2022.08.16

2022 (Kyo) 6

Minshu Vol. 76, No. 6

Decision concerning the case of an appeal with permission against the ruling to dismiss with prejudice on the merits an appeal against a disposition of execution against the ruling to dismiss without prejudice a petition for an order of seizure of a claim

Case of appeal with permission against the ruling to dismiss with prejudice on the merits an appeal against a disposition of execution against the ruling to dismiss without prejudice a petition for an order of seizure of a claim

Decision of the Third Petty Bench, dismissed

Hiroshima High Court, Decision of November 24, 2021

Compulsory execution may not be carried out against the right to receive payment of incentive remuneration prescribed in Article 98 of the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees.

Article 98 of the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees, Article 143 of the Civil Execution Act

Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees
(Work Incentives)
Article 98(1) Wardens of penal institutions are to pay sentenced persons who have engaged in work the incentive remuneration equivalent to the calculated amount of incentive remuneration at the time of their release (or when a sentenced person has become an inmate other than a sentenced person).
(2) Wardens of penal institutions are to each month, pursuant to Ministry of Justice Order, add the amount of money calculated by taking into consideration a sentenced person's results in the workplace and other factors related to the work in accordance with the standards provided for by the Minister of Justice as the amount of money corresponding to the work which the sentenced person accomplished in the previous month to the calculated amount of incentive remuneration; provided, however, that additions in relation to work in the same month as in which the day of release falls are to be carried out by wardens of penal institutions at the time of release.
(3) The standards prescribed in the preceding paragraph are determined by taking into consideration relevant factors such as the kind and content of the work or the knowledge and skills required for it.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), when a sentenced person requests to receive incentive remuneration before their release, if it is deemed that the intended use of the incentive remuneration is reasonable, such as the purchase of self-supplied articles, etc., support for their relatives, or appropriation for victim compensation, then wardens of penal institutions may, pursuant to Ministry of Justice Order, pay them all of or a part of the amount in the request within the limit of the amount equivalent to the expected amount of incentive remuneration at the time of payment. In this case, wardens of penal institutions are to deduct the amount equivalent to the payment from the expected amount of incentive remuneration due.
(5) When a sentenced person falls under any of the following items, if the sentenced person has not been committed to the penal institution until the day on which six months starting from the day stipulated in each respective item expires, then the calculated amount of incentive remuneration is zero:
(i) cases where the sentenced person has escaped:The day of the escape;
(ii) cases where the inmate has been released pursuant to the provisions of Article 83, paragraph (2) but failed to appear at the location prescribed in paragraph (3) of the same Article promptly after the conditions which entailed the evacuation ceased to exist:The day the conditions which entailed the evacuation ceased to exist;
(iii) cases of outside work with commutes, or a day leave or a furlough pursuant to the provisions of Article 106, paragraph (1) where the inmate has failed to return to the penal institution by the date and time specified by wardens of penal institutions:That date.

Civil Execution Act
(Commencement of Execution against a Claim)
Article 143 Compulsory execution against a claim for payment of money or delivery of a vessel or movables (excluding a claim for which securities subject to execution against movables have been issued; hereinafter referred to as a "claim" in this Section) (such compulsory execution shall exclude the execution against a claim relating to an action on small claim prescribed in Article 167-2 (2); hereinafter referred to as "execution against a claim" in this Section) shall be commenced through an order of seizure by an execution court.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

Concerning the reasons for appeal stated by the counsel for appeal, MATOBA Yuki, MATOBA Hiroyuki, and TAKEO Hitoshi

1. Article 98 of the Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees provides for payment of incentive remuneration to sentenced persons who have engaged in work. It is understood that the purpose of this Article is to contribute to reformation and rehabilitation of sentenced persons and their smooth re-integration into society by encouraging them to engage in work by increasing their incentive to work and securing funds to be appropriated for their temporary living expenses, etc. after their release. It is clear that this purpose cannot be achieved if persons other than sentenced persons who have engaged in work receive incentive remuneration. Thus, it is appropriate to consider that the right to receive payment of incentive remuneration prescribed in that Article is in nature prohibited from being transferred to others, and that it is not subject to compulsory execution. Consequently, it should be said that compulsory execution may not be carried out against the abovementioned right. The same applies where a victim of a crime committed by a sentenced person files a petition for compulsory execution.

2. According to the above, the determination of the court of prior instance which concluded that the appellant's petition to seek the seizure of the abovementioned right as compulsory execution against that right should be dismissed without prejudice can be upheld. The appeal counsel's arguments cannot be accepted.

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

Justice WATANABE Eriko

Justice UGA Katsuya

Justice HAYASHI Michiharu

Justice NAGAMINE Yasumasa