2024.09.13

2022 (Gyo-Hi) 352

Minshu Vol. 78, No. 4

(Civil Case)Judgment concerning the meaning of the phrase "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in Article 50 of the "Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Insurance Benefits of Employees' Pension Insurance in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans" (Cabinet Order No. 343 of 2015)

Case seeking a declaratory judgment on the invalidity of the dispositions to reduce the amounts of the mutual aid pension for retirement and the employees' old-age pension, or seeking revocation of these dispositions

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

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of July 20, 2022

1. The phrase "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in Article 50 of the "Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Insurance Benefits of Employees' Pension Insurance in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans" (Cabinet Order No. 343 of 2015) means a person who, after the effective date of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012), continuously has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to a specific applicable place of business, which the person has held since before that date.

2. The phrase "the person who has continuously been the insured as prescribed in Article 27 of the amended Employees' Pension Insurance Act … since before the effective date" as referred to in Article 15, paragraph (3) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012; prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 17, paragraph (2) of the same Supplementary Provisions (following the replacement of terms pursuant to Article 36, paragraph (1) of the "Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Long-term Benefits under the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans and of the Act Partially Amending the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act and the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans" (Cabinet Order No. 347 of 2015; prior to the amendment by Cabinet Order No. 229 of 2021)) means a person who, after the effective date of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012), continuously has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to a specific applicable place of business, which the person has held since before that date.

(Concerning 1 and 2) Article 15, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012; prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020)

(Concerning 1) Article 50 of the Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Insurance Benefits under Employees' Pension Insurance in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Cabinet Order No. 343 of 2015)

(Concerning 2) Article 15, paragraph (3) and Article 17, paragraph (2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012; prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020); Article 36, paragraph (1) of the Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Long-term Benefits under the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans and of the Act Partially Amending the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act and the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Cabinet Order No. 347 of 2015; prior to the amendment by Cabinet Order No. 229 of 2021)

1. The third to fifth paragraphs in the main text of the judgment in prior instance are modified as follows.

All the other claims filed by the appellee of final appeal are dismissed.

2. The total court costs shall be borne by the appellee of final appeal.

Concerning the reasons for a petition for acceptance of final appeal stated by the counsel for final appeal in 2022 (Gyo-Hi) 352, SHIMIZU Tsunehiro, MIZOUCHI Kensuke, and SHIMIZU Hikaru, and the counsel for final appeal in 2022 (Gyo-Hi) 353, HARUNA Shigeru, et al.

1. Since before the day on which the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans (Act No. 63 of 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "Integration Act") came into effect (October 1, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "effective date of the Integration Act"), the appellee of final appeal had received the payment of employees' old-age pension as special benefits under Article 8 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Employees' Pension Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "EPI Act") (hereinafter referred to as "employees' special old-age pension") and mutual aid pension for retirement as special benefits under Article 19 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act (prior to the amendment by the Integration Act; the same applies hereinafter) (hereinafter referred to as "special mutual aid pension for retirement"). The appellee received dispositions from the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare and the Appellee Mutual Aid Association to suspend the payment of some portions of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement from May 2016. The appellee also received dispositions from the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare and the Appellee Mutual Aid Association to reduce the amounts of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement from April 2017.

In this case, out of the dispositions mentioned above, the appellee filed an action against the appellants to seek the revocation of three dispositions, excluding the disposition to suspend the payment of some portions of the employees' special old-age pension (hereinafter these three dispositions are referred to as the "Dispositions"), and also seek the payment of the special mutual aid pension for retirement subject to the abovementioned suspension of payment.

2. The outline of the provisions of laws and regulations and the system for payment, etc. of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement is as follows.

The employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement are paid even to those aged under 65 if they satisfy the prescribed requirements such as being aged 60 or over (Article 8 of the Supplementary Provisions of the EPI Act and Article 19 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act). However, if the beneficiaries of these pensions are in active service and receive wages, the payment of some or all portions of these pensions may be suspended (hereinafter referred to as "suspension of payment due to active service").

Before the Integration Act came into effect, the requirements for suspension of payment due to active service regarding the special mutual aid pension for retirement had been stricter than the requirements for suspension of payment due to active service regarding the employees' special old-age pension. Under the Integration Act, the former requirements were changed to coincide with the latter, and on this occasion, measures were established in consideration of the beneficiaries of the special mutual aid pension for retirement, such as setting an upper limit to the reduction in payment resulting from the suspension of payment due to active service.

Among the measures taken in consideration mentioned above, Article 15, paragraph (2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Integration Act (prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020) specifies the measures concerning the suspension of payment due to active service regarding the employees' special old-age pension in the case where a beneficiary of the employees' special old-age pension who is also a beneficiary of the special mutual aid pension for retirement has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance around the effective date of the Integration Act. The scope of application of this paragraph is defined by Article 50 of the "Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Insurance Benefits of Employees' Pension Insurance in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans" (Cabinet Order No. 343 of 2015) (hereinafter referred to as "Provision 1"), according to which the same paragraph applies if a beneficiary of the employees' special old-age pension who is also a beneficiary of the special mutual aid pension for retirement is the insured under the employees' pension insurance (limited to category I EPI insured) and is "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in the Integration Act.

In addition, the measures taken in consideration concerning the suspension of payment due to active service regarding the special mutual aid pension for retirement in the abovementioned case (hereinafter these measures taken in consideration and the abovementioned measures taken in consideration concerning the suspension of payment due to active service regarding the employees' special old-age pension are collectively referred to as the "Measures Taken in Consideration") are specified by Article 15, paragraph (3) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Integration Act (prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020) as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 17, paragraph (2) of the same Supplementary Provisions (following the replacement of terms pursuant to Article 36, paragraph (1) of the "Cabinet Order on Transitional Measures Concerning Long-term Benefits under the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act in Line with the Enforcement of the Act Partially Amending the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans and of the Act Partially Amending the Local Public Officers, etc. Mutual Aid Association Act and the Act Partially Amending the Employees' Pension Insurance Act for the Integration of Employees' Pension Plans" (Cabinet Order No. 347 of 2015; prior to the amendment by Cabinet Order No. 229 of 2021); hereinafter referred to as "Provision 2"), according to which Article 15, paragraph (2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the Integration Act (prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020) governs if a beneficiary of the employees' special old-age pension who is also a beneficiary of the special mutual aid pension for retirement falls within the scope of "the person who has continuously been the insured as prescribed in Article 27 of the amended Employees' Pension Insurance Act … since before the effective date" as referred to in the Integration Act. Article 27 of the EPI Act (prior to the amendment by Act No. 40 of 2020) provides that the scope of the insured as prescribed in the same Article includes those aged 70 or over who had been the insured and who satisfy the prescribed requirements.

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

(1) The appellee (born in MMYY) was employed as a teacher of the Tokyo Metropolis and acquired the membership for the Appellant Mutual Aid Association on April 1, 1981, and then acquired the right to receive benefits under the special mutual aid pension for retirement in September 2012, but the payment of the pension was suspended due to active service because the appellee was in active service. Upon retirement on March 31, 2013, the appellee forfeited the abovementioned membership and became eligible to receive the payment of the special mutual aid pension for retirement from April 2013.

(2) On April 1, 2013, the appellee was appointed as a part-time teacher of the Tokyo Metropolis and started working at Tokyo Metropolitan High School B (hereinafter referred to as " High School B"). In the case of Tokyo metropolitan high schools, each school is the applicable place of business under an employees' pension insurance. On the same day, the appellee acquired the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School B as the applicable place of business.

The appellee acquired the right to receive benefits under the employees' special old-age pension on April 1, 2014, and started to receive the pension from May 2014.

After the effective date of the Integration Act (October 1, 2015), the appellee received the full amounts of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement through the application of the Measures Taken in Consideration.

(3) The appellee finished working at High School B on March 31, 2016, and started working at Tokyo Metropolitan High School C (hereinafter referred to as "High School C") as a part-time teacher on April 1, 2016. As a result, on the same day, the appellee forfeited the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School B as the applicable place of business, and acquired the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School C as the applicable place of business.

(4) The Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare issued a disposition to the appellee, dated June 7, 2016, to suspend payment due to active service regarding some portions of the employees' special old-age pension from May 2016, on the grounds that the appellee forfeited the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School B as the applicable place of business and therefore ceased to satisfy the requirements for the Measures Taken in Consideration regarding the employees' special old-age pension. The Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare also issued a disposition to the appellee, dated June 1, 2017, to reduce the amount of the employees' special old-age pension from April 2017, on the grounds of the decline in prices.

The Appellant Mutual Aid Association issued a disposition to the appellee, dated July 7, 2016, to suspend payment due to active service regarding some portions of the special mutual aid pension for retirement from May 2016, on the grounds that the appellee forfeited the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School B as the applicable place of business and therefore ceased to satisfy the requirements for the Measures Taken in Consideration regarding the special mutual aid pension for retirement. The Appellant Mutual Aid Association also issued a disposition to the appellee, dated June 1, 2017, to reduce the amount of the special mutual aid pension for retirement from April 2017, on the grounds of the decline in prices.

4. Based on the facts mentioned above, the court of prior instance determined as summarized below, and it ruled that the Dispositions are illegal and upheld the appellee's claim for their revocation, and also partially upheld the appellee's claim for the payment of the special mutual aid pension for retirement.

It is appropriate to construe that in cases where an employee's applicable place of business has changed for reasons such as the transfer within the corporation that has more than one applicable place of business, but the employee continues to work within the same corporation and the employment conditions concerning compensation remains unchanged, the employee is regarded as being equivalent to the person prescribed in Provision 1 and the person prescribed in Provision 2 and the Measures Taken in Consideration are applicable thereto. As this case fall under such cases, the Measures Taken in Consideration should be applied to the payment of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement to the appellee for May 2016 and thereafter.

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

(1) As one of the requirements for applying the Measures Taken in Consideration to an employee, Provision 1 provides that the employee must continuously have the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance since before the effective date of the Integration Act. As a general rule, the EPI Act provides that an employee acquires or forfeits the status of the insured under an employees' pension insurance on the grounds of being employed or ceasing to be employed at the relevant applicable place of business (Article 6, paragraph (1), Article 9, Article 13, paragraph (1), Article 14, item (ii), etc.), thus it is understood that the EPI Act is intended to identify the status of the insured under an employees' pension insurance for each applicable place of business. Accordingly, the phrase "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in Provision 1 is interpreted as meaning a person who, after the effective date of the Integration Act, continuously has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to a specific applicable place of business, which the person has held since before that date, and not including a person who had been employed at a specific applicable place of business since before that date and then has been employed at another applicable place of business on or after that date and has ceased to be employed at that specific applicable place of business, and as a result, has forfeited the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to that specific applicable place of business. Such interpretation is consistent with the design of the employees' pension insurance system described above and is in line with the literal meaning of Provision 1.

The court of prior instance determined that even if an employee's applicable place of business has changed, the employee should be regarded as being equivalent to the person prescribed in Provision 1 depending on the specific facts concerning their employment conditions, etc. before and after the change. However, such view is contrary to the intention of Provision 1, that is, to clarify the scope of application of the Measures Taken in Consideration based on the necessity to deal with a large amount of administrative affairs relating to pension uniformly and equitably. What is more, that view cannot be said to be appropriate even in light of the fact that under the EPI Act and other related laws and regulations, there are no provisions concerning the case of a transfer between the applicable places of business which require the employer to report the amount of remuneration, etc. at the former applicable place of business as of the time of the transfer.

According to the above, it is appropriate to interpret that phrase "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in Provision 1 as meaning a person who, after the effective date of the Integration Act, continuously has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to a specific applicable place of business, which the person has held since before that date.

(2) The phrase "the person who has continuously been the insured as prescribed in Article 27 of the amended Employees' Pension Insurance Act … since before the effective date" as referred to in Provision 2 should be interpreted as having the same meaning as the phrase "the person who has continuously had the status of the insured since before the effective date" as referred to in Provision 1, in light of the fact that the phrase in Provision 2 has the same wording as that in Provision 1, as well as the background that led up to the establishment of the Measures Taken in Consideration respectively for the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement as described above.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to interpret the phrase "the person who has continuously been the insured as prescribed in Article 27 of the amended Employees' Pension Insurance Act … since before the effective date" as referred to in Provision 2 as meaning a person who, after the effective date of the Integration Act, continuously has the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to a specific applicable place of business, which the person has held since before that date.

(3) According to the facts mentioned above, on April 1, 2016, the appellee forfeited the status of the insured under the employees' pension insurance relating to High School B as the applicable place of business, which the appellee had held since before the effective date of the Integration Act. As a result of this, the appellee should be regarded as being no longer the person prescribed in Provision 1 and the person prescribed in Provision 2, and the Measures Taken in Consideration do not apply to the payment of the employees' special old-age pension and the special mutual aid pension for retirement to the appellee for May 2016 and thereafter.

6. According to the above, the abovementioned determination by the court of prior instance contains a violation of law or regulation that has clearly influenced the judgment, and the arguments of the appellants' counsel are well-grounded. Based on the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the other arguments of the appellee cannot be accepted, and therefore, the appellee's claim for the revocation of the Dispositions is groundless, and the part of the appellee's claim for the payment of the special mutual aid pension for retirement that was upheld by the court of prior instance is also groundless. Consequently, these claims should be dismissed, and hence, the third to fifth paragraphs of the main text of the judgment in prior instance are modified as indicated in the first paragraph of the main text of this judgment.

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

Justice OKAMURA Kazumi

Justice MIURA Mamoru

Justice KUSANO Koichi

Justice OJIMA Akira