2011.06.07

2009 (Gyo-Hi) 91

Minshu Vol. 65, No. 4

Judgment concerning the case in which the court ruled that the disposition to rescind a first-class architect's license, rendered pursuant to Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (prior to the revision by Act No. 92 of 2006) without showing the details of the application of the disposition standards that had been made available to the public, failed to meet the requirement of showing of the grounds for disposition as provided in the main text of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it is therefore illegal

Case to seek revocation of the disposition to rescind the first-class architect's license, etc.

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, quashed and decided by the Supreme Court

Sapporo High Court, Judgment of November 13, 2008

Where a disposition to rescind a first-class architect's license was rendered pursuant to Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (prior to the revision by Act No. 92 of 2006), given the factual circumstances indicated in the judgment such as that, as the grounds for disposition, only the facts constituting the cause of disposition?that is, as the designer of the multiple buildings, the subject party worked out designs which failed to comply with the structural standards specified in the laws and regulations on building standards, thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed, or worked out improper designs based on the structural calculation sheets which appear to contain fabricated data?, and the applicable statute for the disposition, items (ii) and (iii) of said paragraph (1), were shown in the written notice of said disposition, but no details were shown with regard to the application of the disposition standards that had been made available to the public by means of the notice issued by then Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction to the Prefectural Governors, the contents of which were so complicated as to be applicable to various types of cases as the standards for choosing any of the multiple disciplinary dispositions specified in said paragraph, the subject party could have never known on what grounds said disposition was chosen and how the disposition standards were applied in choosing it, and therefore said disposition of rescission of license is illegal for failing to meet the requirement of showing of the grounds for disposition as provided in the main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
(There is a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion.)

Articles 12 and 14 of the Administrative Procedure Act, Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (prior to the revision by Act No. 92 of 2006), Notice on Dispositions to Architects (Notice of the Ministry of Construction, Ju-Shi-Hatsu No. 784 of December 28, 1999, issued from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction to the Prefectural Governors; prior to the repeal as of June 20, 2007), Provisions (excluding supplementary provisions), Appended Table I (excluding Table 1)

Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act
Administrative agencies shall endeavor to establish disposition standards, and to make such standards available to the public.

Article 14 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(1) Administrative agencies, in cases where they render Adverse Dispositions, shall concurrently show the ground for the Adverse Disposition to the subject parties. However, this shall not apply when there are pressing needs for rendering Adverse Dispositions without showing their grounds.
(2) In the case referred to in the proviso of the preceding paragraph, but excepting cases where the locations of the subject parties have become unknown and other cases where circumstances make it difficult to show the grounds after the rendering of the Disposition, administrative agencies shall show the grounds for the Disposition concerned within the considerable period of time after its rendering.
(3) When Adverse Dispositions are rendered in writing, the grounds set forth in the preceding two paragraphs shall also be shown in writing.

Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (prior to the revision by Act No. 92 of 2006)
(Disciplinary Dispositions)
(1) Where a first-class architect, second-class architect or wooden-building architect falls under any of the following items, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the prefectural governor who has granted him/her a license may issue an admonition to him/her, order him/her to suspend the business for a fixed period not exceeding one year, or rescind his/her license:
(i) where the architect has been sentenced to imprisonment without work or heavier punishment;
(ii) where the architect has violated this Act or other Acts concerning the construction of buildings, or any orders or prefectural/municipal ordinances issued thereunder; or
(iii) where the architect has committed an unfaithful act in connection with his/her business.

Notice on Dispositions to Architects (Notice of the Ministry of Construction, Ju-Shi-Hatsu No. 784 of December 28, 1999, issued from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction to the Prefectural Governors; prior to the repeal as of June 20, 2007), Provisions (excluding supplementary provisions), Appended Table I (excluding Table 1)
Provisions
1. Basic Policy
In order to secure the proper execution of the business of architects, if an architect falls under any of the grounds for disposition provided in Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, the applicable disposition, etc. (including a disciplinary disposition and written warning) shall be rendered to the architect promptly and strictly.
2. Standards for Disciplinary Dispositions, etc. to Architects
The content of the disposition, etc. to be rendered to an architect shall be decided according to Appended Table I.
If the architect has previously been subject to a disposition, etc., the disposition, etc. as decided according to Appended Table I shall be aggravated according to Appended Table II.

3. Measures Incidental to Disposition, etc.
(1) Where a disposition of suspension of business has been rendered, the architect's license shall be retained by the authority until the expiration of the period of disposition.
(2) Where a disposition of rescission of license has been rendered, the architect's registration shall be deleted and his/her license shall be returned to the authority.
(3) Where a disposition of rescission of license or disposition of suspension of business has been rendered to an architect, supervision shall be enforced on the architect so that he/she will not violate the disposition, and an additional disposition shall be rendered on or an accusation shall be made against him/her if he/she violates said disposition.

4. Reports, etc.
(1) Where a disposition, etc. has been rendered to an architect, a report shall be made as to the name, address, and registration number of the architect subject to the disposition, etc., the grounds for and type of the disposition, etc. (in the case of suspension of business, including the period of suspension), the details of the hearings, and other matters for reference.
(2) Where an architect falls or is suspected of falling under any of the grounds for disposition provided in Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, notice shall be given to the relevant person with authority to grant a license, with regard to the architect's name, address, and registration number, the outline of facts, and other information for reference.
Notice of such information shall also be given to the specified administrative agencies under the jurisdiction of each prefectural governor.

Table 2 Grade Table (Extract)
Basis for disciplinary disposition: Violation of building-related laws and regulations (Article 10, paragraph (1), item (ii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers)
Grounds for disciplinary disposition: Violation of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers
Grounds for disciplinary disposition/ Applicable statute/ grade of disposition
Serious-Deviation from the scope of business of designing and construction supervision/ 3 to 3-3/ 6/ suspension of business for 3 months
Serious-Violation of a disposition of suspension of business/ 10(i)/ 16/ rescission of license
-Violation of the confidentiality obligation by a designated examining body (as an officer or employee, etc. of a designated examining body)/ 15-7, 15-17(5)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
Serious-Illegal designing/ 18/ 6/ suspension of business for 3 months
Serious-Failure to perform the statutory duty of a construction supervisor (non-performance or insufficient performance of construction supervision)/ 18/ 6/ suspension of business for 3 months
-Unauthorized change of design/ 19/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to affix one's name and seal to design drawings/ 20(1)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to submit a construction supervision report or submission of a defective report, etc./ 20(2)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Violation of the obligation to clearly indicate opinions of a qualified building equipment engineer/ 20(3)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Execution of business without registration/ 23, 23-9/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Registration of the office based on false or wrongful facts/ 23-2/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to make notification of a change of the office or submission of a false notification/23-5(1)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to retain a managing architect/ 24(1)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure of a managing architect to perform management of the office/ 24(2)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Violation of the obligation of a managing architect to engage in full-time service/ 24(1)/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to prepare or preserve books of the office/ 24-2/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Failure to post the sign of the office/ 24-3/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Violation of the obligation to keep documents on business results, etc. or make them available for inspection, false entry in these documents/ 24-4/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Violation of the obligation to deliver a written service contract, etc./ 24-5/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
Serious-Violation of a disposition of closure of the office/ 26(2)/ 16/ rescission of license
-Violation of the obligation to submit reports or undergo inspection of the office/ 26-2/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
-Misconduct by a member of the board of review of buildings/ 33/ 4/ suspension of business for 1 month
Serious-Use or borrowing of the title of architect or the name of an existing architect/ 24, 34-2/ 6/ suspension of business for 3 months
Serious-Lending of name/ 24, 34-2/ 6/ suspension of business for 3 months
-Other violation of laws and regulations/-/ 4 to 16/ suspension of business for 1 month to rescission of license

Table 3 Table of Adjustment of Grade of Disposition in light of Circumstances, etc.
Consequence of violation
Where the violation is minor and unlikely to cause any specific infringement of legal interest or any risk of such infringement: one-grade lighter
Where the attempt of violation resulted in failure: one-grade lighter
Offender's consciousness
Where the offender was seriously in bad faith or had malicious intent: three-grade heavier
Where the offender had unavoidable grounds to commit the act in question: one-grade lighter
Where the offender had negligence that should be taken into consideration: one to three-grade lighter
Mode of commission
Where the offender has committed a violent or fraudulent act: three-grade heavier
Where the offender's violation has extended for a long time: three-grade heavier
Where the offender has habitually committed the act in question: three-grade heavier
Reaction for rectification, etc.
Where the offender has taken measures for rectification (indemnification of damage) willingly and quickly: one-grade lighter
Where the offender has failed to take any measures for rectification (indemnification of damage): one-grade heavier
Where the offender has voluntarily notified the authority of his/her act subject to the disposition: one-grade lighter
Punishment on the offense
Where the offender is sentenced to a fine: one to three-grade heavier

(Notes)
1. If the offender is sentenced to imprisonment without work or heavier punishment, none of his/her circumstances, etc. shall basically be taken into consideration.
2. If the grade of the disposition exceeds Grade 16 as a result of taking the offender's circumstances into consideration, Grade 16 shall apply.
3. If there are any other circumstances, etc. that should be taken into consideration by all means, such circumstances shall be treated in accordance with the rules indicated above.
4. Mitigation by reason of negligence shall depend on the degree of the offender's negligence. No mitigation shall be granted for gross negligence. The disposition shall be mitigated by one grade for ordinary negligence, by two grades for slight negligence, and by three grades for little negligence, respectively. However, in the case of serious violations indicated in Appended Table II, no mitigation by reason of negligence shall basically be granted.
5. If the offender is sentenced to a fine or lighter punishment, the disposition to him/her shall be aggravated according to the degree of fine under the applicable penal statute.
Examples: In the case of a fine under the Building Standards Act
Light fine: a fine of 100,000 yen: +1
Medium fine: a fine of 200,000 yen: +2
Heavy fine: a fine of 300,000 yen: +3

[Table 4: Notes (Extracts)]
2. Deferment of disposition, etc.
The disposition, etc. may be deferred for a necessary period of time in the following cases:
Where the offender has undergone judicial investigation, or has been sent to a public prosecutors office or prosecution has been instituted against him/her;
Where such deferment is particularly necessary for protecting the client, etc.; or
Where the act subject to the disposition is pending in civil proceedings and a judicial decision or other result of proceedings needs to be taken into account.

3. Others
Where five or more years have passed since the act constituting the grounds for disposition was committed, and during this period, the offender has not committed any act constituting grounds for disposition but has properly executed the business as an architect, thus showing the attitude of complying with laws, a decision may be made to render no disposition to the offender; provided, however, that this shall not apply where, due to the nature of the act, it would take a considerable period of time for the act to be revealed, and five years have not yet passed since the revelation of the act.
Where the disposition, etc. has been deferred pursuant to the provisions of 2, the period of five years shall be calculated by excluding the period of deferment.

[Notes (Extract)]
-Registration of the office based on false or wrongful facts
An applicant for registration, who is an architect, has obtained registration of an architect office based on false or wrongful facts.
-Failure to make notification of a change of the office or submission of a false notification
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to make notification of a change of the architect office or made a false notification of change.
-Failure to retain a managing architect
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to retain a full-time managing architect.
-Failure of a managing architect to perform managing of the office
A full-time managing architect has failed to execute management of the office.
-Violation of the obligation of a managing architect to engage in full-time service
A managing architect has violated the duty to engage in full-time service.
-Failure to prepare or preserve books of the office
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to prepare or preserve books, etc.
-Failure to post the sign of the office
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to post the sign of the architect office.
-Violation of the obligation to keep documents on business results, etc. or make them available for inspection, false entry in these documents
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to keep documents on business results of the architect office or work experience of the managing architect, etc. or failed to make these documents available for inspection.
-Violation of the obligation to deliver a written service contract, etc.
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has failed to deliver to the construction client a document stating the necessary matters despite being entrusted by the construction client with designing or construction supervision of the building.
-Violation of a disposition of closure of the office
An architect has violated a disposition of the closure of the architect office.
-Violation of the obligation to submit reports or undergo inspection of the office
An organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, or a managing architect, has refused to submit reports of the architect office when requested or refused to undergo inspection of the office.
-Misconduct by a member of the board of review of buildings
A member of the board of review of architects or examiner, who is an architect, has committed misconduct in the course of executing the affairs of the board.
-Use or borrowing of the title of architect or the name of an existing architect
A second-class architect has used the title of first-class architect or any other title that might be mistaken for it; a wooden-building architect has used the title of first-class architect or second-class architect or any other title that might be mistaken for them; a second-class architect has introduced him/herself using the name of an existing first-class architect; an organizer of an architect office, who is an architect, has borrowed the name of another architect, with consent or without permission, and falsely registered or otherwise used such name as the name of a managing architect.
(3) Unfaithful acts
-Improper designing
An architect has worked out a design which is not in violation of any building-related laws or regulations but is improper in light of the existing standards for building technology.
-Non-compliance with the client's design conditions
An architect has failed to comply with the design conditions set by the client, without justifiable grounds.
-Failure to inform the client of inappropriateness of his/her instructions
The client's instructions are inappropriate, but an architect has failed to notify the client of such inappropriateness.
-Failure to execute the business in line with the main purpose of the contract
Despite a contract concluded for services including designing, construction supervision, representation in applying for confirmation, and investigation and appraisal of the building, an architect has failed to perform the obligations for these services in line with the main purpose of the contract.
-Insufficient explanation of the details of the service contract
An architect has failed to sufficiently clarify the details of the contract for services including designing, construction supervision, representation in applying for confirmation, and investigation and appraisal of the building, and caused a problem.
-Acts that could considerably undermine the public trust in architects
An architect, due to his/her failure to execute the business of an architect faithfully, has considerably undermined a third party's trust or inflicted damage to a third party.

1. The judgment in prior instance is quashed, and the judgment in first instance is revoked.
2. The disposition to rescind the first-class architect's license, made by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as of September 1, 2006, with regard to Appellant X1, is revoked.
3. The disposition to rescind the registration of the architect office, made by the Governor of Hokkaido Prefecture as of September 26, 2006, with regard to Appellant X2, is revoked.
4. The appellees of final appeal shall bear the total court costs.

Concerning Reasons I, II, and VI for petition for acceptance of final appeal argued by appeal counsel, KAWAMORITA Daisuke
1. Appellant X1, who worked as a managing architect of an architect office with the qualification of a first-class architect, received from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport a disposition to rescind his/her first-class architect's license pursuant to Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (prior to the revision by Act No. 92 of 2006; the same shall apply hereinafter) (this disposition shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Disposition of Rescission of License"), and accordingly, Appellant X2, a company which organized said office (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant company"), received from the Governor of Hokkaido Prefecture a disposition to rescind the registration of the architect office pursuant to Article 26, paragraph (2), item (iv) of said Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition of Rescission of Registration"). In this litigation, Appellant X1 and the appellant company seek revocation of these dispositions, alleging that the Disposition of Rescission of License is an illegal disposition failing to meet the requirement of showing of the grounds for disposition as provided in the main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, because the details of the application of the disposition standards that had been made available to the public were not shown as the grounds for the disposition, and that the Disposition of Rescission of Registration rendered on the basis of said disposition is also an illegal disposition.

2. The outline of the facts legally determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.
(1) Appellant X1 acquired a first-class architect's license in 1981, and worked as a managing architect at the architect office organized by the appellant company.
(2) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport rendered the Disposition of Rescission of License to Appellant X1 as of September 1, 2006. The written notice of the disposition stated as follows as the grounds for disposition.
"As the designer of the buildings constructed on the sites respectively located at XX, Minami X, Nishi X, Chuo-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Atsubetu-Chuo X, Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Hiragishi X, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Kita X, Nishi X, Kita-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Kita X, Nishi X, Chuo-ku Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Minami X, Nishi X, Chuo-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; and XX, Minami X, Nishi X, Chuo-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido, you worked out designs which failed to comply with the structural standards specified in the laws and regulations on building standards, thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed.
Also as the designer of the buildings constructed on the sites respectively located at XX, Kita X, Higashi X, Higashi-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Toyohira X, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Tsukisamu-Nishi X, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; XX, Tsukisamu-Chuodori X, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido; and Kita X, Nangodori X, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido, you worked out improper designs based on the structural calculation sheets which appear to contain fabricated data.
Your acts as described above fall under Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, and considerably harm the dignity and credibility that society expects in first-class architects."
(3) Following the Disposition of Rescission of License made with regard to Appellant X1, the Governor of Hokkaido Prefecture rendered the Disposition of Rescission of Registration to the appellant company as of September 26, 2006.
(4) Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers provides that in cases "where the architect has violated this Act or other Acts concerning the construction of buildings, or any orders or prefectural/municipal ordinances issued thereunder" (item (ii)) or " where the architect has committed an unfaithful act in connection with his/her business" (item (iii)), the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the prefectural governor who has granted him/her a license may, as a disciplinary disposition to the architect, "issue an admonition to him/her, order him/her to suspend the business for a fixed period not exceeding one year, or rescind his/her license."
At the time when the Disposition of Rescission of License was rendered, there were the disposition standards established and made available to the public with regard to such disciplinary disposition to an architect, under the title of "Notice on Dispositions to Architects" (Notice of the Ministry of Construction, Ju-Shi-Hatsu No. 784 of December 28, 1999, issued from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction to the Prefectural Governors; prior to the repeal as of June 20, 2007) (these standards shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Disposition Standards"), following the public comment procedure. According to the Disposition Standards, the content of the disposition, etc. to be rendered to an architect shall be decided according to Appended Table I. In Appended Table I, (2), it is provided that where an architect falls under Article 10, paragraph (1), item (ii) or item (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, "the grade of the disposition to be rendered shall be decided based on the grade of disposition corresponding to the act constituting the grounds for disposition indicated in Table 2, while adjusting the grade depending on the circumstances as prescribed in Table 3, and then the content of the disposition shall be decided according to Table 4; provided, however, that the offender has committed the act in question intentionally, thereby causing the collapse of or damage, etc. to the building or causing any casualty (hereinafter referred to as "thereby causing a serious consequence"), he/she shall be subject to suspension of business for six months or more or rescission of license; where the offender has committed the act in question negligently, thereby causing a serious consequence, he/she shall be subject to suspension of business for three months or more or rescission of license." Table 2 of Appended Table I assigns a grade to each type of grounds for disposition, such as Grade "6" to "illegal designing," Grade "2 to 4" to "improper designing," and Grade "1 to 4" to "other unfaithful acts." Table 3 specifies how to adjust the grade in light of the circumstances, etc., such as lowering the grade of disposition by one to three grades "where the offender had negligence that should be taken into consideration," or raising the grade of disposition by three grades "where the offender's violation has extended for a long time" or "where the offender has habitually committed the act in question." Table 4 specifies the content of the disposition, etc. (including written warning) corresponding to each grade of disposition, such as "admonition" for Grade "2," "suspension of business for less than one month" to "suspension of business for one year" for Grades "3 to 15," and "rescission of license" for Grade "16." This table also specifies how to deal with the case where the offender falls under two or more grounds for disposition, providing that "Where a disposition, etc. is to be rendered concurrently for two or more acts subject to disposition, etc., the applicable grade of disposition shall be the grade for the act subject to the heaviest disposition, etc. which shall be aggravated as appropriate. However, where two or more acts constituting the same grounds for disposition can be regarded as a single act as a whole due to factors such as the closeness in time and place when and where these acts have been committed, or the similarity of the manner in which they have been committed, these acts may be deemed to be a single act and assigned to one applicable grade."
(5) At the stage of filing this suit, Appellant X1 and the appellant company had understood that the basis for the Disposition of Rescission of License was the main clause of provision (2) in Appended Table I of the Disposition Standards. On the other hand, during the proceedings of the suit, the State, one of the appellees of final appeal, principally asserted the proviso to provision (2) in said table, and alternatively asserted the main clause of provision (2) in said table, as the basis for the Disposition of Rescission of License.

3. Given the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance found that the Disposition of Rescission of License was not illegal for failing to meet the requirement of showing of the grounds for disposition as provided in the main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, nor is there any other ground for its illegality, and also found that the Disposition of Rescission of Registration was not illegal, and in conclusion, the court of prior instance dismissed the claims of both Appellant X1 and the appellant company. The court of prior instance held as follows.
The main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that when rendering an adverse disposition, the grounds for the adverse disposition are required to be shown. In the case of a disciplinary disposition to a first-class architect, the purpose of this provision can be sufficiently achieved by clarifying the applicable statute for the disposition (the items of Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers) and the concrete facts relating to the requirement provided therein, and it should not be understood as further requiring the details of the disposition standards and the application thereof to be clarified as well. Since the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport clarified, in the written notice of the Disposition of Rescission of License, the specific applicable statue and the concrete facts relating to the requirement provided therein, it is deemed that the minister showed sufficient grounds for disposition.

4. However, we cannot affirm the holdings of the court of prior instance mentioned above, on the following grounds.
The main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that when rendering an adverse disposition, the grounds for the adverse disposition are required to be shown to the subject party, presumably because, in light of the nature of an adverse disposition which directly imposes a duty on the subject party or limit his/her rights, said provision is intended to ensure that the administrative agency will make a deliberate and reasonable judgment, while restricting it from making an arbitral judgment, and at the same time, to notify the subject party of the grounds for disposition for the sake of his/her convenience when appealing against the disposition. To what degree the grounds for disposition to be shown pursuant to the main clause of said paragraph need to be detailed should be determined in light of the purpose of the main clause of said paragraph mentioned above, and by comprehensively taking into consideration factors such as the content of the provisions of the applicable statute for the disposition concerned, whether or not there are any disposition standards for said disposition and whether or not such standards are made available to the public, the nature and content of said disposition, and the details of the facts constituting the cause of said disposition.
From this standpoint, we examine a disciplinary disposition to be rendered to architects under Article 10, paragraph (1), item (ii) or item (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers. Both requirements for disposition prescribed in items (ii) and (iii) of said paragraph are abstract, and what is more, it is also left to the discretion of the administrative agency that is to render a disposition, to choose any of the dispositions specified in said paragraph, namely, admonition, suspension of business for not more than one year, or rescission of license. The Disposition Standards had been specified as to how to decide the content of a disciplinary disposition to be rendered to an architect, and these standards had been made available to the public after going through the considerable procedures for securing due process, including the public comment procedure, and furthermore, as described in 2(4) above, the contents of the standards are so complicated as to be applicable to various types of cases. In view of these points, the facts constituting the cause of disposition and the applicable statue therefor are not enough as the grounds for disposition that should be shown upon rendering a disciplinary disposition to an architect. Unless the details of the application of the Disposition Standards are also shown, it would be difficult in general for the subject party of disposition to know on what grounds the disposition in question has been chosen and how the disposition standards have been applied in choosing it, even though the subject party could have known why he/she should be subject to the disposition by referring to said facts and applicable statute shown thereto. This reasoning can be applied to this case as follows. The outline of the facts is as indicated in 2 above. The Disposition of Rescission of License is an adverse disposition of grave nature which is to directly disqualify Appellant X1 as a first-class architect. As the grounds for disposition, only the facts constituting the cause of disposition?that is, as the designer of the buildings constructed on multiple land lots in Sapporo City, Appellant X1 worked out designs which failed to comply with the structural standards specified in the laws and regulations on building standards, thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed, or worked out improper designs based on the structural calculation sheets which appear to contain fabricated data?, and the applicable statute for the disposition, Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, were shown to Appellant X1, but no details were shown with regard to the application of the Disposition Standards. Given such complicated standards, although Appellant X1 could have known to a certain degree why he/she should be subject to the disposition by referring to said facts and applicable statute shown thereto, he/she could have never known on what grounds the disposition of rescission of license was chosen and how the disposition standards were applied in choosing it. Under such circumstances of the case, in light of the purpose of the main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, said facts and applicable statute were not enough as the grounds to be shown to the subject party as required under the main clause of said paragraph, and for this reason, the Disposition of Rescission of License is an illegal disposition failing to meet the requirement of showing of the grounds for disposition as provided in the main clause of said paragraph and it therefore should inevitably be revoked.
Since the Disposition of Rescission of License should inevitably be revoked as an illegal disposition, the Disposition of Rescission of Registration rendered on the basis of said disposition should also inevitably be revoked.

5. The holdings of the court of prior instance that are contrary to this reasoning contain violation of laws and regulations that apparently affects the judgment. The appeal counsel's arguments are well-grounded, and the judgment in prior instance should inevitably be quashed. According to our holdings shown above, the claims of Appellant X1 and the appellant company are well-grounded. The judgment in first instance should be revoked, and both of their claims should be upheld.

Therefore, the judgment has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices, expect that there are dissenting opinions by Justice NASU Kohei and Justice OKABE Kiyoko. There is also a concurring opinion by Justice TAHARA Mutsuo.

The concurring opinion by Justice TAHARA Mutsuo is as follows.
I am in agreement with the majority opinion. However, as dissenting opinions are presented in this case, I would like to give supplementary comments on the majority opinion by briefly indicating my understanding of the basis for the majority opinion, while taking the dissenting opinions into account.
1. The case law doctrine and academic views regarding the requirement of a supplementary note of the grounds for an administrative disposition
Through the accumulation of a number of judicial precedents since around 1960 (e.g. 1961 (O) No. 84, judgment of the Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of May 31, 1963, Minshu Vol. 17, No. 4, at 617, 1982 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 70, judgment of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of January 22, 1985, Minshu Vol. 39, No. 1, at 1, 1992 (Gyo-Tsu) No. 48, judgment of the First Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of December 10, 1992, Saibanshu Minji No. 166, at 773), today, we have an established case law doctrine requiring a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition when rendering a disposition of refusal or other adverse dispositions in response to an application for permission, etc. (this case law doctrine does not only apply to tax law cases). Scholars generally have the following understanding of this case law doctrine, which is supported by their majority. This doctrine is considered to be basically valid even after the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1993.
(i) A supplementary note of the grounds for disposition are required when rendering an adverse disposition for the purpose of ensuring that the administrative agency will make a deliberate and reasonable judgment, while restricting it from making an arbitral judgment, as well as notify the subject party of the grounds for disposition for the sake of his/her convenience when appealing against the disposition. The lack of such a note makes the disposition itself illegal, irrespective of whether or not its legality under subjective law is acknowledged, and in principle, it constitutes a reason for revocation of the disposition (this also applies where it is anticipated that the same disposition as the revoked one will be rendered again through the proper procedure after revocation).
(ii) The extent of detail in a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition is determined in light of the nature of the disposition, and the purpose and objective of the law that requires such note to be appended to the disposition.
(iii) The grounds for disposition need to be clear from the statement of the note thereof; a mere indication of the applicable statute is not accepted as a note of the grounds.
(iv) Since a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition is not only intended to notify the subject party of the grounds for disposition but also secure fairness of the disposition, the grounds for disposition need to be also clear to a third party from the statement thereof, irrespective of whether or not the subject party can conjecture the grounds.

2. The Administrative Procedure Act, and the showing of the grounds for an adverse disposition
The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in November 1993 "to seek to advance a guarantee of fairness and progress towards transparency in administrative operations, and thereby to promote the protection of the rights and interests of citizens." With regard to adverse dispositions, this Act requires administrative agencies to endeavor to establish as concrete disposition standards as possible in light of the nature of the relevant adverse dispositions, and make such standards available to the public (Article 12).
This Act further provides that administrative agencies, in cases where they render adverse dispositions, shall concurrently show the grounds for the adverse disposition to the subject parties, except when there are pressing needs for rendering adverse dispositions without showing their grounds (Article 14, paragraph (1)).
Where an administrative agency has discretion in rendering an adverse disposition, when the agency has established disposition standards and made them available to the public pursuant to Article 12 of said Act, the agency is deemed to have externally declared that it will exercise its discretion under restriction by those standards.
Accordingly, when an administrative agency renders an adverse disposition, it should basically comply with the disposition standards, and should show the grounds for disposition concretely, including the details of the application of the standards. However, inasmuch as the administrative agency itself has established said standards, it is inappropriate to consider that the agency will be subject to restriction by the standards even when it is inappropriate to comply with the standards when rendering a particular adverse disposition. Yet, in such case, the administrative agency must have reasonable grounds for its noncompliance with the standards, and it also needs to show such grounds concretely when showing the grounds for disposition.
If the administrative agency, after establishing the deposition standards for adverse dispositions and making them available to the public, has rendered an adverse disposition while failing to comply with the standards or failing to give explanation on the relevance between the disposition and the standards when showing the grounds for disposition, the disposition would be judged to be illegal according to the doctrine discussed in 1 above.

3. The Act on Architects and Building Engineers, and disposition standards
As stated in 2(4) of the majority opinion, Article 10, paragraph (1) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers provides that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the prefectural governor may render, to an architect who has violated the Act on Architects and Building Engineers and other laws and regulations, a disciplinary disposition, such as admonition, suspension of business or rescission of license. As also pointed out in the majority opinion, at the time when the Disposition of Rescission of License was rendered, there were the standards for disciplinary disposition issued and made available to the public by means of the notice from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction to the prefectural governors, under the title of "Notice on Dispositions to Architects."
Said notice is a circular notice in its legal nature and it does not directly regulate a third party's rights and obligations. However, as it established standards for disciplinary disposition under the Act on Architects and Building Engineers (the Disposition Standards) in detail and made them available to the public, it is regarded as serving as the disposition standards made available to the public as provided in Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it required the administrative agency concerned, upon rendering a disciplinary disposition under the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, to rely on the Disposition Standards and show the details of the application of the standards as part of the grounds for disposition.

4. The Disposition of Rescission of License, and the Disposition Standards and the showing of the grounds for disposition
The grounds for disposition regarding the Disposition of Rescission of License were shown as described in 2(2) of the majority opinion (hereinafter this showing shall be referred to as the "Showing of the Grounds for Disposition"). The Showing of the Grounds for Disposition made no mention of the relevance between the Disposition of Rescission of License and the Disposition Standards, and moreover, as described below, the showing was insufficient even in identifying Appellant X1's acts subject to disposition, and the grounds shown were lacking concreteness and extremely defective. Among the grounds for illegality indicated below, the majority opinion focuses on point (3) as the reason for finding the illegality of the Disposition of Rescission of License. In my view, both points (1) and (2) respectively can be the reason for completely denying that the Disposition of Rescission of License meets the requirement of "showing of the grounds for disposition" as prescribed in Article 14 of the Administrative Procedure Act, so the Disposition of Rescission of License is illegal for failing to show the grounds for disposition and it therefore should inevitably be revoked.
(1) The Showing of the Grounds for Disposition is insufficient in identifying Appellant X1's acts subject to disposition.
A. The content of the Notice of Disposition
As mentioned in 2(2) of the majority opinion, the notice of the Disposition of Rescission of License (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice of Disposition") stated that Appellant X1, as the designer of the seven buildings constructed on the land lots with the specified lot numbers, worked out designs which failed to comply with the structural standards specified in the laws and regulations on building standards (hereinafter referred to as "structural standards noncompliant designing"), thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed, and also as the designer of the five buildings constructed on the land lots with the specified lot numbers, worked out improper designs based on the structural calculation sheets which appear to contain fabricated data (hereinafter referred to as the "fabricated structural calculation"). However, the type, size, structure, etc. of the seven buildings involving the structural standards noncompliant designing are completely uncertain from the statement of the notice (the case records suggest that these buildings were condominiums each having 9 to 15 stories above the ground and 20 to 84 residential units). In addition, there is no statement in the notice regarding the time of designing, the specific problematic factors in the structural standards noncompliant designing by Appellant X1, the level of influence of such designing in terms of the quake-resistance of the buildings in question which were described in the notice as "buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger" (e.g. whether or not they require demolition, a considerable scale of quakeproofing work, or minor reinforcement work) (according to the finding by the judgment in prior instance, the seven buildings are not assessed as entailing such danger as may cause collapse or damage).
The type, size, and structure of the five buildings involving the fabricated structural calculation are also completely uncertain (the case records suggest that these buildings were condominiums each having 9 to 15 stories above the ground and 21 to 88 residential units), and there is no statement in the notice regarding the time of designing or the details of Appellant X1's involvement in the fabrication (Appellant X1 argues that he/she had outsourced structural calculation to the subcontractor and it was difficult for him/her to discover the fabrication), the specific problems actually caused by the fabrication to the buildings (e.g. whether or not they need demolition or reinforcement work, and in the latter case, to what extent they should be reinforced) (the judgment in prior instance made no finding of the quake-resistance of the five buildings).
B. Insufficient identification of the illegally designed buildings and lack of a statement of the time of designing
Since Appellant X1 was involved in the designing of the 12 buildings that were subject to the Disposition of Rescission of License, he/she should have necessarily been aware of the details and the time of designing of these buildings. However, as mentioned in 1(iv) above, since a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition is not only intended to notify the subject party of the grounds for disposition but also secure fairness of the disposition, the grounds for disposition need to also be clear to a third party from the statement thereof. In the case of the Notice of Disposition, the grounds shown therein were extremely defective in identifying the subject buildings, and they should also be deemed to fail to specify the facts that should be the basis for a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition in that they do not identify the time when the designing was conducted.
The time of designing is an important element in assessing the violation because, under the Disposition Standards, the points for violation shall be increased in the case of extended or habitual violation, whereas it is also provided in the standards that, "where two or more acts constituting the same grounds for disposition can be regarded as a single act as a whole due to factors such as the closeness in time and place when and where these acts have been committed, or the similarity of the manner in which they have been committed, these acts may be deemed to be a single act and assigned to one applicable grade."
C. The statement of the description of the violation
As pointed out in A above, the description of the violation stated in the Notice of Disposition is extremely abstract, and the concrete details of the violation are not clear. Even when Appellant X1 has no objection to the description of the violation that was the basis for the Disposition of Rescission of License, the showing of the grounds for an adverse disposition, as mentioned in 1(iv) above, should describe the details of the violation to an extent that a third party can also recognize such details. And yet, it is impossible at all even for an architect, who is a specialist of buildings, to conjecture the details of the violation committed by Appellant X1 by referring to the statement of the Notice of Disposition.
E. Brief summary
For the reasons stated above, the Showing of the Ground for Disposition fails to meet the requirement mentioned in 1(iv) above, and therefore should inevitably be judged to be illegal.
(2) Apart from the issue of its relevance with the Disposition Standards, the content of the Showing of the Grounds for Disposition is an extremely defective showing of grounds, in contrast to the gravity of the Disposition of Rescission of License.
The Disposition of Rescission of License is a disposition of extremely grave nature for Appellant X1 as it disqualifies his/her as a licensed architect, and it is also a grave disposition which leads to the rescission of the appellant company's architect office where he/she serves as a managing architect. In view of this, even in the absence of the Disposition Standards, the administrative agency concerned should have shown the details of Appellant X1's violation concretely as the grounds for disposition so as to have him/her fully understand that his/her violation is as serious as being subject to a disposition of rescission of an architect's license. It is even more so in consideration of the fact that Appellant X1, from the early stage of the hearings concerning the Disposition of Rescission of License, had continued to dispute the nature or degree of the violation, questioning the applicability of the Disposition Standards to the structural standards noncompliant designing and the fabricated structural calculation.
In addition, in light of the gravity of the Disposition of Rescission of License, the grounds for disposition need to be written in a manner that even a third party, by reading the written statement of grounds only once, can easily understand the appropriateness of the disposition.
Nevertheless, the grounds for disposition stated in the Notice of Disposition, as mentioned above, only contained the facts constituting the cause of disposition?Appellant X1 committed the structural standards noncompliant designing in relation to the seven buildings that he/she designed, thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed, and also committed the fabricated structural calculation in relation to the five buildings?, and the applicable statute for the disposition, Article 10, paragraph (1), items (ii) and (iii) of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers. The Notice of Disposition showed nothing about the details of the grounds for disposition that are necessarily required to be stated therein in consideration of the gravity of the Disposition of Rescission of License.
Such improper showing of grounds for disposition cannot be deemed to meet the requirements of the grounds for disposition mentioned in 1(ii) to (iv) above, and should inevitably be judged to be illegal.
Justice NASU states, in his dissenting opinion, that the statement of the grounds for disposition in the Notice of Disposition does not contain a defect that directly leads to the effect of rescission, commenting as follows: "it is obvious that there were serious violation and improper conduct in connection with the acts of designing conducted by Appellant X1, which were concerned with the essential part of the mission of architects who are specialists in building construction (Article 2-2 of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers). The notice of the Disposition of Rescission of License shows the concrete facts of such violation and improper conduct and also shows the applicable statute for rendering the disposition. By looking straight at the seriousness of the violation and improper conduct committed by Appellant X1, it may be possible not only for specialists but also ordinary people to easily understand, with their ability to judge, that it was unavoidable that the heaviest of the three types of disciplinary dispositions provided as disciplinary dispositions, rescission of the architect's license, was chosen."
However, the grounds for disposition stated in the Notice of Disposition do not at all respond to the arguments of Appellant X1 who disputes over the facts concerning the Disposition of Rescission of License, nor can those grounds be deemed to be written in a manner that other architects, by reading the written statement of grounds only once, can clearly see what kind of violation Appellant X1 actually committed. I cannot agree with Justice NASU Kohei's dissenting opinion in terms of the premise thereof.
(3) Indication of the details of the application of the Disposition Standards to the grounds for the Disposition of Rescission of License
Since the Disposition Standards shall apply to the Disposition of Rescission of License as mentioned in 3 above, the Notice of Disposition should have concretely indicated the details of the application of the Disposition Standards to the violation of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers committed by Appellant X1 as the grounds for disposition, and yet, the Notice of Disposition completely lacks a statement of this issue.
On this point, the judgment in prior instance held that by applying the Disposition Standards with regard to the seven buildings involving the structural standards noncompliant designing and the five buildings involving the fabricated structural calculation, the requirements for rendering a disposition of rescission of Appellant X1's license were met. However, in this case where the concrete details of the violation committed by Appellant X1 are not identified as mentioned above, it is unreasonable to discuss, in the reasons attached to the judgment on the case, the details of the application of the Disposition Standards, targeting such unidentified violation.
Justice NASU states, in his dissenting opinion, that Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act only sets administrative agencies a duty to endeavor to establish disposition standards and make them available to the public, and based on this, he comments as follows: "there is enough room to construe that it is also included in the scope of discretion for the administrative agency to consider that it is not necessary to go so far as to indicate the details of the application of the standards as part of the grounds for disposition and establish disposition standards in line with this conception. Such construction would rather match said provision of the duty to endeavor, and would enable administrative agencies to deal with cases flexibly so as to fit the reality."
This view given by Justice NASU would be valid in the case where an administrative agency does not publicize the standards for adverse dispositions that it has established (this runs counter to the purport of Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act) but uses the standards as entirely internal standards for operation. However, as explained in 2 above, by establishing standards for adverse dispositions and making them available to the public, the administrative agency declares that it will exercise its discretion under restriction by those standards, when rendering adverse dispositions, unless there are any special circumstances to the contrary. If the administrative agency has once declared that it will render adverse dispositions while complying with the disposition standards that it has established, but considers that it will be allowed to dispense with these standards and deal with cases flexibly so as to fit the reality, such attitude of the administrative agency contradicts the principle of transparency of administrative procedure and also conflicts with the legislative purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, I cannot at all agree with this view.
(4) Brief summary
Thus, the Showing of the Grounds for Disposition, as pointed out in the majority opinion, is insufficient in showing the grounds as required under the main clause of Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act in that it lacks a statement of the details of the application of the Disposition Standards to the violation committed by Appellant X1, and it is also insufficient in showing the grounds for disposition as required under said Article in terms of the points mentioned in (1) and (2) above, and therefore the Disposition of Rescission of License should inevitably be revoked.
Justice NASU argues as follows. Even if this court quashes the judgment in prior instance and renders its own judgment to uphold the claims of Appellant X1 and the appellant company and revoke the Disposition of Rescission of License, as the majority opinion does, the administrative agency that rendered the disposition might render the same disposition of rescission of license again through the same disciplinary procedure as it had conducted previously. From the perspective of efficiency in court proceedings, or in consideration of the time, labor, and cost to be required for such repetition of the procedure, there is no choice, in a sense, but to make a judgment to the contrary.
However, the case law doctrine that fairness in the procedure for rendering administrative dispositions must be firmly maintained, as described in 1 above, has been formed through the accumulation of a number of lower court rulings as well as the Supreme Court precedents indicated in 1 above over a long period of time, while taking into consideration the issues pointed out by Justice NASU. The legitimacy of an administrative disposition cannot be affirmed unless it is endorsed by appropriateness of the procedure for rendering it. The issue of efficiency in court proceedings must give way to the mission to ensure the execution of due process.

5. In relation to the hearings
Justice NASU states as follows in his dissenting opinion: Appellant X1 must have become ready to predict the possible adverse disposition to be rendered to him/her by the time of the commencement of the hearings, which took place before the Disposition of Rescission of License was rendered, at the latest, and he/she is also able to acquire further detailed information during the hearings. The question remains as to whether, even in such case, it is necessary to firmly stick to the principle that an adverse disposition itself shall be illegal in any case unless the details of the application of the disposition standards are clearly indicated as part of the grounds for the disposition.
However, as indicated in 1(iv) above, the case law doctrine requiring a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition when rendering an adverse disposition does not depend on whether or not the subject party can conjecture the grounds, and accordingly, whether or not Appellant X1 could have predicted the content of an adverse disposition to be rendered to him/herself during the hearings does not matter as a reason for arguing that it is not necessary to append a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition.
In addition, as far as the case records suggest, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is found to have only notified Appellant X1, during the hearings, of the same matters as the grounds for disposition stated in the Notice of Disposition, and Appellant X1 argues that he/she received no concrete answer in response to his/her question as to the details of the application of the Disposition Standards. Thus, the hearings in question failed to meet the conditions assumed by Justice NASU in his dissenting opinion, and therefore the fact that hearings were held cannot at all be deemed to make up for the defect in the statement of the grounds for disposition in the Notice of Disposition.

The dissenting opinion by Justice NASU Kohei is as follows.
1. Legality of the Ground for Disposition
The notice of the Disposition of Rescission of License enumerates the two types of acts committed by Appellant X1 as a designer, namely, (i) working out designs of seven buildings which failed to comply with the structural standards specified in the laws and regulations on building standards, thereby having such buildings with poor quake-resistance and other structural danger constructed, and (ii) working out improper designs of five buildings based on the structural calculation sheets which appear to contain fabricated data.
On the premise of the existence of such designs failing to comply with structural standards and fabricated structural calculation sheets as pointed out in the notice, it is obvious that there were serious violation and improper conduct in connection with said acts of designing, which were concerned with the essential part of the mission of architects who are specialists in building construction (Article 2-2 of the Act on Architects and Building Engineers). The notice of the Disposition of Rescission of License shows the concrete facts of such violation and improper conduct and also shows the applicable statute for rendering the disposition. By looking straight at the seriousness of the violation and improper conduct committed by Appellant X1, it may be possible not only for specialists but also ordinary people to easily understand, with their ability to judge, that it was unavoidable that the heaviest of the three types of disciplinary dispositions provided as disciplinary dispositions, rescission of the architect's license, was chosen.
In this case where the disposition standards have been established and made available to the public, a difficult problem is raised as to the necessity to indicate the "details of the application" of the standards, as discussed below. However, supposing a case which is similar to this case, if there are no disposition standards, most people would not find it particularly wrong but understandable that the facts stated in the notice of disposition resulted in the consequence of the rescission of the license. In conclusion, I am supportive of the ruling of the court of prior instance which rejected Appellant X1's assertions of errors in the disposition due to overstepping or abusing the discretion or of violation of the relevant procedural requirements.

2. Necessity to state the "details of the application" of the disposition standards
In this case, the Disposition Standards were established and made available to the public pursuant to Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, under the title of "Notice on Dispositions to Architects" (Notice of the Ministry of Construction, Ju-Shi-Hatsu No. 784 of December 28, 1999, issued from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction). It comes into question whether or not the existence of the Disposition Standards has any influence on the determination mentioned in 1 above or affects the conclusion. My conclusion is that, except in general terms but given the facts of this case, there is no need to make any amendment to the determination mentioned in 1 above, on the following grounds.
(1) The Disposition Standards aim to "tighten disciplinary dispositions to architects," and set it as the basic policy to render disciplinary dispositions to architects "promptly and strictly" (paragraph 1 of the main text of the notice). Paragraph 2 (Standards for Disciplinary Dispositions, etc. to Architects) expressly provides that "The content of the disposition, etc. to be rendered to an architect shall be decided according to Appended Table I," whereas there is no provision on the showing of the grounds for disposition in these paragraphs or in paragraph 3 (Measures Incidental to Disposition, etc.) or paragraph 4 (Reports, etc.). Even the contents of the Disposition Standards, as described in (2) below, are limited to technical matters, mainly presenting how to calculate the grade of disposition, and they cannot be read as conveying something that could help finding any special meaning in notifying the subject party or other parties concerned of the details of the application of the standards. As a result, a doubt arises as to whether or not said notice, issued from the Director of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Construction which establishes the Disposition Standards, was ever drafted for the purpose of further indicating the "details of the application" of the standards as part of the grounds for disposition.
There is a dominant view that the disposition standards, once established by an administrative agency and made available to the public even by means of a circular notice, become effective against parties outside the agency and also binding on the agency itself, and the administrative agency rendering a disposition has the duty in any case to show the grounds for disposition while taking the standards into account. However, in the first place, administrative agencies are only required to endeavor to establish standards for disciplinary dispositions and make them available to the public (Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act). According to this, there is enough room to construe that it is also included in the scope of discretion for the administrative agency to consider that it is not necessary to go so far as to indicate the details of the application of the standards as part of the grounds for disposition and establish disposition standards in line with this conception. Such construction would rather match said provision of the duty to endeavor, and would enable administrative agencies to deal with cases flexibly so as to fit the reality.
(2) What is the substance of the "details of the application" that the majority opinion requires to be clearly indicated in relation to the Disposition Standards? It can at least be understood as including the judgment steps shown in (i) and (ii) below.
(i) The step to judge whether only the main clause of provision (2) in Appended Table I of the Disposition Standards should be applied, or the proviso to said provision may also be applied (this is allowed only in cases where the offender has committed the act in question intentionally or negligently, thereby causing a serious consequence such as the collapse, etc. of the building)
(ii) In the case of applying the main clause in accordance with the results of the aforementioned judgment, the step to decide the grade of the disposition to be rendered based on the grade of disposition corresponding to the act in question indicated in Table 2 (Grading of Dispositions), while adjusting the grade depending on the circumstances as prescribed in Table 3 (Table of Adjustment of Grade of Disposition in light of Circumstances, etc.), and then decide the content of the disposition according to Table 4 (Table of Categories of Dispositions) by choosing one of the dispositions available, i.e. written warning, admonition, suspension of business, and rescission of license; in the case of applying the proviso, the step to choose an appropriate disposition from among suspension of business for three months or more or for six months or more or rescission of license, skipping said process of deciding the grade of the disposition.
In order to indicate the "details of the application" of the disposition standards as part of the grounds for disposition in the above meaning, it is necessary to go through the procedural steps that are so complicated as to be compared to the construction and application of law, ranging from judging whether only the main clause is applicable or the proviso is applicable as well, to making various patterns of calculation of the grade of disposition when the main clause is applicable. Part of these procedural steps can be observed in the judgment in first instance and the judgment in prior instance, but the discussions in these judgments focused on the calculation of the grade of disposition indicated in Table 2 and the choice of the disposition according to Table 4, and did not address the step to make adjustment in light of the circumstances according to Table 3. However, if the details of the application of the disposition standards are to be indicated, it would be necessary to also indicate the adjustment in light of the circumstances according to Table 3. To this end, it is inevitable not only to indicate the calculation of the numerical points for the grade of disposition but also to state the concrete facts that give a reason for making adjustment in light of the circumstances. Thus, when an attempt is made just to indicate the "details of the application," the procedural steps to achieve it are so complicated as to require considerable time and labor. This could cause errors or omissions in the indication of such details of the application, and some people who find these defects might be likely to challenge the validity of the disposition before the court. In consideration of this possible situation, I still have a doubt whether it is necessary and reasonable in this case to indicate the "details of the application" of the disposition standards as part of the grounds for disposition, and I cannot easily agree with the majority opinion in this respect.
(3) With regard to the necessity to indicate the details of the application of the disposition standards, the judgment in prior instance ruled that Article 12, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act only provides for the duty to endeavor, and stated that, "it is not necessary, just because of the existence of this clause, to go so far as to show the details of the disposition standards and of the application of the standards as part of the grounds for disposition when rendering an administrative disposition." Although it was only in the context regarding the appropriateness of the "change of the grounds" between the main clause and the proviso during the court proceedings, the judgment in prior instance also pointed out that "the Disposition Standards are nothing more than internal standards used by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport when deciding the content of the disposition to be rendered, in other words, a kind of tool for deciding the content of the disposition." Thus, the judgment in prior instance stated that even where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport rendered the Disposition of Rescission of License by applying the proviso, there is no reason to construe that the scope of review by the court is limited to the existence or nonexistence of the facts that meet the requirement for rendering a disposition as prescribed in the proviso. These statements in the judgment in prior instance put weight on the fact that it is only required as the duty to endeavor for administrative agencies to establish the disposition standards in question and make them available to the public, and that while taking into account the limits to the effect of a circular notice, they presented a flexible conception regarding the necessity to indicate the details of the application of the disposition standards and the underlying relationship between the main clause and the proviso. In such respect, these statements have a common way of thinking shared with mine as stated in (1) and (2) above, and deserve recognition.
(4) In conclusion, it is inappropriate to go so far as to say that the failure to clearly indicate the details of the application of the Disposition Standards as part of the Grounds for Disposition always results in the violation of the procedural requirements under Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

3. Role of the disposition standards under the Administrative Procedure Act
In connection with the view that I adopt, as stated in 2 above, I would like to give a summary of my thinking concerning the role of the standards for rendering adverse dispositions under the Administrative Procedure Act, although this may be somewhat in general terms.
(1) The function of the standards for adverse disposition, as is often stressed, is to ensure that the administrative agency will make a deliberate and reasonable judgment, while restricting it from making an arbitral judgment, and, to notify the subject party of the grounds for disposition for the sake of his/her convenience when appealing against the disposition. However, the disposition standards have another function in line with the former function (or preceding the former function) in that, when the administrative agency establishes standards for rendering dispositions and makes them thoroughly known within its organization, the standards will contribute to the strict and prompt execution of adverse dispositions, and will also serve as leading guidelines for predicting the progress of the hearings that are held before rendering an adverse disposition, as well as the content of the disposition to be rendered. Thus, the disposition standards perform various functions in the respective stages of the procedure concerning adverse dispositions. Therefore, I find it too hasty and rigid and therefore cannot agree to construe that, just because the disposition standards have been established and made available to the public, the details of the facts or the application of the standards need to be clearly indicated as part of the grounds for disposition in accordance with the standards, or draw a construction that the lack of such indication constitutes the reason for revocation of the disposition in any case. Disposition standards may vary depending on the subject of adverse dispositions, ranging from the standards that require a clear indication of the details of the application thereof in order to show the complete grounds for disposition to those that do not require such indication. Under Article 12, paragraph (1) and Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, it should be justified that there are a variety of standards in terms of the extent of details in the showing of the grounds for disposition.
(2) During the hearings held before rendering an adverse disposition, the subject party is given the opportunity to acquire sufficient information and make a rebuttal on the existence or nonexistence and the degree of his/her violation and the appropriate content of the adverse disposition to be rendered thereto. This procedure can be expected to be helpful to a certain extent in ensuring that the administrative agency that is to render a disposition will make a deliberate and reasonable judgment, while restricting it from making an arbitral judgment, and notifying the subject party of the grounds for disposition for the sake of his/her convenience when appealing against the disposition. In this sense, the showing of the grounds for an adverse disposition and the hearings partially overlap and complement each other in terms of their functions.
In particular, in the case of hearings for professionals with state qualifications, such as first-class architects, the subject party is in the position to acquire more detailed and advanced information in quality and quantity than that available to ordinary people, with regard to the matters concerning the adverse disposition that directly affects his/her acquisition or loss of the qualification. As professionals must comply with their professional ethics as an essential requirement for maintaining their qualification, they are also supposed to know well about such ethics, including the contents of the disposition standards. Assuming so, a first-class architect who is to be subject to an adverse disposition must have become ready to predict the possible adverse disposition to be rendered to him/her by the time of the commencement of the hearings, which took place before the Disposition of Rescission of License was rendered, at the latest, and he/she is also able to acquire further detailed information during the hearings. The question remains as to whether, even in such case, it is necessary to firmly stick to the principle that an adverse disposition itself shall be illegal in any case unless the details of the application of the disposition standards are clearly indicated as part of the grounds for the disposition. Rather, it would be sufficient to determine the necessity to indicate such details on a case-by-case basis.
On the other hand, there is another view that the grounds for disposition can be shown in more detail after hearings. However, the grounds for an adverse disposition contain information that must not be clearly indicated for the benefit of the subject party, or information that is not suitable to be documented for its quality or quantity. Procedural justice is not something that cannot be achieved in any case unless it is evidenced in writing.
(3) As Justice TAHARA points out in his concurring opinion, a set of judicial precedents concerning the requirement of a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition when rendering an administrative disposition have been formed mainly in the area of tax laws. However, these judicial precedents under tax laws have been based on the premise that some tax law provisions including Article 45, paragraph (2) of the Income Tax Act (previously in force) require a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition to be appended to notices of reassessment, etc., and have been established as the construction of these provisions. Needless to say, these provisions requiring a supplementary note had their own legislative purposes and objectives, because of which these judicial precedents have presented said conclusion as the construction of the relevant laws. In tax law cases, there are special and inherent circumstances such as that it is necessary to indicate the amount of money and other numerals in detail and with accuracy, and the grounds for an adverse disposition without such indication would be unacceptable as proper grounds. On the other hand, with regard to an adverse disposition concerning disciplinary action under other categories of laws such as the Act on Architects and Building Engineers, there is no provision strictly requiring a supplementary note of the amount of money and other numerals for the same purpose as that under tax laws, and there seem to be no practical circumstances where such note is necessary. It is only that administrative agencies have the duty to show the grounds for disposition under Article14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act that has been subsequently enacted. This provision should be applied to adverse dispositions rendered by administrative agencies in general, except in the exceptional cases provided in Article 3, etc. of said Act. Therefore, also in terms of the content and extent of the grounds for disposition, said provision should be construed and handled as a flexible principle that is applicable to various types of facts. From this perspective, among the rules of a supplementary note of the grounds for disposition, it requires caution to consider that the rule that "the grounds for disposition need to be clear from the statement of the note thereof" and the rule that "the grounds for disposition need to be also clear to a third party from the statement thereof, irrespective of whether or not the subject party can conjecture the grounds" (see 1(iii) and (iv) of the concurring opinion by Justice TAHARA) are applicable without modification, with regard to adverse dispositions in areas other than tax law-related areas, under Article 12, paragraph (1) and Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

4. Perspective of efficiency in court proceedings
In this case, as the majority opinion does, it is not logically impossible for this court to quash the judgment in prior instance and render its own judgment to uphold the claims of Appellant X1 and the appellant company and revoke the Disposition of Rescission of License, as a judgment in consideration of the circumstances of the case. However in that case, the administrative agency that rendered the disposition might render the same disposition of rescission of license again through the same disciplinary procedure as it had conducted previously, while this time clearly indicating the details of the application of the disposition standards as part of the grounds for disposition, and as a result, the subsequent disposition would be brought to the court again. Such situation can be somewhat positively appreciated from the perspective of pursuing procedural justice, but from the perspective of efficiency in court proceedings, or in consideration of the time, labor, and cost to be required for such repetition of the procedure, there is no choice, in a sense, but to make a judgment to the contrary. In view of the above, it is appropriate to maintain the ruling of the court of prior instance, and I cannot agree with the majority opinion that is contrary to it.

Justice OKABE Kiyoko is in agreement with the dissenting opinion by Justice NASU Kohei.

Justice OKABE Kiyoko
Justice NASU Kohei
Justice TAHARA Mutsuo
Justice OTANI Takehiko
Justice TERADA Itsuro