2024.07.11

2022 (Ju) 2281

Minshu Vol. 78, No. 3

(Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled that an agreement not to sue that was concluded between a religious corporation and its follower is contrary to public policy and invalid

Case seeking compensation for damage

Judgment of the First Petty Bench, quashed and remanded

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of July 7, 2022

1. Given the following circumstances (1) to (4) as described in the judgment, an agreement not to sue that was concluded by means of a document between a religious corporation, Y, and its follower, A, is contrary to public policy and invalid:

(1) at the time of the conclusion of the abovementioned agreement, A was of the advanced age of 86 years old and lived alone, and about six months after that, she was diagnosed as needing an adult guardian due to Alzheimer's dementia;

(2) for about ten years after she started learning the doctrines of Y until she concluded the abovementioned agreement, A donated a sum exceeding 100 million yen according to its doctrines and travelled to South Korea many times to participate in Y's rituals;

(3) followers of Y drafted the abovementioned document and accompanied A to the notary public's office to have the document certified, and after that, they took a video of the scene in which they confirmed A's intention; and

(4) the content of the abovementioned agreement not to sue was that A would not file any actions relating to claims to seek compensation for loss or damage due to tort with regard to the large donations she had made as mentioned above, receiving nothing in return and without making any conditions.

2. With regard to the solicitation of donations caried out by a religious corporation, Y, targeting its follower, A, the court of prior instance held that it is not found that followers of Y notified A of any specific harm that may arise from not making donations during the abovementioned solicitation, and that it is not found that A made excessive donations in light of the status of her assets and standard of living, and holding as such, the court of prior instance determined that it cannot be said that the abovementioned solicitation is illegal under tort law. In making this determination, the court of prior instance did not adopt a framework for making a determination by examining whether the abovementioned solicitation can be regarded as going beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct of solicitation, while comprehensively taking into consideration matters such as whether and to what extent there were circumstances where the solicitation hindered the donor from making an appropriate decision as to whether or not to make a donation, and whether and to what extent there were circumstances where the donations hindered the donor or the spouse, etc. thereof from maintaining their standard of living. Given the following circumstances (1) to (3) as described in the judgment, the determination by the court of prior instance is illegal due to its failure to conduct examination based on the abovementioned framework for determination, as a result of the erroneous interpretation and application of the laws and regulations concerning the illegality of the solicitation of donations:

(1) at the time of making the donations, A was of advanced age at around 80 years old and had various misfortunes in her family;

(2) A made the large donations amounting more than 100 million yen to Y, and she also made donations even by selling her own land, and deposited the remaining amount of the sales proceeds with an organization consisting of Y's followers and made further donations via that organization, while receiving living expenses from that organization; and

(3) the series of A's acts in making the donations were all performed through the solicitation, etc. of Y's followers.

(Concerning 1) Code of Civil Procedure, Part II, Chapter I Actions; Article 90 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)

(Concerning 2) Article 709 of the Civil Code; Article 3, items (i) and (ii) of the Act on Preventing Unjust Solicitation of Donations by Corporations

1. The judgment in prior instance is quashed with respect to the following parts:

(1) the part concerning the parts of the claims filed by the appellant of final appeal against Appellee Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, which are related to the donations specified in the "Donation" column in Attachment 1, to seek payment of the amounts specified in the "Subject of Appeal" column in the same Attachment corresponding to respective donations and delay damages accrued thereon; and

(2) the part concerning the parts of the claims filed by the appellant of final appeal against Appellee Y1, which are related to the donations specified in the "Donation" column in Attachment 2, to seek payment of the amounts specified in the "Subject of Appeal" column in the same Attachment corresponding to respective donations and delay damages accrued thereon.

2. The case is remanded to the Tokyo High Court with respect to the quashed parts mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Concerning the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal, YAMAGUCHI Hiroshi and KIMURA So

1. In this case, with regard to the donations to Appellee Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (a religious corporation; hereinafter referred to as "Appellee Family Federation"), which were made by the late A, who was a follower of Appellee Family Federation, the appellant of final appeal (the late A died while the case was pending before the court of prior instance, and the appellant, the late A's first daughter, succeeded to the late A's status in litigation) alleges that the abovementioned donations were made due to the illegal solicitation by followers of Appellee Family Federation including Appellee Y1, and seeks, inter alia, compensation for damage due to tort from the appellees.

2. The outline of the facts determined by the court of prior instance is as follows.

(1) a. The late A is a woman born in 1929. She married the late B in 1953 and had three daughters. The late A had unfortunate experiences, such as that her sister died young at the age of 11 in 1947, the mother of the late B killed herself in 1959, her second daughter divorced in 1998, and the late B became seriously ill and was repeatedly hospitalized since August 2005.

b. From 2004, the late A started to regularly go to the facility operated by Matsumoto Shintokai (the organization consisting of followers who regularly go to the Matsumoto Church of Appellee Family Federation located in Matsumoto City, Nagano Prefecture) through the introduction by her third daughter, who was a follower of Appellee Family Federation, and from 2005 at the latest, the late A started to learn the doctrines of Appellee Family Federation at the Matsumoto Church, etc. One of the doctrines was that many problems such as illness, accidents and divorce are caused by spirits that harbor resentment, and that in order to escape from the influence of such spirits and live a happy life, it is necessary to make donations to expel the resentment of ancestors in hell.

c. In 2004, the late A held a memorial service for her sister as recommended by followers of Appellee Family Federation, and at least 13 times during the period from 2009 to 2015, she participated in events such as rituals to expel the resentment of ancestors in the training sessions of Appellee Family Federation held in South Korea.

(2) The late A donated a total of 100.58 million yen in over a dozen donations to Appellee Family Federation between 2005 and 2009. In addition, between 2008 to 2010, the late A sold her own land over three times at the total price of about 72.68 million yen, and donated a total of 4.8 million yen out of the sales proceeds to Appellee Family Federation. The late A made these donations (hereinafter referred to as the "Donations") due to the solicitation of donations by followers of Appellee Family Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Solicitation").

The remaining part of the sales proceeds was deposited to Matsumoto Shintokai, and until 2015, out of the deposited amount, a total of about 20.66 million yen was donated to Appellee Family Federation via Matsumoto Shintokai, and a total of about 30.46 million yen was delivered to the late A as her living expenses, etc.

(3) a. The late A lived alone after the death of the late B in 2009. In August 2015, the late A told the appellant the fact that she had made donations to Appellee Family Federation. After that, the late A told a follower of Appellee Family Federation that she had told that fact to the appellant.

b. Around November 2015, C, who was a follower of Appellee Family Federation, was worried that C's son-in-law would demand a refund from Appellee Family Federation regarding the donations that C had made to Appellee Family Federation until then. C consulted with Appellee Y1, who was the manager of the women's group of Matsumoto Shintokai, about this matter, and was told that there was a way to prepare a document at the notary public's office to prevent such demand for refund. The late A heard from C about the preparation of such document, and decided to prepare the same kind of document of her own.

c. In November 2015, the late A went to the notary public's office together with C by the car driven by one of the followers of Appellee Family Federation, and in the presence of a notary public, the late A signed and sealed a document titled "Memorandum," which had been drafted by followers of Appellee Family Federation, and had this document (hereinafter referred to as the "Memorandum") certified by the notary public. The Memorandum stated that the late A promised not to seek from Appellee Family Federation, in and out of court, return of unjust enrichment due to deception, duress or breach of public policy or compensation for loss or damage due to tort, with regard to the donations she had made until then.

Subsequently, the late A went to the Matsumoto Church and submitted the Memorandum to Appellee Family Federation, and as a result, an agreement based on the Memorandum was reached between the late A and Appellee Family Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement Not to Sue"). On this occasion, one of the followers of Appellee Family Federation took a video of the scene in which the late A, while answering the questions from Appellee Y1, affirmed that she had no intention to demand refund of her donations mentioned above.

(4) a. In May 2016, the late A was diagnosed as needing an adult guardian due to Alzheimer's dementia.

b. The late A filed this action in May 2017, and died in July 2021.

3. Based on the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance determined as summarized below, and ruled that the appellant's action relating to the claim against Appellee Family Federation to seek compensation for loss or damage (limited to the part of the claim filed as the successor to the late A) should be dismissed without prejudice and that the appellant's claim against Appellee Y1 should be dismissed with prejudice on the merit.

(1) Even by examining matters such as the content of the Memorandum and the circumstances where it was prepared, it cannot be said that the Agreement Not to Sue is contrary to public policy and invalid. Therefore, the appellant's action against Appellee Family Federation filed in breach of the Agreement Not to Sue is unlawful due to lack of interest in protecting rights.

(2) It is not found that followers of Appellee Family Federation, during the Solicitation, notified the late A of any specific harm that may arise from not making donations, and even if they notified the late A of any harm during part of the Solicitation, it cannot be immediately found that the late A was prevented from making decisions freely. Nor is it found that the late A made excessive donations in light of the status of her assets and standard of living, based solely on the fact that the Donations were made in large amounts and on many occasions. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Solicitation is illegal due to going beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct.

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

(1) Validity of the Agreement Not to Sue

a. The effect of an agreement between private persons to promise not to file an action with the court regarding a specific right or legal relationship (hereinafter referred to as an "agreement not to sue") should not be denied uniformly. However, since such agreement results in restricting the right of access to the court (Article 32 of the Constitution), its validity should be determined carefully. An agreement not to sue is invalid if it is contrary to public policy, and whether an agreement not to sue falls under such case should be determined by comprehensively taking into consideration various circumstances, such as the attributes of the parties to the agreement not to sue and their relationship, how and for what purpose and objective the agreement not to sue was reached, the nature of the right or legal relationship subject to the agreement not to sue, and the degree of disadvantage that the parties would suffer.

b. In this case, when the late A concluded the Agreement Not to Sue, she was of the advanced age of 86 years old and lived alone, and about six months after that, she was diagnosed as needing an adult guardian due to Alzheimer's dementia. For about ten years after she started learning the doctrines of Appellee Family Federation until she concluded the Agreement Not to Sue, the late A donated as much as more than 100 million yen according to its doctrines and travelled to South Korea many times to participate in events such as rituals to expel the resentment of ancestors. Thus, she was psychologically influenced by Appellee Family Federation. Accordingly, it should be said that it was difficult for the late A to calmly judge whether the proposal of Appellee Family Federation is appropriate while taking into account its advantage and disadvantage. In addition, followers of Appellee Family Federation, having learned that the late A had told the fact of her donations to the appellant, drafted the Memorandum and accompanied her to the notary public's office to have the Memorandum certified, and after that, they took a video of the scene in which they confirmed the late A's intention. Thus, the Agreement Not to Sue was entirely concluded under the initiative of followers of Appellee Family Federation. Furthermore, the content of the Agreement Not to Sue was that the late A would not file any actions relating to claims to seek compensation for loss or damage due to tort, with regard to the large donations she had made, which amounted more than 100 million yen, receiving nothing in return and without making any conditions. This could result in depriving the late A of the means to recover from damage caused by the Solicitation, and the late A would suffer a great deal of disadvantage in light of the amount of her donations mentioned above.

As above, it is found that the Agreement Not to Sue was one that unilaterally imposed a significant disadvantage on the late A, taking advantage of the fact that it was difficult for the late A to reasonably determine whether or not to conclude it. Consequently, the Agreement Not to Sue is contrary to public policy and invalid.

(2) Illegality of the Solicitation

a. A religious organization or its followers (hereinafter referred to as a "religious organization, etc.") is permitted to solicit others to make donations to the religious organization (hereinafter referred to as the "solicitation of donations") as part of its religious activities, and the solicitation of donations is not immediately judged to be illegal. However, a donation is an act performed by a person who makes the donation (hereinafter referred to as a "donor") to transfer their property without compensation, and it has a nature that the religious organization unilaterally benefits at the expense of the donor. In addition, the content and degree of the psychological influence that a religious organization has on a donor may vary. Accordingly, depending on the manner of the solicitation or the amount of donation, there is a possibility that a donor would make a donation while being prevented from making a decision freely, and it cannot be denied that there is also a possibility that a donation would bring an unfair disadvantage to a donor. In that case, it goes without saying that a religious organization, etc., in soliciting a donation, must not engage in such act as inciting fear in a donor by notifying them of any harm that may arise from not making a donation, and not only this, a religious organization, etc. is also required to give due consideration to ensuring that the solicitation of a donation does not suppress the free will of a donor, and that a donor who is solicited does not find it difficult to make appropriate decisions as to whether or not to make a donation, and to ensuring that making a donation does not make it difficult for a donor or their spouse or relatives to maintain their standard of living (see Article 3, items (i) and (ii) of the Act on Preventing Unjust Solicitation of Donations by Corporations).

According to the above, it is reasonable to construe that the solicitation of a donation is judged to be illegal under tort law if it is found to go beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct of solicitation, as a result of comprehensively taking into consideration whether and to what extent there were circumstances where the solicitation hindered the donor from making an appropriate decision as to whether or not to make a donation, whether and to what extent there were circumstances where the donations hindered the donor or the spouse, etc. thereof from maintaining their standard of living, and various other circumstances related to the solicitation of a donation. In making a determination on this point, it is necessary to examine not only the rhetoric used in the solicitation and the manner of the solicitation, but also other factors such as the attributes of the donor, their family background, the process through which the donor joined the religious organization and their subsequent relationship with the religious organization, how and for what purpose the donation was made, the amount and financial source of the donation, and the status of assets and standard of living of the donor or their spouse, etc., from multiple perspectives.

b. In this case, in light of the fact that at the time of the Donations, the late A was of the advanced age of around 80 years old and had various misfortunes in her family, it cannot be denied that there is a possibility that the late A had a reduced ability to judge due to aging or that she easily became emotionally unstable. In addition, from 2005, the late A made the large Donations amounting to more than 100 million yen, and from 2008, she made donations even by selling her own land, and donated the remaining amount of the sales proceeds to Matsumoto Shintokai and made further donations via Matsumoto Shintokai, while receiving living expenses from Matsumoto Shintokai. Not only can this manner of making the donations be described as unusual, but the amount of the donations was, in general terms, at a level where it would have had an impact that could not be ignored on the maintenance of the late A's standard of living into the future. The series of the late A's acts in making the Donations and other donations as well as the Agreement Not to Sue relating to these acts were all performed through the solicitation and involvement of followers of Appellee Family Federation.

c. In consideration of these facts, it should be said that there are circumstances that require a careful determination from multiple perspectives as mentioned in a. above with regard to whether the Solicitation goes beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct of solicitation. However, the court of prior instance held that: it is not found that followers of Appellee Family Federation notified the late A of any specific harm during the Solicitation, and even if they notified the late A of any harm during part of the Solicitation, it is not found that the late A was prevented from making decisions freely; and it is not found that the late A made excessive donations in light of the status of her assets and standard of living. Holding as such, the court of prior instance determined that it cannot be said that the Solicitation is illegal due to going beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct, only by individually examining part of the circumstances that should be taken into consideration, and it did not adopt a framework for making a determination by examining whether the Solicitation can be regarded as going beyond the bounds of socially accepted conduct of solicitation in light of the existence or absence and degree of the circumstances mentioned in a. above and in comprehensive consideration of these factors. Accordingly, it should be said that the determination by the court of prior instance is illegal due to its failure to conduct examination based on the abovementioned framework for determination, as a result of the erroneous interpretation and application of the laws and regulations concerning the illegality of the solicitation of donations.

5. According to the above, the determination by the court of prior instance mentioned in 3. above contains a violation of law or regulation that has clearly influenced the judgment. The counsel's arguments are well-grounded in this respect, and the judgment in prior instance should inevitably be quashed with respect to the parts mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment, which is within the scope of appeal, without the need to make a determination on the other arguments of the counsel. The case is remanded to the court of prior instance with respect to the quashed parts, for further examination of issues such as whether the appellees are held liable for tort.

For the reasons stated above, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the judgment.

Attachment 1

Donation: Subject of Appeal (yen)

Row D in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 23,000,000

Row E in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 11,490,000

Row K in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 7,520,000

Row L in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 3,000,000

Row Q in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 790,000

Row R in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 13,000,000

Row T in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 6,000,000

Row U in Attachment 1 of the judgment in prior instance: 1,000,000

Total: 65,800,000

Attachment 2

Donation: Subject of Appeal (yen)

Row D in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 15,333,333

Row E in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 7,660,000

Row K in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 5,013,333

Row L in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 2,000,000

Row Q in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 526,667

Row R in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 8,666,667

Row T in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 4,000,000

Row U in Attachment 2 of the judgment in prior instance: 666,667

Total: 43,866,667

Justice SAKAI Toru

Justice MIYAMA Takuya

Justice YASUNAMI Ryosuke

Justice OKA Masaaki

Justice MIYAGAWA Mitsuko