| 2023(Ju)1319 |
Case number: 2023(Ju)1319
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled:1. the provisions on eugenic operations under the Eugenic Protection Act (Article 3, paragraph (1), items (i) to (iii), Article 10, and Article 13, paragraph (2) of the same Act) are in violation of Article 13 and Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Constitution;2. the legislative act by the Diet members regarding the provisions on eugenic operations is judged to be illegal in terms of the application of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act;3. if it is extremely contrary to the principles of justice and fairness and totally unacceptable to determine that a claim for compensation for loss or damage arising from a tort has been extinguished by the expiration of the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017), the court may determine that the assertion on the period of exclusion is impermissible as it constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights; and4. it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the same Code.
|
| 2023(Ju)1319 |
Case number: 2023(Ju)1319
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled:1. the provisions on eugenic operations under the Eugenic Protection Act (Article 3, paragraph (1), items (i) to (iii), Article 10, and Article 13, paragraph (2) of the same Act) are in violation of Article 13 and Article 14, paragraph (1) of the Constitution;2. the legislative act by the Diet members regarding the provisions on eugenic operations are judged to be illegal in terms of the application of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the State Redress Act;3. if it is extremely contrary to the principles of justice and fairness and totally unacceptable to determine that a claim for compensation for loss or damage arising from a tort has been extinguished by the expiration of the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017), the court may determine that the assertion on the period of exclusion is impermissible as it constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith or an abuse of rights; and4. it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the same Code.
|
| 2022(Ju)1050 |
Case number: 2022(Ju)1050
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled that it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)
|
| 2022(Ju)1411 |
Case number: 2022(Ju)1411
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled that it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)
|
| 2023(O)1341 |
Case number: 2023(O)1341
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled that it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)
|
| 2023(Ju)1323 |
Case number: 2023(Ju)1323
Date of the judgment (decision): 2024.07.03
Title: (Civil Case)Judgment concerning a case in which the court ruled that it is contrary to the principle of good faith and impermissible as an abuse of rights to assert the period of exclusion prescribed in the second sentence of Article 724 of the Civil Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 44 of 2017)
|
