, reasonable and appropriate in light of the total amount of property contributed by the jokoku appellant, the period of time during which the jokoku appellant lived under the care of the jokoku appellee, the total amount of living expenses and other benefits received by the jokoku appellant during such period under the care of the jokoku appellee, the jokoku appellant's age and working capability, and various other circumstances and rules of reason.
Upon concluding the contract on the participation in the jokoku appellee group, the jokoku appellant agreed not to claim refund of the property that she had contributed. However, such an agreement would cause the jokoku appellant, who had lost all financial resources required to live independently from the jokoku appellee, to abandon the intention of withdrawal from the jokoku appellee and become forced to live under the care of the jokoku appellee, thereby extremely restricting the jokoku appellant's freedom of withdrawal from the jokoku appellee group. Consequently, the agreement that restricts the jokoku appellant's right to claim restoration of unjust enrichment to the extent mentioned above is against public order and morals and therefore should be null and void.
The court of the second instance judged the jokoku appellant to have been entitled, at the time of the withdrawal, to seek payment of 100 million yen from the jokoku appellee as restoration of unjust enrichment. This judgment of the second instance can be deemed to be reasonable in light of the circumstances mentioned above and rules of reason. The judgment of the second instance can be accepted as conclusion, and the jokoku appellant's argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.		 
Presiding Judge
 Justice TAKII Shigeo
Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi
Justice KITAGAWA Hiroharu
Justice KAJITANI Gen
Justice TSUNO Osamu
(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)