2021.06.04

2020 (Gyo-Hi) 133

Minshu Vol. 75, No. 7

Judgment concerning the case in which the court determined that a support corporation for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims that has made decisions to pay support grants for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims under the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims may rescind the decisions on the grounds that a finding concerning the requirement for payment contains an error

Principal action seeking rescission of dispositions rescinding decisions to pay support grants for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims, counterclaim seeking return of unjust enrichment, case seeking return of unjust enrichment

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

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of December 4, 2019

Where a decision to pay a support grant for reconstructing the livelihood of a disaster victim was made under the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims based on the finding that a household that has suffered damage due to the Great East Japan Earthquake falls under the household whose housing unit has been seriously destroyed, under circumstances held in this judgment, such as the fact that the degree of damage to the housing unit in which the household resides is objectively not considered to fall under a partly destroyed housing unit, a support corporation for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims that has made the decision may rescind the decision on the grounds that the aforementioned finding contains an error.

Article 2, item (ii) of the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims (prior to amendment by Act No. 69 of 2020) and Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims

Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims
(Definitions)
Article 2　In this Act, the meanings of the terms set forth in the following items are prescribed in those items:
(i)　natural disaster:　damage caused by a storm, heavy rain, heavy snow, flood, storm surge, earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, and any other abnormal natural phenomenon; and
(ii)　affected household: any of the following households that has suffered damage due to a natural disaster specified by Cabinet Order:
(a)　a household whose housing unit has been totally destroyed by the natural disaster;
(b)　a household whose housing unit has been partly destroyed or whose housing site has been damaged by the natural disaster, and which has demolished the housing unit or has had it demolished due to the necessity to prevent danger caused by a collapse of the housing unit, due to the extremely expensive repair costs necessary for residing in the housing unit, or due to other unavoidable circumstances equivalent thereto;
(c)　a household whose housing unit has become uninhabitable because of the continuing danger of damage due to pyroclastic flow, etc. caused by the natural disaster or for other reasons, with the uninhabitable state being likely to last for a long period; or
(d)　a household whose housing unit has been partly destroyed by the natural disaster, if it is found to be difficult to reside in the housing unit without making a major repair, including repair of its foundation, piles, walls, pillars, etc. specified by Cabinet Order as the major parts for maintaining its structural strength (excluding the households set forth in (b) and (c); referred to as a "household with a seriously damaged housing unit" in the following Article).

(Payment of Support Grants for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims)
Article 3 (1) A prefecture is to pay support grants for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims (hereinafter referred to as "support grants") to heads of the affected households within its area based on applications from those heads.

Paragraph 1 of the main text of the judgment in prior instance is quashed.

The appeal to the court of second instance filed by the appellees of final appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal to the court of second instance and the costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the appellees.

Concerning the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, HASHIMOTO Isamu

1. The appellant is a support corporation for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims (hereinafter referred to as a "support corporation") that was entrusted with the affairs relating to the payment of support grants for reconstructing livelihoods of disaster victims (hereinafter referred to as "support grants") by Miyagi Prefecture under the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims (prior to amendment by Act No. 69 of 2020; hereinafter referred to as the "Support Act"). The appellees are persons who have received the payment of support grants from the appellant or the heirs of such persons (hereinafter these paid support grants are referred to as the "Support Grants").

The appellant had made decisions to pay the Support Grants (the "Decisions to Pay"), but later made decisions to rescind the Decisions to Pay (the "Decisions to Rescind") on the grounds of an error in the finding concerning the requirement for payment. Therefore, in the principal action in question, the appellees argue that it is not permitted to rescind the Decisions to Pay and demand that the appellant rescind the Decisions to Rescind. In the counterclaim in question, the appellant argues that the appellees lost the legal cause of holding the Support Grants due to the Decisions to Rescind and demands that the appellees return unjust enrichment in the amount equivalent to the amount of the Support Grants.

2. The provisions of laws and regulations relating to this case and the outline of facts lawfully determined by the court of prior instance are as follows.

(1)A. Article 2, item (ii) of the Support Act provides that the term "affected household" as used in the same Act means a household that has suffered damage due to a natural disaster specified by Cabinet Order (item (i) of the same Article) as set forth in (a) to (d) of item (ii) of the same Article. Each of (a) to (c) of the same item sets forth a household whose housing unit has been totally destroyed, a household which has demolished its housing unit or has had its housing unit demolished for a certain reason, and a household whose housing unit has become uninhabitable for a certain reason with the uninhabitable state being likely to last for a long period, respectively. (d) of the same item sets forth a household whose housing unit has been partly destroyed by the natural disaster and for which it is found to be difficult to reside in the housing unit without making a major repair, including repair of its foundation, piles, walls, pillars, etc. specified by Cabinet Order as the major parts for maintaining its structural strength (excluding the households set forth in (b) and (c) of the same item; hereinafter referred to as a "household whose housing unit has been seriously destroyed"). Incidentally, in relation to areas of Miyagi Prefecture, the Great East Japan Earthquake falls under the aforementioned natural disaster specified by Cabinet Order.

B. Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Support Act provides that a prefecture is to pay support grants to heads of the affected households within its areas based on applications from those heads.

(2)A. In response to delegation under Article 5 of the Support Act, Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Order for Enforcement of the Act Concerning Support for Reconstructing Livelihoods of Disaster Victims (prior to amendment by Cabinet Order No. 341 of 2020) provides that an application for the payment of a support grant (excluding those pertaining to the amounts prescribed in the items of Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Support Act, etc.) must be filed by submitting a written application with a document proving that the relevant household is an affected household and other documents by the prescribed date. At the time when the Decisions to Pay were made, a disaster victim certificate issued by a municipality was handled as one that falls under the aforementioned document.

B. The Disaster Victim Certificate Handling Manual of Sendai City (decided by the deputy mayor on March 25, 2004) provided that a disaster victim certificate is to be issued as a document that proves the degree of damage to a house due to an earthquake, wind or flood disaster or any other disaster equivalent thereto only in the case where the fact of such damage can be confirmed.

C. As a standard investigation and determination method pertaining to the finding of damage to a house conducted by a municipality, the Guidelines for Application of Standards for Finding Damage to Houses Due to Disasters (after the revision in June 2009) prepared by the Cabinet Office (Disaster Management) provided as follows: [i] the degree of damage to a house is classified into four categories, "totally destroyed," "seriously destroyed," "partly destroyed," and "damaged at a level below the level of being partly destroyed" (hereinafter referred to as "partly damaged"); regarding damage due to an earthquake, a house for which the sum of the percentage of damage for each part is 40% or more and less than 50% is considered to be seriously destroyed, a house for which said sum is 20% or more and less than 40% is considered to be partly destroyed, and a house for which said sum is less than 20% is considered to be partly damaged; [ii] damage to a housing complex is, in principle, determined in terms of the entirety of the housing complex, and the determination result is found as the determination of damage to each dwelling unit; [iii] damage due to an earthquake is, in principle, investigated by visual appearance investigation.

By an administrative circular dated March 31, 2011, the Counselor for Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction to the Director General for Disaster Management of the Cabinet Office indicated a simpler investigation method for damage to houses due to the Great East Japan Earthquake for the prompt finding of damage. In response to this, Sendai City prepared an investigation sheet that lists the items to be confirmed during investigation in relation to damage to non-wooden buildings due to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

(3)A. Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Support Act provides that a prefecture may entrust the whole of the affairs relating to the payment of support grants to a support corporation.

B. The appellant is a public interest incorporated foundation designated as a support corporation that is entrusted with the whole of the aforementioned affairs by Miyagi Prefecture.

C. Article 9, paragraph (2) of the Support Act provides that a prefecture is to contribute money to a support corporation as necessary for financing a fund for managing operations relating to the aforementioned payment, etc., from the perspective of mutual support and in consideration of the number of households and other circumstances within its areas. Article 18 of the Support Act and Article 5-2, paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Financial Support and Subsidy to Deal with the Great East Japan Earthquake provide that for the Great East Japan Earthquake, the State is to subsidize the amount equivalent to four-fifths of the amount of support grants paid by a support corporation.

(4) The appellees (excluding Appellees X2, X3, X4, X5, and X6), the appellee prior to succession X7, and deceased P are the heads of households that resided in the proprietary elements of one condominium located in A-ku, Sendai City (hereinafter referred to as the "Condominium") as of March 11, 2011, the day on which the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred (hereinafter these heads of households are collectively referred to as the "Heads of Households" and their households are referred to as the "Households").

The Condominium is a 14-story reinforced concrete structure, and it is one of the nine buildings that form a condominium complex.

(5)A. On May 11, 2011, upon application from the management association of the Condominium, A-ku investigated the situation of damage to the Condominium by a method that utilized the aforementioned investigation sheet and found that the sum of the percentage of damage for each part is 16% and that the Condominium thus falls under a partly damaged building. Based on this finding, on May 27, 2011, the mayor of A-ku issued to the residents in the Condominium including the Heads of Households, disaster victim certificates proving that the Condominium is damaged to the extent of falling under a partly damaged building due to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

B. Upon application for reinvestigation from the residents in the Condominium, A-ku investigated the situation of damage to the Condominium again by a method that utilized the aforementioned investigation sheet on August 20, 2011 (hereinafter this investigation is referred to as the "Investigation"). As a result of the Investigation, A-ku determined that peeling is recognized at the connection between the bottom of the stairs and the beam in the common elements and found that the sum of the percentage of damage for each part is 46% and that the Condominium thus falls under a seriously destroyed building. Based on this finding, on August 30, 2011, the mayor of A-ku issued to the Heads of Households disaster victim certificates proving that the Condominium is damaged to the extent of falling under a seriously destroyed building due to the Great East Japan Earthquake (hereinafter these certificates are referred to as the "Certificates").

(6) The Heads of Households filed applications for the payment of a support grant with the appellant, while attaching the Certificates, on and after August 30, 2011. During the period from September 26 to December 13, 2011, the appellant determined that the Households fall under the households whose housing unit has been seriously destroyed and made the Decisions to Pay to the effect that the Support Grants pertaining to the aforementioned applications (375,000 to 1,500,000 yen) are to be paid. The appellant paid the Support Grants thereafter.

(7)A. Upon applications from the management associations of eight buildings other than the Condominium that form the aforementioned condominium complex, on November 13, 2011, A-ku investigated the situation of the damage to the eight buildings and found that none of them is damaged to the extent of falling under a seriously destroyed building. After that, on November 22, 2011, A-ku received a report by the first-class architect who investigated the Condominium that no crack exists at the beam and the peeling found by the Investigation has almost no effect on the structural strength.

B. Therefore, on December 15, 2011, A-ku found that the Condominium falls under a partly damaged building because the sum of the percentage of damage for each part was confirmed to be only 16% as a result of investigating the situation of the damage to the Condominium by a method that utilized the aforementioned investigation sheet by its authority. Based on this finding, the mayor of A-ku held an explanatory meeting for the residents in the Condominium. After that, on February 10, 2012, the mayor of A-ku issued to the Heads of Households disaster victim certificates proving that the Condominium was damaged to the extent of falling under a partly damaged building due to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

(8) On April 26, 2013, in relation to the Heads of Households, the appellant made the Decisions to Rescind to the effect that the Decisions to Pay are rescinded on the grounds that the finding that the Households fall under the households whose housing unit has been seriously destroyed contains an error.

3. Based on the aforementioned facts, the court of prior instance ruled that the Households are not found to fall under the households whose housing units have been seriously destroyed and that the Decisions to Pay contain illegality. However, the court of prior instance determined as summarized below and ruled that the Decisions to Rescind are illegal. Based on the ruling, the court of prior instance upheld the claim for the rescission of the Decisions to Rescind in the principal action and also dismissed the counterclaim for the return of unjust enrichment.

The payment of the support grants without fulfillment of the requirement for the payment undermines the soundness of a fund to which a prefecture contributed money and makes it difficult to achieve the purpose of the Support Act from the financial aspect and is also likely to cause a feeling of unfairness concerning those who received payment and those who did not.

However, if the Decisions to Pay are rescinded, the Heads of Households suffer disadvantages, such as being required to return the Support Grants even if they have already spent them. In addition, the appellant had enjoyed the benefit of being able to promptly and efficiently handle the affairs relating to the payment of support grants by using the disaster victim certificates. In addition, there is no ground for the error in the finding in the Certificates that is attributable to the Heads of Households. Therefore, the appellant should bear the risk of a subsequent change of the content of the Certificates. Then, if the finding of damage made by the Investigation is reversed based on a subsequent expert investigation, this would lead to permitting the process of finding damage in a cautious and detailed manner although a simple investigation method has been formulated in light of the situation following the Great East Japan Earthquake, and may also make persons who have received the payment of support grants hesitate to use them. Such situation cannot be considered to be in line with the purport of the Support Act.

Therefore, it cannot be said that disadvantages caused by the maintenance of the effect of the Decisions to Pay clearly exceed those caused by rescinding the Decisions to Pay, and it cannot be said that it is extremely unreasonable to leave the Decisions to Pay as they are. Therefore, it is not permitted to rescind the Decisions to Pay.

4. However, the aforementioned determination of the court of prior instance cannot be upheld for the following reasons.

(1) The purpose of the Support Act is to support the reconstruction of livelihoods of persons who have suffered substantial damage to the foundations of their livelihoods due to natural disasters, by providing for measures to pay them support grants, and thereby help to stabilize the livelihoods of residents and promote the prompt recovery of affected areas (Article 1). Thus, the requirement for payment of a support grant is just to fall under the "affected household" as defined in Article 2, item (ii) of the Support Act, that is, just to be a household whose housing unit was damaged by the prescribed natural disaster beyond the prescribed level (the same Article and Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Support Act), and whether a relevant household is economically poor does not matter. Moreover, the amount of a support grant is also provided in paragraphs (2) to (5) of the same Article, and it is uniformly determined depending on whether the housing unit of a household falls under the totally destroyed housing unit, etc. as prescribed in Article 2, item (ii), (a) to (c) of the Support Act or the seriously destroyed housing unit as prescribed in (d) of the same item, whether the household is a single-person household, and the fixed amount additions depending on the statuses of building, purchasing, repairing or leasing a housing unit in which the household resides (for the Households, the amount was determined to be 375,000 to 1,500,000 yen). The amount of a support grant is not determined according to the amount of actual loss and the amount necessary for the future rebuilding or repair, etc. of a relevant housing unit.

In light of the aforementioned purpose, content, etc. of the Support Act, the Support Act is considered to adopt the legislative policy of focusing special attention on damage to housing units within the entire damage due to natural disasters and paying support grants only to the households whose housing unit was significantly damaged beyond the prescribed level in the name of consolation payments to comfort disaster victims as a means for achieving its purpose. The Support Act is considered to require a precise finding concerning the fulfillment of the requirement for payment regarding whether a household falls under an affected household, to ensure fairness, and also to require a prompt finding in order to achieve its purpose.

(2)A. According to the aforementioned facts, the degree of damage to the Condominium due to the Great East Japan Earthquake objectively did not go beyond the level of a partly damaged building, and the Households did not fall under the "affected households" as provided in the Support Act though they were suffering damage due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. Therefore, it must be said that the Decisions to Pay were defective in that they contained an error in the finding concerning whether the Households fall under the affected households. According to the explanations made above, this defect should be considered to have affected the basis for finding the fulfillment of the requirement for the payment of a support grant provided in the Support Act.

Incidentally, the cause of the occurrence of the aforementioned defect exists in that the finding concerning the degree of damage to the Condominium in the Certificates issued by the mayor of A-ku contained an error under the situation where whether a household that filed an application fell under the category of affected household was found based on a disaster victim certificate issued by a municipality at the time when the Decisions to Pay were made. This error cannot be considered to have occurred due to any ground attributable to either the appellant or the Heads of Households in light of the fact that issuance of disaster victim certificates is considered to belong to the autonomy-related affairs of a municipality (Article 2, paragraph (8) of the Local Autonomy Act) as well as the factual development of this case and the situation of damage affecting many places at that time, etc. Even with attention focused on the benefit of prompt and efficient handling of the affairs relating to the payment of support grants by using disaster victim certificates, it cannot be said that only the appellant enjoys this benefit. Based on this point and the locus of responsibility for an error in relation to the finding in the Certificates, etc., it cannot be said that the appellant should bear the risk of a change of the content of the Certificates.

B. Further examining disadvantages caused by the maintenance of the effect of the Decisions to Pay, if the effect is maintained, fairness is not ensured in relation to the payment of support grants among a considerable number of households that suffered damage due to the Great East Japan Earthquake. The acceptance of such result will harm the appropriate operation of the system relating to support grants and, eventually, public trust in said system itself.

Moreover, support grants are financed by contributions from prefectures and the State's subsidies (Article 9, paragraph (2), Article 18, etc. of the Support Act), and ultimately, the entire support grants are financed by taxes collected from the citizens and other precious financial resources. If the effect of the Decisions to Pay is maintained, it will harm those financial resources.

Furthermore, while the payment of support grants requires promptness, if it is determined that even the effect of erroneous decisions to pay, such as the Decisions to Pay, is to be maintained, it may trigger municipalities to conduct investigations and finding procedures in an excessively careful and detailed manner to prevent errors upon finding damage due to natural disasters and issuing disaster victim certificates. This is rather likely to harm the promptness of the payment of support grants.

All the situations mentioned above may harm the stable and smooth operation of the system relating to support grants. Therefore, it can be said that disadvantages caused by the maintenance of the effect of the Decisions to Pay have the nature of making it difficult to realize the purpose of the Support Act, the stabilization of the livelihoods of residents and promotion of the prompt recovery of affected areas.

(3) On the other hand, examining disadvantages caused by the rescission of the Decisions to Pay, if the Decisions to Pay are rescinded, the Heads of Households come to be required to return the amount equivalent to the Support Grants though they have trusted the validity of the Decisions to Pay or have already spent the full amount of the Support Grants. The feeling of burden caused thereby must be considered not to be small in consideration of the fact that the Heads of Households have already suffered damage due to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

However, as mentioned above, the Heads of Households originally have no legal standing that enables them to enjoy benefits pertaining to the Support Grants under the Support Act. In addition, the Heads of Households are only required to return money in response to the fact that they have already obtained benefits, and are not required to newly contribute money, etc. In light of these points, it must be said that the result as mentioned above is truly unavoidable.

Incidentally, it is not that there is no risk that the rescission of the Decisions to Pay imposes certain constraint on the benefit of allowing the recipients of support grants in general to use the support grants without hesitation. However, the aforementioned determination is not affected by the existence of such risk.

(4) Taking into account the aforementioned point and the fact that it is hard to say that the period before the rescission of the Decisions to Pay has been unjustly long, disadvantages caused by the maintenance of the effect of the Decisions to Pay that have the aforementioned defect are more serious than those caused by the rescission thereof, and the necessity for the public interest that justifies the rescission thereof is found.

Therefore, it should be said that the appellant may rescind the Decisions to Pay on the grounds that the finding that the Households fall under the households whose housing unit has been seriously destroyed contains an error.

5. The determination of the court of prior instance that differs from the above contains a violation of laws and regulations that has clearly influenced the judgment. The counsel's arguments are well-grounded, and of the judgment in prior instance, the part concerning the appellees (paragraph 1 of the main text of the judgment in prior instance) should inevitably be quashed. According to the explanations made above, the Decisions to Rescind are lawful. Therefore, the claim for the rescission thereof in the principal action is groundless, and the counterclaim for the return of unjust enrichment pertaining to the Support Grants is well-grounded. Consequently, the judgment in first instance that dismissed the claim in the principal action and also upheld the counterclaim is justifiable. Therefore, the appeal to the court of second instance filed by the appellees should be dismissed.

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

Justice KANNO Hiroyuki

Justice MIURA Mamoru

Justice KUSANO Koichi

Justice OKAMURA Kazumi