<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <title>Yosha Bunko</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Shift_JIS" /> <meta name="description" content="Minorities, suicide, anthropology, history, literature, and other aspects of life and death in Japan" /> <link rel="stylesheet" href="../style.css" type="text/css" /> <link rel="icon" href="../favicon.jpg" type="image/jpg" /> </head> <body> <!-- CONTENT --> <div id="content"> <!-- NAV MENU --> <table class="concent" width="100%" style="border: none;"> <tr> <td> <div class="centdrop"> <ul> <!-- GATEWAY --> <li><a class="tan" href="http://www.wetherall.sakura.ne.jp/gateway.html"><font class="f1">Gateway</font></a></li> <!-- YOSHA RESEARCH --> <li><a class="scarlet" href="http://www.yoshabunko.com/">Yosha Bunko</a></li> <!-- NEWS NISHIKIE --> <li><a href="http://www.nishikie.com/">News Nishikie</a></li> <!-- STEAMY EAST --> <li><a href="http://www.steamyeast.com/">Steamy East</a></li> <!-- KONKETSUJI --> <li><a href="http://www.konketsuji.com/">Konketsuji</a></li> <!-- WETHERALL --> <li><a class="tan" href="http://www.wetherall.org/">Wetherall</a></li> <!-- ABOUT --> <li><a class="tan" href="http://www.wetherall.sakura.ne.jp/aboutsites.html"><font class="f1">About</font></a></li> <!-- CONTACT --> <li><a class="tan" href="http://www.wetherall.sakura.ne.jp/contact.html"><font class="f1">Contact</font></a></li> </ul> </div> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <!-- ARTICLE --> <div id="article"> <h1>Estate distribution ruling, 1995-2000</h1> <h3>Applicable law issues in inheritance dispute in Japan-ROK family</h3> <h4 class="gray">By William Wetherall</h4> <p><font class="cyan"> First posted 5 July 2014<br /> Last updated 21 July 2014</font></p> <hr /> <p><a class="mainlist" href="#overview"> Overview</a> &ensp;<a class="menulist" href="#origin"> Origin</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#rulings"> Rulings</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#chronology"> Chronology</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#opinion"> Quality of opinion</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#sources"> Sources, presentation, commentary</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#works"> Works cited</a><br /> <a class="mainlist" href="#judgment"> Rees v. State judgment</a> &ensp;<a class="menulist" href="#particulars"> Particulars</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#findings"> Findings</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#summary"> Summary</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#laws"> Relevant laws</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#maintext"> Main text</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#reasons"> Reasons</a> |<a class="menulist" href="#justices"> Justices</a></p> <hr /> <a name="overview"></a> <!-- ************************** --> <!-- OVERVIEW OF REES v. State --> <!-- ************************** --> <h3>Overview of Rees v. State, 1992-1995</h3> <p>I am calling this case "Rees v. State" after the family name of William and Roberta Rees, the adult guardians of the child plaintiff Robert Rees Andrew (0000000000000), their adopted son. The case originated in 1992 when the Rees sued the Japanese government on behalf of Andrew in what is called a "nationality confirmation" case.</p> </td> </tr> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="origin"></a> <!-- ******* --> <!-- ORIGIN --> <!-- ******* --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Origin of Rees v. State</h3> <p>Forthcoming.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="rulings"></a> <!-- ********* --> <!-- RULINGS --> <!-- ********* --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Court rulings in Rees v. State</h3> <p>On 4 June 2008, the Supreme Court issued separate but substantially identical judgments in both Boy v. State and Children v. State.</p> <p>The court held that the legitimacy condition in Article 3 of the Nationality Law was unconstitutional, by no later than 2003 in Boy v. State and by no later than 2005 in Children v. State.</p> <p>The earlier date in Boy v. State became the criterion for the retroactive transitional measures that came into effect with a revision of Article 3 -- sans the legitimacy condition -- from 1 January 2009.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="chronology"></a> <!-- ******************* --> <!-- CHRONOLOGY OF CASE --> <!-- ******************* --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Rees v. State chronology</h3> <p>By the time the Supreme Court issued its rulings against the legitimacy requisite, there were numerous cases before various courts. Here I will present the chronologies of the two principle series of rulings which ended with the Supreme Court's rulings in 2008.</p> <!-- *************************** --> <!-- 2003-2008 CASE -- ONE BOY --> <!-- *************************** --> <h4>2003-2008 series of cases involving one boy</h4> <p>The series of cases involved the nationality of a boy. It followed and was entwined with a case involving a deportation order against the mother and the boy. The nationality confirmation case became the first in which a Japanese court, in 2005, ruled that part of the Nationality Law was unconstitutional.</p> <div class="indent"> <b>First instance court (2003-2005)</b> <pre> Court: Tokyo District Court Case: Heisei 15 (Gyo-U) 110 Litigants: Boy v. State Judgment: 13 April 2005 Ruling: Boy is Japanese </pre> <b>Second instance court (2005-2006)</b> <pre> Court: Tokyo High Court Case: Heisei 17 (Gyo-Ko) 134 Litigants: State v Boy (State appeals) Judgment: 28 February 2006 Ruling: Boy is not Japanese </pre> <b>Final court of appeal (2006-2008)</b> <pre> Court: Supreme Court, Grand Bench Case: Heisei 18 (Gyo-Tsu) 135 Litigants: Boy v. State (Boy appeals) Judgment: 4 June 2008 Ruling: Boy is Japanese </pre> </div> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="opinion"></a> <!-- ******************** --> <!-- QUALITY OF OPINION --> <!-- ******************** --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Quality of Supreme Court opinion in Rees v. State</h3> <p>The judgment in this case is a wonderful example of the capacity of the Supreme Court to favor the spirit of a law over its literal interpretation. The judgment came down to the quality of what I would call the acknowledging father's MO.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="sources"></a> <!-- ************************************** --> <!-- SOURCES, PRESENTATION, AND COMMENTARY --> <!-- ************************************** --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Sources, presentation, and commentary</h3> <br /> <h4>Sources</h4> <br /> <h5>Received Japanese text of ruling</h5> <p>The Japanese text was extracted from a pdf file downloaded from the database accessible through the Japanese government's <a class="mainlist" href="http://www.courts.go.jp/">$R@b Courts in Japan</a> website. Most case particulars and a summary were retrieved by a query using minimum case particulars. These particulars and the summary are also shown.</p> <h5>Received English translation</h5> <p>The English version was extracted from an html file retrieved by a query in the English section of the same <a class="mainlist" href="http://www.courts.go.jp/">$R@b Courts in Japan</a> website. A note at the bottom states that the English version as "Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University of London" -- which would seem to be Hiroshi Oda (\0uZS Oda Hiroshi), who has has been the Sir Ernest Satow Professor of Japanese Law at the University of London, University College, since 1990. Oda is the author of <b>Japanese Law</b>, first published by Butterworths in 1993. Oxford University Press brought out a revised 2nd edition in 1999 and further revised 3rd edition in 2009. <h5>Structural English translation</h5> <p>Because parts of the received translation do not accurately reflect the finer details and texture of the language of the Japanese ruling, I have occasionally shown structural translations of parts that are of special interest to me.</p> <h4>Formatting, commentary, and markup</h4> <p>I have divided the judgment into sections, and have somewhat reformatted the received texts and highlighted some words and phrases to facilitate analysis and commentary.</p> <h5>Underscoring</h5> <p>All <u>underscoring</u> in the text of the judgment is as received. Unless otherwise noted, the <u>underscoring</u> of corresponding parts of the received translation is mine. All underscoring in my own commentary is, of course, also mine.</p> <h5>Parentheses</h5> <p>Unless otherwise noted, all (parentheses) in the received text and translation are as received.</p> <h5>Square and angle brackets</h5> <p>All in-line [square brackets] and &lt;angle brackets&gt; -- and everything enclosed in such brackets -- are mine.</p> <h5>Structural translations and commentary</h5> <p>My own closer (structural) translations are generally shown in <font class="blue">blue</font> in cells below the received judgment and received translation. At times I have shown closer translations of words or short phrases in-line, between right and left <font class="blue">&rarr; arrows &larr;</font> following the amended text.</p> <p>Editorial [clarifications] are shown in-line. Brief comments are sometimes boxed in the cells of the texts they relate to. Extended comments are generally shown in cells below the relevant texts.</p> <h5>Color highlighting</h5> <p>The received texts of the judgment and translation, and my own commentary, are shown in black. However, to facilitate commentary on the language of the ruling and/or its translation, I have highlighted specific words and phrases in various colors according to the following scheme, which includes in-line editorial clarifications and corrections.</p> <!-- ************** --> <!-- COLOR MARKUP --> <!-- ************** --> <table class="data wid90"> <tr class="green"> <td width="20%"><b>Color</b></td> <td width="40%"><b>Original</b></td> <td width="40%"><b>Translation</b></td> </tr> <!-- BACKGROUND HIGHLIGHTING --> <tr class="gray"> <td colspan="3"> <b>Background highlighting</b></td> </tr> <!-- BLUE --> <tr class="top"> <td class="blue"><font><b>Blue</b></font></td> <td colspan="2"> <font class="bgblue"> Corresponding parts of two or more texts selected for comparison</font></td> </tr> <!-- YELLOW --> <tr class="top"> <td class="yellow"><font><b>Yellow</b></font></td> <td colspan="2"> Content added to received text to <font class="bgyellow">reconstruct</font> a missing part</td> </tr> <!-- PINK --> <tr class="top"> <td class="pink"><font><b>Pink</b></font></td> <td colspan="2"> Transcription or scanning errors parenthetically corrected <font class="bgpink">in-line</font> <font class="blue">(sic = in-line)</font></td> </tr> <!-- GRAPHIC HIGHLIGHTING --> <tr class="gray"> <td colspan="3"> <b>Graphic highlighting</b></td> </tr> <!-- BLUE --> <tr class="top"> <td rowspan="2"><font class="blue"><b>Blue</b></font></td> <td><font class="blue">[ Clarification ]</font> <font size="1">(in-line)</font></td> <td><font class="blue">[ Clarification ]</font> <font size="1">(in-line)</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&ensp;</td> <td><font class="blue">&rarr; My closer translation &larr;</font> <font size="1">(in-line)</font></font><br /> <font class="blue">My closer translation</font> <font size="1">(boxed)</font></td> </tr> <!-- GREEN --> <tr class="top"> <td rowspan="2"><font class="green"><b>Green</b></font></td> <td>Presumed true and correct copy of the language of the original text</td> <td>May be too free and a bit off key but represents all elements or original</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="white right"> <font class="green">VM|l</font><br /> <br /> <br /> <font class="green">ӗV</font><br /> </td> <td class="white"> <font class="green">Nationality Law</font><br /> <font class="green">Nationality Act</font> <font size="1">(unconventional)</font><br /> <font class="green">Law / Act of Nationality</font> <font size="1">(unconventional)</font><br /> <font class="green">Korea</font> <font size="1">(if "Empire of Korea" 1897-1910)</font></td> </tr> <!-- PURPLE --> <tr class="top"> <td rowspan="2"><font class="purple"><b>Purple</b></font></td> <td>Problematic phrasing or usage in the language of the original text</td> <td>Imprecise or awkward, incomplete or embellished, or otherwise inadequate</td> </tr> <tr class="top"> <td class="white right"> <font class="green">VM|</font><br /> <font class="green">ӗV</font><br /> <font class="green">g</font><br /> <font class="green">Q0W</font></td> <td class="white"> <font class="purple">Citizenship</font > <font class="blue">&rarr; Nationality</font> <font size="1">(as legal status)</font><br /> <font class="purple">Korea</font> <font class="blue">&rarr; Republic of Korea</font> <font size="1">(since 1948)</font><br /> <font class="purple">Korea</font> <font class="blue">&rarr; Ch&#333;sen</font> <font size="1">(as territory 1910-1952)</font><br /> <font class="purple">Japan Proper</font> <font class="blue">&rarr; Interior</font> <font size="1">(as territory)</font></td> </tr> <!-- RED --> <tr class="top"> <td rowspan="2"><font class="red"><b>Red</b></font></td> <td>Incorrect phrasing or usage ; </td> <td>Misleading or incorrect</td> </tr> <tr class="top"> <td class="white right"> <font class="green">>ehY00</font><br /> <font class="green">1Y00</font><br /> <font class="green">g</font></td> <td class="white"> <font class="red">renounce</font> <font class="blue">&rarr; abandon, relinquish</font><br /> <font class="green">renounce, separate from</font><br /> <font class="red">Korea</font> <font class="blue">&rarr; Ch&#333;sen</font> <font size="1">(as territory)</font></td> </tr> <!-- CYAN --> <tr class="top"> <td rowspan="3"><font class="cyan"><b>Cyan</b></font></td> <td>; When original is <font class="red">incorrect</font></td> <td>Mistranslation is <font class="cyan">more correct than original</font></td> </tr> <tr class="top"> <td class="white right"> <font class="green">e,gh0<font class="red">g</font>h0n0uOT</font><br />; </td> <td class="white"> <font class="green">the <font class="red">annexation</font> of <font class="cyan">Korea</font> <font class="red">by</font> Japan</font><br /> <font class="blue">&rarr; the union of Japan and Ch&#333;sen</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="light"> <p>; &ensp; The example of incorrect <font class="red">g</font> (Ch&#333;sen) being mistranslated <font class="cyan">Korea</font> (ӗV Kankoku), thus "accidentally" correcting the usage in the judgement, can be seen in <a class="mainlist" href="../empires/Kanda_v_State_1961.html">Kanda v. State 1961</a>.</p> <p>1. While g (Ch&#333;sen) in the judgment is factually incorrect, the correct translation is "Ch&#333;sen" because that is what the original text says. Because the translators conflate "Ch&#333;sen" (g) with "Korea" (ӗV Kankoku), they habitually translate "Ch&#333;sen" as "Korea" -- which constitutes a "mistranslation" that in effect accidentally "corrects" the factual error in the original -- i.e., a double negative becomes a positive. But two wrongs don't make a right. Translators are not supposed to "edit" the content of legal briefs. They might flag a problematic expression for comment in a footnote, but the translation itself should be faithful to the original.</p> <p>2. Note that where the judgment precisely paraphrases the phrasal logic of the expression "Nik-Kan heig&#333;" (eӗuOT) [Japan-Korea union] as "X to Y to no heig&#333;" (8h09h0n0uOT) [the union between X and Y], the received translation incorrectly represents the syntactic logic of the paraphrase as "the annexation of Y by X" -- which constitutes an interpretation of the effects of the union, not its formal description <u>in Japanese law</u> -- which I underscore, because the court is making a legal, not political, argument. Historiographic "opinion" external to received text of the original judgment, and its attempt to deal with the letter and operation of Japanese law is irrelevant. A translator might say that the past is past. Treaties, laws, and ordinances of the past -- though no longer enforced -- may continue to have effect in court reviews of what I call "legacy" cases, which involve status actions in the past.</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="works"></a> <!-- ************* --> <!-- WORKS CITED --> <!-- ************* --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Works cited</h3> <p>The rulings in the three Rees v. State court cases understandably got quite a bit of play in newspapers in Japan, and the small but dedicated sector of the foreign press that covers social issues in Japan. The Supreme Court judgment has also gotten a lot of attention in academic journals and a number of books, mostly in Japanese, but also in English, and I would guess also a few other languages.</p> <h4>Higashizawa 1993</h4> <p>Higashizawa Yasushi (qglV) represented the Rees in the first round of litigation in the Tokyo District Court, which in April 1993 ruled in their favor, namely that Andrew qualified for birth-right jus soli Japanese nationality. The following book, published 3 months later, ends with a detailed overview of Andrew's case.</p> <p class="indent"> qglV<br /> <b>wD0en0͑w</b><br /> (_wXL0cO0NNn0j0K0n0YVNP)<br /> qgNwmf?b01993t^7g1e ,{1HrzvL<br /> 2070xxiii0000XSL,g</p> <p class="indent"> Higashizawa Yasushi<br /> <b>Nagai tabi no omoni</b><br /> (Bengoshi ga egaku / jiken no naka no gaikokujin gunz&#333;)<br /> [ The heavy baggage of a long journey<br /> (An attorney depicts / a group of foreigners in cases) ]<br /> &lt; A long journey with a burden: A lawyer's sketch of foreigners and their cases in Japan &gt;<br /> Tokyo: Kaif&#363; Shob&#333;, 1 July 1993, 1st edition<br /> 207, xxiii pages, softcover</p> <p>The 23 pages numbered in roman numerals, at and from the back of the book, are devoted to solid chapter summaries in good English -- like the &lt; provided English title &gt; on the cover. In the English summary of the Epilogue (B0h0L0M0), dated Spring 1993 (1993t^%f), Higashizawa credits "Mr. Suzuki Akihiko for helping me with translation." The fuller Japanese version credits Suzuki Akihiko (4(g-ff_) of the "O&#332;ta citizen network for living together with foreigners" (YVNh0qQk0uM00*Y0u0^l000000 Gaikokujin to tomo ni ikiru &#332; shimin nettowaaku) for his considerable exertions in checking the English summaries. Who originally wrote them, if not Higashizawa himself, is not clear.</p> <p class="center90 bcblue bgwhite">On its website, the&#332;ta Citizens Network an NGO, dubs itself "OCNet (Ohta Citizens' Network for Peoples' Togetherness)" in English. This is a not uncommon example of "duplicity" in organizational naming, avoiding -- in this case -- a faithful English rendering of the notion that the "citizens" (^l shimin) of &#332;ta ward, in Tokyo, are endeavoring to "live together" with "aliens" or "foreigners" or "outlanders" (YVN gaikokujin). <br /><br /> The term "shimin" (^l) should imply anyone, regardless of nationality, who is registered as a resident of a :Sl:uQg (ku-min-ch&#333;son) -- a ward, city, town, or village -- of prefecture in Japan. "Japanese" and "foreigners" residing in &#332;ta are already "living together" as "citizens" of the same municipal polity -- and the only certain difference between "Japanese" and "foreigners" is their nationality -- not, as the Japanese (but not the English) version of OCNet's organization description would seem to imply. <br /><br /> The English expression "Peoples' Togetherness" has heavy overtones of "racioethnic peoples". The Japanese version of OCNet's blurb underscores the "ethnic" implications of the English version by speaking of exchanges among people whose languages, cultures, and customs variously differ. The English version speaks of the twain of "Japanese" and "non-Japanese" -- which hearkens of the "we Japanese" and "foreigners" refrain.</p> <p>Andrew's case is the centerpiece of the 5th and final story (pages 161-202), which bears the following titles.</p> <p class="indent"> VM|0Bl00P[i00_0a0%`XY00!qVM|PQh0VM|x$R<br /> Kokuseki o motomeru kodomo-tachi: Ky&#363;z&#333; suru mukokuseki-ji to kokuseki kakunin saiban<br /> [ Children seeking a nationality: Rapidly increasing stateless children and nationality confirmation court cases ]</p> <h4>Okuda 1996, 2003a</h4> <p class="indent"> eY0u[_<br /> <b>[eh0VM|VSn020j0K0g0</b><br /> gexf<br /> qgN ge01996t^<br /> 2060000XSL,g<br /> X܈Hr02003t^02100000XSL,g</p> <p class="indent"> Okuda Yasuhiro<br /> <b>Kazoku to kokuseki: Kokusaika no susumu naka de</b><br /> [Family and nationality: In the midst of progressing internationalization] H&#363;hikaku sensho [Y&#363;hikaku library]<br /> Tokyo: Y&#363;hikaku, 1996<br /> 206 pages, softcover<br /> Expanded edition, 2003, 210 pages</p> <h5>Okuda 2003b</h5> <p class="indent"> Yasuhiro Okuda<br /> The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Japan's International Family Law including Nationality Law<br /> <b>Zeitschrift fuer Japanisches Recht / Journal of Japanese Law</b><br /> Volume 15, Number 8, 2003<br /> Pages 88-110</p> <p>This article is an edited reprint from <b>Hokudai H&#333;gaku Ronsh&#363;</b> (S'Ylf[֊Ɩ) [The Hokkaido Law Review), Volume 54, Number 1, pages 456-429 [from higher to lower page numbers because article, in English, is published in a journal that features mostly Japanese articles on pages that run in the opposite direction].</p> <h3>Steele 2004</h3> <p class="indent"> Stacey Steele<br /> Comments on Okuda, Statelessness and the Nationality Act of Japan: Baby Andrew Becomes a Teenager and other Changes?<br /> <b>Zeitschrift fuer Japanisches Recht / Journal of Japanese Law</b><br /> Number 18, February 2005 [2004]<br /> Pages 178-192</p> <p>This article is a critique of Okuda's article.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="judgment"></a> <!-- *************** --> <!-- MAIN JUDGMENT --> <!-- *************** --> <hr class="blue" /> <h3>Main judgment in Supreme Court ruling in Rees v. State</h3> <p>Forthcoming.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="particulars"></a> <!-- ************* --> <!-- PARTICULARS --> <!-- ************* --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="ebony"> <font size="5" class="white"><b> 2000 Supreme Court judgment X v. in Boy v. State</b></font><br /> <font class="lemon"><b> Japanese text, English version, and commentary</font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="green"> <b>Osaka District Court</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <!-- <p>,{N[$R@b TqgN0We$R@b <br /><br /> ,{N[NNjuSs^b4(L??)?? <br /><br /> ,{N[$Rt^ges^b??t^??g??e <br /><br /> ,{N[$Rzl??</p> --> &ensp; </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p><font class="blue"> <!-- <p>Court of first instance: Tokyo District Court <br /><br /> First instance case number: Heisei 4 [1992] (Gyo-??) ?? <br /><br /> Date of first instance decision: ?? ?? ?? [Heisei ??-??-??] <br /><br /> Ruling: ?? </font></p> --> &ensp; </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="green"> <b>Osaka High Court</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <p>S[$R@b T'Y*ؚI{$R@b <br /><br /> S[NNjuSs^b6(0)838 <br /><br /> S[$Rt^ges^b7t^02g07e</p> </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p><font class="blue"> Court of original instance: Osaka High Court <br /><br /> Original instance case number: Heisei 6 [1994] (Ne) 838 <br /><br /> Date of original decision: 7 February 1995 [Heisei 7-02-07] </font></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="gray"> <p>The Osaka High Court was the second instance court. Here it is called the "original instance court" from the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, since the case the Supreme Court was asked to review originated in the Osaka High Court.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="green"> <b>Supreme Court</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="gray"> <p><b>@b g)jy{vKb}I{ˊBlNN</b><br /> <b>Case requesting title transfer recording procedures et cetera</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <p>NNjuSs^b7(0)1203 <br /><br /> NN T@b g)jy{vKb}I{ˊBlNN <br /><br /> $Rt^ges^b12t^01g27e <br /><br /> l^ Tgؚ$R@b,{N\l^ <br /><br /> $R.z%R$Rzl <br /><br /> P}g]0n0N <br /><br /> $ROƖI{]0S0lƖ ,{54]1S1</p> </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p><font class="blue"> Case number: Heisei 7 [1995] (O) 1203 <br /><br /> Case name: Case requesting title transfer recording procedures et cetera <br /><br /> Date of judgment: 27 January 2000 [Heisei 12-01-27] <br /><br /> Court name: Supreme Court, First Petit Bench <br /><br /> Type of judgment: Ruling <br /><br /> Results: Other <br /><br /> Hanrei&#363; t&#333; [Court reports et cetera] Volume, Number, Page:<br /> Minsh&#363; [Civil Affairs decisions] Volume 54, Number 1, Page 1 </font></p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="findings"></a> <!-- ********** --> <!-- FINDINGS --> <!-- ********** --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> $R:yN</b></font> </td> <td class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> Findings</b></font> </td> </tr> <tr class="yellow"> <td> <b>Received Japanese text</b> </td> <td> <b>Received English translation</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <p>N0 nYvj0l_Ok0J0D0f0B00l_OUL0zlY00_00k0 NS kn0MRcOULn0nbl0zl[Y00el</p> <p>N0 nYP[On0bzn0$Reel</p> <p> N0s^bCQt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0lOn0 Nk0J0Q00QuNYn0N1uk000ZQ'`0S_Y004XTn0ZQP[On0bzn0nbl</p> <p>V0s^bCQt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0lOn0 Nk0J0Q00@~OL0j0D0n0k0J0Q00ZQNYn0P[On0bzn0nbl</p> </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p>1. Meaning of "When the father and the mother are together unknown" in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law</p> <p>2. Proof of application of "When the father and the mother are together unknown" in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Nationality Law</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <p>MOJ's English version of 6rkL0h00k0w0j0D0h0M0 (fubo ga tomo ni shirenai) is "When both parents are unknown". I am structurally translating the phrase as I have here because the main judgment interprets its meaning by paraphrasing it with different words, which I will also structurally render in order to facilitate their comparison (see below).</p> <p>While "unknown" is a good translation of "shirenai" (w0j0D0), this expression -- as a negative potential -- means "could not be known" despite attempts to know -- i.e., is presently unknown but could be known in the future. The negative passive "not known" would be "shirarete inai" (w00f0D0j0D0), which also stops short of declaring that something is "unknowable" no matter how much one attempts to know.</p> </td> </tr> <!-- *********************************** --> <!-- STRUCTURAL TRANSLATION -- MATTERS --> <!-- *********************************** --> <tr> <td colspan="2" class="white"> <h4>Structural translation</h4> <p>The <u>underscoring</u> in the received text, and in corresponding parts of the translation, reflects the received text. All <b>bold</b> or otherwise <font class="blue">highlighted</font> emphasis</b> is mine.</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="summary"></a> <!-- ********* --> <!-- SUMMARY --> <!-- ********* --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> $Re </b></font> </td> <td class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> Summary of the judgment</b></font> </td> </tr> <tr class="yellow"> <td> <b>Received Japanese text</b> </td> <td> <b>Structural English translation</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <p>N0 nYvj0l_Ok0J0D0f00B00l_OUL,gOUL 0zlY00_00k0 NS kn0MRcOULL0Vyl N,gOULh0o0%R Pn0l_O0ibW0f0D004XT0]0n0MRcOULn0nblo00l^0Wg0B00bL0Vn0Vylk000[00y0M0g0B000</p> <p>N0 nYP[On0bzn0$Reo00~0Z0ZQP[On0bzk0d0D0f0]0n0nbl0i(uW00ZQP[OL0&T[U00_04XTk0o00ZQNYn0P[On0bzk0d0D0f0]0n0nbl0i(uW0f0LF0y0M0g0B000</p> <p> N0s^bCQt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0lOn0 Nk0J0D0f00QuNYn0N1uk000ZQ'`0S_Y004XTn0ZQP[On0bzn0nblo00ZQ'`0S_Y00SVh0j00y0M0N[L0[bW0_0S_Bfn0kn0+Yn0,gVlg0B000</p> <p>V0s^bCQt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0lOn0 Nk0J0D0f00@~OL0j0D0n0k0J0Q00ZQNYn0P[On0bzo00SP[O0bzU0[00SVh0j00y0M0N[L0[bW0_0S_Bfn0n0,gVlSs0P[n0,gVln0SeL0SP[On0bz0[Y004XTk000000</p> </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p>1. In cases where, in transnational legal relations, the preliminary issue which is indispensable to solve the primary issue constitutes a different legal relationship from the primary issue from the viewpoint of conflict of laws, the applicable law of the preliminary issue shall be determined by the rules of conflict of laws of Japan.</p> <p>2. In determining the emergence of a parent-child relationship in transnational relations, first, the existence of a parent-legitimate child relationship should be determined by applying its applicable law, and if this relation is denied, the existence of a parent-child relationship other than that with a legitimate child should be determined by applying its applicable law.</p> <p>3. Under the Law on the Application of Laws before the amendment by Law No.27, 1989, the applicable law to the existence of a parent-legitimate child relationship, in cases where the child obtains the status of a legitimate child by reasons other than birth, is the law of the home country of the mother's husband at the time the fact which constitutes the ground for the acquisition of the status as a legitimate child emerged.</p> <p>4. Under the Law on the Application of Laws before the amendment by Law No.27, 1989, the emergence of a parent-child relationship other than that with a legitimate child, between those who are not in blood relationship, is acknowledged when the parent-child relationship is confirmed by the law of the home country of the parent, as well as the child, at the time the fact which constitutes the ground for the acquisition of the status as a legitimate child emerged.</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="laws"></a> <!-- *************** --> <!-- RELEVANT LAWS --> <!-- *************** --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> Sgqlag </b></font> </td> <td class="gray"> <font class="blue"><b> Relevant laws</b></font> </td> </tr> <tr class="yellow"> <td> <b>Received Japanese text</b> </td> <td> <b>Received English translation</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%" valign="top"> <p>lO lOs^bCQt^l_,{27Sk0009eckMRn00n0 17ag lOs^bCQt^l_,{27Sk0009eckMRn00n0 18ag1 lOs^bCQt^l_,{27Sk0009eckMRn00n0 22ag</p> </td> <td width="60%" valign="top"> <p>Law on the Application of Laws before the amendment by Law No.27, 1989</p> <p>Article 17</p> <p>Whether a child is legitimate or not shall be determined by the law of the country of the husband of the mother at the time of the birth, and if the husband has died before the birth of the child, the law of the last country which he belonged to.</p> <p>Article 18 para.1</p> <p>Requirements for the legitimisation of a child are determined by the law of the country of the father or mother at the time of the legitimisation in relation to the father or mother, and the law of the country of the child at the time of the legitimisation in relation to the child.</p> <p>Article 22</p> <p>Family relationship and the rights and obligations emerging from family relationship other than those as provided by the preceding nine provisions shall be determined by the law of the home country of the parties.</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="maintext"></a> <!-- *********** --> <!-- MAIN TEXT --> <!-- *********** --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td width="38%" class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> ;Ne</b></font> </td> <td width="62%" class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> Main text of the judgment</b></font> </td> </tr> <tr class="yellow"> <td> <b>Received Japanese text</b> </td> <td> <b>Received English translation</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>N0S$Rzl0!kn0h0J00 YfY000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;,{N[$Rzl0!kn0h0J00 YfY000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTN"n0s^bmQt^N0gN0eNMn0ÌevS_Mn0ёT/eUbˊBlk0O04H00tS NY000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo00 NJTN"k0[W00s^bVt^ Ng NeK00 TmQt^N0gN]Ne~0g00N{gNN N000Qn0rRTk000ёT0/eUbH00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTN"n0]0n0YOn0ˊBl0htSY000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNk0[W00 NJTN"o0,{N[$Rzl%R}irNv2N Ss0N  n0W0Wn0N0kQRn0NVn0cRk0d0D0f00 T"Ss0 T"o0 TW0Wn0TN0kQRn0kQn0cRk0d0D0f00 T"Ss0 T"o0 TW0Wn0TN0kQRn0 Nn0cRk0d0D0f00-fTVNt^NgNmQeBfRS_0SVh0Y00cRNy{vKb}0[000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNk0[W00 NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"o0,{N[$Rzl%R}irNv2 N  n0^irn0T NmQRn0Nn0cRk0d0D0f00 T"Ss0 T"o0 T^irn0T NmQRn0Nn0cRk0d0D0f00-fTVNt^NgNmQeBfRS_0SVh0Y00cRNy{vKb}0[000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNn0]0n0YOn0ˊBl0htSY000</p> <p>N04n0}(uo0S000NRW00]0n0N0 NJTNn00]0n0YO0 NJTN0n0bh0Y000</p> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>1. The judgment of the first instance court shall be altered as follows:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;1) The claim of the jokoku appellee B concerning the amount equivalent to the rent after October 20, 1994 shall be dismissed;</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;2) The jokoku appellant is ordered to pay 23,000 yen per month for the period between March 3, 1992 and October 19, 1994 to the jokoku appellee B;</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;3) The remaining claims of the jokoku appellee B shall be dismissed;</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;4) The jokoku appellee D is ordered to register the transfer of 14/108 of the piece of land as indicated in the lists (1) and (2) of the property attached to the judgment of the first instance court, jokoku appellees C and D, 8/108, and jokoku appellees B and F, 3/108 to the jokoku appellant on the ground of the acquisition of the property by prescription on May 16, 1970;</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;5) Jokoku appellees D, C, and E are ordered to register the transfer of 2/36 of the building as indicated in list (3) of the property attached to the judgment of the first instance court, and the jokoku appellees B and F for 1/36 of the property on the ground of the acquisition of the property by prescription on May 16, 1970;</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;6) The remaining claims by the jokoku appellant are dismissed.</p> <p>2. The total cost of the litigation shall be divided in half. Half shall be borne by the jokoku appellant and the remaining half shall be shared by the jokoku appellees.</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="reasons"></a> <!-- ********* --> <!-- REASONS --> <!-- ********* --> <table class="data wid100"> <tr> <td width="38%" class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> t1u</b></font> </td> <td width="62%" class="gray"> <font class="green"><b> Reasons</b></font> </td> </tr> <tr class="yellow"> <td> <b>Received Japanese text</b> </td> <td> <b>Received English translation</b> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTNtNq\0u1u}P[0 T-N]f0 T'Y\ g}P[0 TqgoV0 T&T~f0 TQg NxQP[0 T\gx^_N0 Tq\ Ng}0 T\ΑvfP[n0 NJTt1u,{Nj0D0W0,{Vk0d0D0f0</p> <!-- REASON 1 --> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N0,gNo00 NJTN"L0 NJTNk0[W00,{N[$Rzl%R}irNv2 N  n0^irN N 0,gN^ir 0h0D0F00 n0cR)jk0We0M00]0n0f!nW0Ss0ÌevS_Mn0ёTn0/eUb0Bl00,{NNNh00 NJTNL0 NJTN0k0[W00,gN^irSs0 TirNv2N Ss0N  n0W0WN N 0,gNW0W 0h0D0F00~0_00,gN^irh0uO[0f0 0,gNW0W^ir 0h0D0F00 k0d0D0f0BfRS_0SVh0Y00cRhQy{vKb}0Bl00,{NNNL0uOTU00_04g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;S[n0ilk0x[W0_0N[On0io00!kn0h0J00g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0ӗVM|0 gY00$_n00F0k0_k0e,gk00^SW0_00 o00ӗVM|0 gY00Y%h0n0k0w7u NJTN"-fTNNt^NgNeu~00 0wsY NJTN"-fTNmQt^NNgNkQeu~00 Ss0NsY NJTN"-fTNkQt^ NgNVeu~00 00F0Q0_00 T NJTN0o0D0Z000ӗVM|0 gW0f0D000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;$o00&h007usYOL0B000 TNh0n0k00^ZQP[h0W0f0 NJTN"-fTNmQt^ NgN0eu~00 Ss0 T"-fTNkQt^kQg N0eu~00 L0B000 T NJTN0o0D0Z000e,gVM|0 gW0f0D000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0$o00-fT NmQt^ NgN0ek0%h0ZZW00 Tt^]Ng0ӗVk0(WOOW0ӗVM|0 gY00'h0ZZYW0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0$o00-fT NkQt^NgNNek0e,gk00^SW00l T0$h0Y00e,g8bM|L0}U00_0L00]0n0 T8bM|k0'h0n0ZZYn0N[L0 U00j0K0c0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0$o00-fT NkQt^NgNek0 NJTNh0ZZYW0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTNo00SZZY_0$0 NJTN"Ss0 T"h0 TE\W0f0D0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0$o00-fTVNt^NgNmQek0{kNW0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;,gNW0W^iro00$n0v}#ug0B000 NJTNo00$n0{kN_0XSrg0,gNW0W^ir0`S g{tW0f0D00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0-fTVmQt^NgN Nek0 NJTN"0 T"0 NJTNSs0]0n0e0L0Ɩ~000$n0v}#un0Qtk0d0D0f0n0qTD00W0_0L00UO0n0Ta0bzW0j0K0c0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTNo00 TeK00pe{g0L}NW0j0D0F0a0k00z#uRrRN n0O <p>&ensp;&ensp;0'o00-fTNNt^]NgVek0{kNW0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTN"o00s^bNt^0 NJTNk0[W00$h0 NJTNn0ZZYo0͑ZZg0B00h0n0t1ug0ZZYSmW0n04H00cwW00s^bVt^ Ng Nek0ZZY0S0mY0en0$RzlL0x[W0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo00,gN^ir^|QqQ TOO[ 0(YNV Tk0ÌW00Ìeh0W0f0N{gVNNV000Q0SSW0f0D000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo00,g4k0J0D0f00,gNW0W^irSo0]0n0cR k0d0D0f00N0t^`S gW0_0S0h00t1uh0Y00S_BfRSs0 NJTN"n0v}V_ˊBl)jn0mnBfR0c(uW0_00</p> </td> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p><font class="blue">Concerning reasons (grounds) 1 through 4 for the appeal of [argued by] the appeal representatives Yamada Yuko, Nakagawa Akira, &#332;shima Y&#363;kiko, Higashizawa Yasushi, Murakami Noriko, Kobayashi Yukiya, Yamashita Asahi, and Ono Masako:</font></p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;I. The present case is the result of the consolidation of an action by the jokoku appellee B vis-a-vis the jokoku appellant, claiming the transfer of the building as indicated in list (3) of the property attached to the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter, "the Building") (Case 1) and the payment of rent based upon the right to the share in the Building and a claim by the jokoku appellant vis-a-vis the jokoku appellees for the registration of the transfer of the share, on the ground of acquisition by prescription of the piece of land as indicated in lists (1) and (2) of the property attached to the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter, "the Land" and together with the Building, "the Land and the Building")(Case 2).</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;The facts lawfully established by the original instance court are as follows:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;1. G, who is a Korean national (who, as indicated later, subsequently acquired Japanese nationality) has the eldest son, jokoku appellee D (born January 1, 1940), the eldest daughter, jokoku appellee C (born December 28, 1941) and the second daughter, jokoku appellee E (born March 14, 1943) between his wife H who has Korean nationality. G had an extra-marital relationship with I and has illegitimate children, jokoku appellees B (born March 20, 1951) and F (born August 30, 1953) with I. Both B and F have Japanese nationality.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;2. In September the same year G divorced H on March 10, 1961 and married J, who is a Korean national and lived in Korea.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;3. G acquired Japanese nationality on February 27, 1963 and was registered in the civil register in the name of K, but his marriage with J was not registered.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;4. K married the jokoku appellant on May 2, 1963. The jokoku appellant lived together with K and the jokoku appellees B and F after the marriage.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;5. K died on May 16, 1970.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;The Land and the Building are the inheritance estate of K. The jokoku appellant has occupied and administered the Land and the Building on her own since the death of K.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;6. On January 23, 1971, the jokoku appellees B, C, the jokoku appellant, and the relatives met and discussed the inheritance of K's estate, but failed to reach an agreement.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;7. J died on September 4, 1977.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;8. The jokoku appellee B initiated an action vis-a-vis the jokoku appellant for the revocation of the marriage on the ground that her marriage with K was a dual marriage, and the judgment which revoked the marriage came into effect on March 3, 1992.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;9. The jokoku appellant is letting the Building (shop and communal residence) to YAUCHI Sonoko and 14 others and is receiving 414,000 yen per month in total.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;10. The jokoku appellant invoked acquisitive prescription for the Land and the Building (or its share) on the ground that she had occupied the property for 20 years, and also that the right of the jokoku appellee B to recover the inherited property had expired by extinctive prescription.</p> </td> </tr> <!-- REASON 2 --> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N0S[o00!kn00F0k0$ReW0f00,{NNNˊBln0F0a0,gN^irf!nW0Ss0Sf!nW0n0~0g0ÌevS_Mn0ёTh0W0f0gMVNNNNNQn0/eUb0Bl00R0[W0f0]0n0YO0htSW00,{NNNˊBl0Y0y0f0htSY0y0M00n0h0W0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0$n0{kNk0000 NJTN"o0^ZQP[h0W0f0,gN^irn0NNRn0Nn0cR00'o0Yh0W0f0 NRn0Nn0cR0]00^00v}W0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0'n0{kNk000v}Nn0{V0MO0v}Rk0d0D0f0o00s^bCQt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0lON N 0elO 0h0D0F00 NNagk000ӗVlL0nblh0j000N]NNNt^9eckMRn0ӗVllNN Nag0NNVag0N000ag0N00NagSs0N00]Nagk0000'n0#uk0d0D0f0n0 NJTN"n0v}Ro0N NRn0Ng0B000W0_0L0c0f00 T NJTNo00$K00n0v}h0'K00n0v}0T0[0f00,gN^irn0VmQkQRn0NNn0cR0 gY00S0h0k0j00K000 NJTNk0[W00,gN^irn0ÌevS_Mn0ёTh0W0f0gMVNNNNNQVNNV000Qn0VmQkQRn0NN 0ˊBlY00S0h0L0g0M000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo00-fTVmQt^NgN NeK00pe{g0L}NY00~0g0n0k00]L0v}Nn00WMOk0j0O00,gNW0W^irk0d0M0@b g)jo00h000v}k000cR0j0D0S0h00w00]0n0_o00@b gn0a`00c0f0,gNW0W^ir0`S gW0_00n0g0o0j0D0K000,gNW0W^irn0@b g)jSo0cR0BfRS_Y00S0h0o0g0M0j0D00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo00ꁉ0v}Ng0j0D0S0h00w0j0L00v}Ng0B00h0yW00So0]k0v})jL0B00h0O\0000y0M0Ttvj0N1uL0B000Q0g0o0j0D0k00K0K000Z0v}Ng0B00h0yW00v}#u0`S g{tY00S0h0k000S000O[W0f0D00k0rS_Y00K000v}V_ˊBl)jn0mnBfRL0i(uU000YO0Wo0j0D00</p> </td> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;II. The original instance court ruled as follows and acknowledged the claim for the transfer of the Building and the payment of the equivalent of the monthly rent of 40,115 yen but dismissed the remaining claim in Case 1 and dismissed the claim in Case 2.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;1. As a result of K's death, the jokoku appellee inherited one-twelfth of the Building as an illegitimate child and J, one-third of the Building as his wife.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;2. Concerning the scope of the heirs, their rank, and their share of the inheritance on the death of J, by virtue of Article 25 of the Law on the Application of Laws before the amendment by Law No.27, 1989 (hereinafter, "the Previous Law"), Korean law is the applicable law. According to Articles 773, 774, 1000, 1002, and 1009 of the Korean Civil Code before the amendment of 1977, the inheritance share of the jokoku appellee B is one-thirteenth. Therefore, the jokoku appellee B has a share of 51/468 of the Building if the inheritance from K and J is combined and is entitled to claim 40,115 yen per month which is an equivalent of 51/468 of 414,000 yen from the jokoku appellant.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;3. The jokoku appellant became aware that she was not an heir and had no entitlement to the Land and the Building or inheritance share to them within several months of January 23, 1971, and since then she has not occupied the Land and the Building with the intention to own them. Therefore, the jokoku appellant cannot acquire the title to, or a share of the Land and the Building by acquisitive prescription.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;4. The jokoku appellant, although being aware that she was not an heir, or without having a reasonable ground to believe that she had the right to inheritance, claimed that she was an heir, infringed the right to inheritance through administering or occupying the estate and therefore, there is no possibility of the application of extinctive prescription of the right to claim recovery of the inherited estate.</p> </td> </tr> <!-- REASON 3 --> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp; N0 NJTNtNR萁_+Y0 TؚKjS0 TQhhzn0 NJTt1u,{Nk0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;S[n0ilk0x[W0_0MRN[On0 Nk0J0D0f0o00 NJTNo00 NJTN"Ss0 T"h0 TE\W00RNYk00$n0v}NL0D00S0h00wc0f0D0_0S0h0L0f0K0g0B000 NJTNL0$n0v}Nh0W0f0,gNW0W^irk0d0D0f0XSrg0`S g0YW0_0K00h0D0c0f00 NJTNL0,gNW0W^ir0XSrg0@b gY00a`0h:yW0_00n0h0o0D0H0j0D00W0_0L0c0f00 NJTNk0,gNW0W^irhQSOn0@b g)jk0d0D0f0S_BfRL0bzW0j0D0h0W0_0S[n0$Reo00P}֊k0J0D0f0/fY00S0h0L0g0M000֊eo00S[n0[k0l0j0D0N[k0We0D0f0S$Rzln0Ul0D0F00n0k0Y0N0Z00c(uY00S0h0L0g0M0j0D00</p> </td> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;III. On the ground Item 2 for the jokoku appeal by the representatives for the jokoku appeal, KATSUBE Masao, TAKAHASHI Tsukasa, and KUWAMORI Akira:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Under the above circumstances lawfully established by the original instance court, it is evident that the jokoku appellant lived together with the jokoku appellees B and F and was aware that there were heirs to K other than herself, even if the jokoku appellant commenced occupation of the Land and the Building on her own, it does not follow that she has demonstrated her intention to own the Land and the Building on her own. Therefore, in conclusion, the ruling of the original instance court that the jokoku appellant did not acquire the Land and the Building as a whole by acquisitive prescription can be upheld. The argument of the representatives for the jokoku appeal contests the unlawfulness of the judgment of the original instance court on facts not established by the original instance court and cannot be accepted.</p> </td> </tr> <!-- REASON 4 --> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp; V0 T NJTt1u,{Nk0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTNk000,gNW0W^irn0cRn0BfRS_0&T[W0_0S[n0MRNn0$Reo0/fY00S0h0L0g0M0j0D00]0n0t1uo00!kn0h0J00g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;llNkQmQagNn0[o00`S go0@b gn0a`g0`S gY000n0h0c[W0f0J000`S gn0`S gL0;N`S gk0S__00j0D0S0h00t1uk0S_BfRn0bz0NF0o0S`S gL0@b gn0a`n0j0D0`S gk0S__00S0h0k0d0D0f0n0z <p>&ensp;&ensp;S000,gNk0d0D0f00h00S[o00 NJTNL0${kN_XSrg0,gNW0W^ir0`S gW0f0D00N[0x[W0d0d00 NJTNL0`S gY_k0]L0@b gSo0cR)jg0j0D0S0h00wc0_0h0D0F0Q_n0a`n0 YSn00k00c0f0@b gn0a`n0c[0W0f0J000llNkQmQagNn0@b gn0a`n0c[L0U0004XTk0d0D0f0lNn0ȑi(u0c0_0UlL0B00h0D00V000_Z00]0n0Ulo0S$Rzln0P}֊k0q_0S|0Y0S0h0L0f0K0g0B000֊eo0t1uL0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;]0W0f00MRx[N[k000p00 NJTNo00$n0v}Nh0W0f00$L0{kNW0_0eg0B00-fTVNt^NgNmQek0,gNW0W^irn0`S g0YW00]0n0_N0t^]0n0`S g0}}W0f0D00h0S000]L0$n0/UNn0MvPg0 NRn0Nn0l[v}R0 gY000n0h0W0f0`S g0YW0_0h00y0M0g0B00K000 NJTN0L0Nk0 NJTNn0`S gL0@b gn0a`n0j0D00n0g0B00S0h00WyNQ00N`0UO0;N5_W0f0D0j0D0,gNk0J0D0f0o00,gNW0W^irn0T NRn0Nn0cR0BfRk000S_W0_00n0h0D0F0y0M0g0B000]0F0Y00h00 NJTNo00,gN^irn0qQ gh0W0f0S000`S gW0f0D00S0h0k0j00L00 NJTN"o00,gN^irn0qQ gg0B00 NJTNk0[W0f0,gN^irn0f!nW00Bl00S0h0L0g0M00t1u0UO0;N5_W0f0D0j0D000c0f00S$Rzl-N0,{NNNˊBln0F0a0,gN^irn0f!nˊBl0[W00,{NNNˊBl0hQhtSY0y0M00n0h0W0_0Ro00D0Z0004xh0MQ0j0D00</p> </td> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;IV. On the ground for the jokoku appeal Item 1:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;II-3 above of the judgment of the original instance court which denied the acquisitive prescription of the share in the Land and the Building by the jokoku appellant cannot be upheld. The reason is as follows:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Article 186, para.1 provides for the presumption that the person who occupies a property has an intention to occupy the property with the intention to own it, and the person who claims that the occupier does not have such an intention and contests the acquisitive prescription by the occupier bears the burden of proof for the absence of the intention to own on the part of the occupier (Supreme Court 1979 (O) 19, Judgment of the First Petit Bench, July 31, 1979, Saibanshu, Civil Cases, No.127, p.315). The intention to own should be determined not by the internal intention of the occupier, but formally and objectively by the right which served as the ground for the commencement of the occupation or the circumstances concerning the occupation (Supreme Court, 1970 (O) 315, Judgment of the First Petit Bench, June 18, 1970, Saibanshu No.99, p.375; Supreme Court, 1970 (O) 265, Judgment of the Second Petit Bench, September 8, 1972, Minshu vol.26, No.7, p.1348; Supreme Court, 1982 (O) 548, Judgment of the First Petit Bench, March 24, 1983, Minshu vol.37, No.2, p.131).</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;In the present case, the original instance court established the fact that the jokoku appellant had been occupying the Land and the Building on her own after the death of K, but has overturned the presumption of the existence of the intention to own the property merely with reference to the change of the internal intention of the jokoku appellant, that she had become aware after the commencement of the occupation that she was not an owner nor had a share in inheritance. This is an error in the interpretation and application of Article 186, para.1 of the Civil Code which provides for the overturning of the presumption of the intention to own, and it is evident that this error affects the conclusion of the original instance court. The argument is with grounds.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;According to the facts established above, the jokoku appellant, as an heir of J, commenced occupation of the Land and the Building on May 16, 1970 when K died, and has continued to occupy the property for 20 years. The jokoku appellant should be regarded to have commenced occupation as the sole spouse of K with the statutory inheritance share of one-third, and since the jokoku appellees failed to assert any circumstances which support the absence of the intention to own on the part of the jokoku appellant, the jokoku appellant should be regarded to have acquired one-third of the Land and the Building by acquisitive prescription. Thus, the jokoku appellant occupies the Building as a co-owner, but the jokoku appellee B has not put forward any reason to justify the claim vis-a-vis the jokoku appellant who is a co-owner to transfer the Building to B. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the original instance court in Case 1 which acknowledged the claim to transfer the Building and dismissed the entire claim in Case 2 cannot but be quashed.</p> </td> </tr> <!-- REASON 5 --> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp; N0 T NJTt1u,{Vk0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0nbln0xbk0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N 00e,{N0 nYvj0l_Ok0J0D0f00B00Nd0n0l_OUL,gOUL 0zlY00_00k0~0Z0zl0j0Q00p0j00j0D0 NS kn0MRcOULL0B000]0n0MRcOULL0Vyl N,gOULh0o0%R Pn0l_O0ibW0f0D004XT0]0n0MRcOULo00,gOULn0nblk000n0g000,gOULn0nblL0@b^\Y00Vn0VylL0c[Y00nblk000n0g00j0O00l^0Wg0B00bL0Vn0Vylk000[~00nblk00c0f0zlY0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;S000,gNk0d0D0f00h00'n0v}k0Y00nblo00elONNagk000v}Ng0B00'n0,gVlg0B00ӗVlg0B000ӗVllN000agNNSk000p00'n0v|QS^\L0v}Nh0j00L00v}h0o0%R Pn0l_Og0B00 NJTN0L0'n0v|QS^\g0B00K0i0F0K00Y0j00a0'h0 NJTN0n0k0P[OL0bzW0f0D00K0i0F0K0k0d0D0f0n0nblo00bL0Vn0Vylk000zl[Y00S0h0k0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N 00e,{N0P[On0bzh0D0F0l_On0F0a0ZQ'`S_n0OUL0N Pn0rzW0_0l_Oh0W0f0[W0f0D00elONNag0NkQagn0i N0P[On0bzL0OULk0j004XTk0o00~0Z0ZQP[On0bzk0d0D0f0n0nblk000ZQP[OL0bzY00K0i0F0K00_0 N0]0S0g0ZQP[OL0&T[U00_04XTk0o00SZQh0U00j0K0c0_0P[k0d0D0f0ZQNYn0P[On0bzn0nbl0%RD0`0W00]0n0nbl0i(uW0f0P[On0bz0$ReY0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0e,{ N0elONNagk000p00P[L0ZQK0i0F0K0o0]0n0QuS_Bfn0kn0+Yn0,gVlk00c0f0[00h0U00f0J000 Tago0]0n0e NQuh0D0F0N[k000ZQ'`0S_Y00ZQP[On0bzk0d0D0f0]0n0nbl0[00[g0B00h0U0000]0F0Y00h00QuNYn0N1uk000ZQ'`0S_Y004XTn0ZQP[On0bzk0d0D0f0o00elOo0nblzl[n0_00n0[0 kD0f0D00S0h0k0j00L00 Tag0^ci(uW00ZQ'`0S_Y00SVh0j00y0M0N[L0[bW0_0S_Bfn0kn0+Yn0,gVlk00c0f0[00n0L0vS_g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;W0_0L0c0f00 NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"L0$h0'n0ZZYk00c0f0$0'+YfZn0ZQP[h0j00K0i0F0K0k0d0D0f0o00SZZYS_Bfn0'n0+Y$n0,gVlg0B00ӗVlL0nblh0j000 NJTN"Ss0 T"L0$k000 T NJTN0n0wk00c0f0$0'+YfZn0ZQP[h0j00K0i0F0K0k0d0D0f0o00$L0 T NJTN00wW0_0S_Bf$L0 T NJTN00wW0_0n0o00$$ L0e,gk00^SW0_0_n0-fT NkQt^ NgNVeg0B00S0h0L02 Nf0K0g0B000 n0$n0,gVlg0B00e,glL0nblh0j00h0D0F0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;]0F0Y00h00 NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"o00N]N]N0t^l_,{VN]N]NSk0009eckMRn0ӗVllNN Nagk000'h0n0k0D0000}kP[OL0uX00]0n0ZQP[_00[P[h0 Tik0qb00j0J00ӗVk0J0D0f0o00 Tagk0[Y00l[kP[OL0bzY00_00k0o00kh0P[L0 TNn0[M|8bM| Qk0B00S0h00W0j0D0h0U00f0D000 0 T NJTN0o0'n0v}Nh0j00 T9ecklDGRNNagN 0Ne0 NJTN"Ss0 T"o00e,gllk000'n0ZQP[g0B00h0o0000j0D0S0h0k0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; N 0Sn00F0k0'n0ZQP[g0B00h0o0000j0D0 NJTN"Ss0 T"k0d0D0f00fk0'h0n0k0ZQNYn0P[OL0bzY00K0i0F0K00iY000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0e,{V0elONkQagNo00]0n0e Nwh0wn0P[On0bzk0d0D0f0n0nbl0[00_00n0[g0B00h0Y0y0M0g0B00K000]0n0Nn0N1uk000P[On0bzk0d0D0f0o00elOo0nblzl[n0_00n0[0 kD0f0D00S0h0k0j000]0n0Nn0N1uk000P[On0bzn0F0a00@~OL0j0D0n0k0J0Q00QuNYn0N1uk000P[On0bzk0d0D0f0o00elONkQagN0NNagn0lak0K00L000P[O0bzU0[00SVh0j00y0M0N[L0[bW0_0S_Bfn0n0,gVlSs0P[n0,gVln0SeL0P[On0bz0[Y004XTk0n000P[On0bz000n0L0vS_g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;W0_0L0c0f00$L0 NJTN"Ss0 T"0wY00S0h0k00c0f0'h0 T NJTN0n0k0P[OL0bzY00K0i0F0K0k0d0D0f0o00SwS_Bfn0'n0,gVlg0B00ӗVlh0 T NJTN0n0,gVlg0B00e,gln0SeL0P[On0bz0[Y00K0i0F0K000y0M0g0B000e,glg0o0'h0 T NJTN0n0k0P[OL0bzW0j0D0K000ӗVln0Q[0iY00~0g00j0O00'h0 T NJTN0n0n0P[Oo0&T[U000P}@\0 T NJTN0o00'n0v}Nk0o0j00j0D0h0D0F0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;V 0Sh0puj000'h0 NJTN"n0P[On0bzk0d0D0f00ӗVl0nblh0W0f0S000[W0_0S[n0$Rek0o00lNn0ȑi(u0c0_0UlL0B000]0n0Ulo0S$Rzln0P}֊k0q_0S|0Y0S0h0L0f0K0g0B000֊eo00Sn0e0D0F00n0h0W0f0t1uL0B000S$Rzl-N0,{NNNˊBln0F0a0,gN^irn0ÌevS_Mn0ёT/eUbˊBlk0d0M00 NJTN"L0'n0v}Ng0B00S0h00MRck0{W0_0Mn0/eUb0}TX0_0Ro004xh0MQ0j0D00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTN0n0Tv}Rk0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N 0'o00$n0v}#uk0d0M00-fTNNt^l_,{NNSk0009eckMRn0ll]N00agn0[k000 NRn0Nn0v}R00c0f0v}W0_00</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;'n0{kNk000v}k0W00ӗVlk000p00MRn00F0k0'h0n0k0l[kP[OL0X[Y00 NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"L0v|QS^\h0W0f0 TMOg0v}Nh0j00L00 TN[M|Qk0j0D0sYP[n0v}Ro07uP[n0VRn0Nh0j00N]NNNt^l_,{ N0NNSk0009eckMRn0ӗVllN00]NagN0MRN]N]N0t^9eckMRn0 TagN0SN]NNNt^9ecklDGRN0SN]N]N0t^9ecklDGRNNagN 0 NJTN"Ss0 T"L0'h0 TN[M|Qk0j0D0sYP[g0B0c0_0S0h0o02 Nf0K0g0B000 0]0F0Y00h00$n0v}#uk0Y00 NJTN0n0TS_Ro00!kn0h0J00h0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N 0 NJTN"k0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTN"o00'L0v}W0_0,gNW0W^irn0T NRn0Nn0cRk0d0M00]0n0mQRn0V0v}Y00K000'K00,gNW0W^irn0TNkQRn0Vn0cR0v}W0_00 T NJTNo00$n0{kNk0000]0n0ZQP[h0W0f0,gNW0W^irn0TNNRn0Nn0cR0ek0v}W0f0D00K000Tg0TNkQRn0Nn0cR0S_W0_0S0h0k0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; N 0 NJTN"Ss0 T"k0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTN"Ss0 T"o00'L0v}W0_0,gNW0W^irn0T NRn0Nn0cRk0d0M00'h0 TN[M|Qk0j0D0sYP[h0W0f0]00^00]0n0mQRn0N0v}Y00K000'K00,gNW0W^irn0TNkQRn0Nn0cR0v}W0_00 T NJTN0o00$n0{kNk0000]0n0ZQP[h0W0f0,gNW0W^irn0TNNRn0Nn0cR0ek0v}W0f0D00K000Tg0TNkQRn0Vn0cR0S_W0_0S0h0k0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;V 0 NJTN"Ss0 T"k0d0D0f0</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp; NJTN"Ss0 T"o00$n0{kNk0000]0n0^ZQP[h0W0f0]00^00,gNW0W^irn0TNNRn0Nn0cR0S_W0_00</p> </td> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;V. On Item 5 of the ground for the jokoku appeal</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;1. On the choice of the applicable law</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(1) [Summary 1] In cases where, in transnational legal relations, there is a preliminary issue which is indispensable to solve the primary issue and which constitutes a different legal relationship from the primary issue from the viewpoint of conflict of laws, the applicable law of the preliminary issue shall not be determined by the applicable law of the primary issue or the applicable law which is designated by the rules of conflict of laws of the country of the applicable law of the primary issue, but should be determined by the rules of conflict of laws of Japan which is the law of the forum.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;In the present case, by virtue of Article 25 of the previous Law on the Application of Laws, the applicable law of the inheritance of J is Korean law which is the law of the home country of the deceased J. According to Article 1000, para.1, subpara.1 of the Korean Civil Code, J's direct descendants are heirs, but the applicable law of the problem of whether the jokoku appellees are J's direct descendants or not, which is a different matter from inheritance, i.e. whether there is a parent-children relationship between J and the jokoku appellees is to be determined by the rules of conflict of laws of Japan.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(2) [Summary 2] In accordance with the structure of articles 17 and 18 of the Previous Law on the Application of Laws which provides for the acquisition of legitimacy as a separate legal issue within the legal problem of the existence of a parent-child relationship, if there is a problem as to the existence of a parent-child relation, first, the existence of the parent-legitimate child relationship should be determined by applying the applicable law to this relation, and if the existence of this relation is denied, the applicable law to the existence of a parent-child relationship other than that with a legitimate child should be sought and the existence of the relation should be determined by applying this law.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;[Summary 3] According to Article 17 of the previous Law on the Application of Laws, whether the child is a legitimate child or not was to be determined by the law of the home country of the husband of the mother at the time of the birth of the child. This is understood by its wording to be a provision which determines the applicable law to the emergence of the parent-legitimate child relationship in which the legitimacy is obtained by birth. If this is the case, the previous Law on the Application of Law lacks any provision on the acquisition of legitimacy on grounds other than birth. However, it is appropriate to apply this provision by analogy and determine the emergence of the relation by applying the law of the home country of the husband of the mother at the time of the birth of the child.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Therefore, whether the jokoku appellees D, C, and E became the legitimate children of G and J by the marriage of G and J should be determined by Korean law which, at the time of the marriage, was the law of the home country of G who is the husband of J, and whether or not jokoku appellees B and F became the legitimate children of K and J by the legitimization by K shall be determined by Japanese law which is the law of the home country of K at the time of the legitimization by K (this is because it is evident from the records that K legitimised the jokoku appellees on March 14, 1963 after G (K) naturalised to Japanese nationality).</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;If this is the case, by virtue of Article 773 of the Korean Civil Code before the amendment by Law No.4199 of 1990, a step mother-children relation emerged between jokoku appellees D, C, and E on one hand and J on the other and the jokoku appellees should be treated in the same manner as real children and become heirs (it is understood in Korea that it is not necessary for a mother and a child to belong to the same family register in order for a legal mother-child relation to emerge) (Article 12, para.1 of the Attached Rules to the amended law).</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(3) Now let us examine whether or not there is a parent-child relationship other than that with legitimate children between J and the jokoku appellees B and F who are not recognised as the legitimate children of J.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;[Summary 4] Article 18, para.1 of the previous Law on the Application of Laws is understood to be a provision which determines the applicable law to the emergence of the parent-child relation between a legitimatising person and a legitimatised child, and therefore, the previous Law lacks a provision on the applicable law when a parent-child relation emerges on other grounds. Of the emergence of a parent-child relation on other grounds, concerning the emergence of a parent-child relation between non-blood related people on a ground other than birth, in the light of the intention of articles 18, para.1 and 22 of the previous Law on the Application of Laws, it is appropriate to acknowledge the emergence of a parent-child relation only when both the law of the home country of the parent and the law of the home country of the child, at the time of the establishment of the fact which serves as the ground for the emergence of the parent-child relationship, acknowledge this.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Therefore, whether or not a parent-children relationship emerges between J and the jokoku appellees by K legitimatizing B and F shall be determined by both Korean law which is the law of the law of the home country of J and Japanese law which is the law of the home country of the jokoku appellees. Since under the Japanese law, a parent-child relationship does not emerge between J and the jokoku appellees, even without considering the content of Korean law, the parent-children relationship between J and the jokoku appellees is denied, and therefore, the jokoku appellees are not the heirs to J.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(4) The ruling of the original instance court, which, different from above, applied Korean law to the emergence of the parent-child relationship between J and the jokoku appellee B and acknowledged the parent-child relationship, has erred in its interpretation and application of the law and it is evident that this error affects the conclusion of the judgment of the original instance court. The argument is with grounds. The part of the judgment of the original instance court which ordered payment of the amount calculated upon the premise that the jokoku appellee is an heir to J in relation to the claim for the payment of the amount equivalent to the rent of the Building in Case 1 cannot but be quashed.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;2. The share of inheritance of the jokoku appellees</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(1) J has inherited one-third of the estate of K in accordance with Article 900 of the Civil Code before the amendment by Law No.51 of 1980.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;According to Korean law, concerning the inheritance as a result of the death of J, as above, jokoku appellees D, C, and E who have a statutory mother-children relationship with J are heirs of the same rank, but the share of a female who is not within the same family register is one-quarter that of a male (Article 1009, para.1 of the Korean Civil Code before the amendment by Law No.3051 of 1977, para.2 of the same provision before the amendment in 1990, para.5 of the Attached Rules to the Civil Code before the 1977 amendment, Article 12, para.1 of the Attached Rules to the Civil Code before the 1990 amendment). It is evident that jokoku appellees C and E were females who were not within the same family register by the record.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Therefore, the shares of inheritance of the jokoku appellees of the estate of K are as follows.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(2) Jokoku appellee D</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;The jokoku appellee D inherits four-sixths of the one third of the Land and the Building inherited by J, i.e. 4/18 of the Land and the Building. D has already inherited 2/12 each of the Land and the Building as the legitimate child of K after K's death, and therefore, in total, acquired 7/18 of the estate.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(3) Jokoku appellees C and E</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Jokoku appellees C and E inherit one-sixth of the one-third of the share of the Land and the Building inherited by J, i.e. 1/18 of the Land and the Building as females not within the same family register. They have already inherited 2/12 of the Land and the Building as legitimate children of K after K's death, and therefore, in total, acquired 4/18 of the estate.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;(4) Jokoku appellees B and F</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;Jokoku appellees B and F inherited 1/12 each of the Land and the Building by the death of K as K's illegitimate children. </td> </tr> <!-- REASON 6 --> <tr> <td valign="top" width="40%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;mQ0P}֊</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;N N:yW0_0h0S00k000p00,gNn0P}֊o00]0n0YOn0 NJTt1uk0d0D0f0$ReY00~0g00j0O00!kn00F0k0j000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTNo0,gNW0W^irn0T NRn0Nn0cR0BfRS_W0_0h0D0F0y0M0g0B000 NJTN"n0,{NNNˊBln0F0a0,gN^irf!nˊBlo0htSY0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0 NJTN"n0,{NNNˊBln0F0a0ÌevS_Mn0ёT/eUbˊBlo00 NJTNL0,gN^irn0ÌPN0K00SSW0f0D00Ìek0d0M00 T NJTNn0,gN^irn0cRrRTk0vS_Y00Rk0d0D0f0 NS_)R_n0ԏ0Bl000n0g0B00h0U0000W0K0W0j0L000qQ gn0NNL0qQ gir0Nk0ÌW0f0_0Svk0d0M0]0n0cRrRT0H00Rn0 NS_)R_ԏ0Bl00Nn0qQ gn0ˊBln0F0a0N[[n0S-_֊B}P}Bf_k0O0ˊBlRo00\egn0f}Nn04H00cwY00S0h0n0g0M00ˊBlh0W0f0n0i <p>&ensp;&ensp; T NJTNn0S[S-_֊B}P}e~0g0n0ÌevS_Mn0ёT/eUbˊBlRk0d0D0f0o00 T NJTNL0v}W0_0,gN^irn0cRg0B00NNRn0NK00 NJTNL0BfRS_W0_0]0n0 NRn0N0cdW00NkQRn0Nn0cRk0vS_Y00P^g0[Y0y0M0g0B000Y0j00a00 NJTN"n0 NJTNk0[Y00,gN^irn0ÌevS_Mn0ёT/eUbˊBlo00N{gS__00VNNV000Qk0NkQRn0N0WNX0_0NN N000Qn0P^g0[Y0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;02k000p00,gNW0Wo0{v?| N$n0@b g Tn0~0~0g0B000,gN^irk0o0v}0SVh0W0f0)'n0_DQ_ L0 NRn0N0 NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"L0TNNRn0N0 NJTN"Ss0 T"L0TNNRn0Nn0TcR0 gY00S0h0h0Y00@b g)jy{vL0L}1uU00f0D00S0h0L0f0K0g0B000W0_0L0c0f00 NJTNn0,{NNNˊBlo00 NJTN0k0[W00,gNW0Wk0d0D0f0o0 NJTN0n0Tl[v}Rn0T NRn0Nk0vS_Y00cR NJTN"o0NVRn0N0 T"Ss0 T"o0TNVRn0V0 T"Ss0 T"o0T NmQRn0N0S000n0Rk0qQk0Y00h00 T"o0N0kQRn0NV0 T"Ss0 T"o0TN0kQRn0kQ0 T"Ss0 T"o0TN0kQRn0 Nh0j000 k0d0M00,gN^irk0d0D0f0o0T{vU00_0cRn0T NRn0Nk0vS_Y00cR NJTN"0 T"Ss0 T"o0T NmQRn0N0 T"Ss0 T"o0T NmQRn0N k0d0M00-fTVNt^NgNmQeBfRS_0SVh0Y00cRNy{vKb}0}TX00P^g0[Y0y0M0g0B000</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;0c0f00$R[hQTNn0ag00;Nen0h0J00$RzlY000</p> <p class="indent">$Rw$R[0'YQ\ΐ0$R[0\Αy^Ė0$R[0`IQ7u0$R[0N]NS0$R[0䅕NckĖ </p> </td> <td valign="top" width="60%"> <p>&ensp;&ensp;VI. Conclusion</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;As above, without ruling on the other grounds for the jokoku appeal, the conclusion in the present case is as follows:</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;1. The jokoku appellant has acquired one-third of the Land and the Building and the claim of the jokoku appellee B for the transfer of the Building in Case 1 shall be dismissed.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;2. The claim of the jokoku appellee B for the payment of the equivalent of the rent in the Case 1 can be regarded as a claim for the return of the part of the rent due to the jokoku appellee corresponding to the share in the Building on the ground of unjust enrichment from the rent which the jokoku appellant is receiving. However, part of the claim by a co-owner for the return of the profit from letting the property from another co-owner exceeding the latter's share on the basis of unjust enrichment for the period after the end of the oral hearing of the fact-finding instance does not qualify for an action for future payment (Supreme Court 1984 (O) 1293, Judgment of the Supreme Court, March 31, 1988, Saibanshu, Civil Cases, No.153, p.627), the claim on the part demanding the payment of the equivalent of the rent after October 20, 1994 shall be dismissed. The part of the claim by the jokoku appellee B for the payment of the equivalent of the rent before the end of the oral hearing of the fact-finding instance shall be acknowledged to the extent of the one-twelfth of the share in the Building deducted by one-third which has been inherited by the jokoku appellant, i.e. one-eighteenth. Thus, the claim by the jokoku appellee B for the payment of the equivalent of the rent shall be acknowledged to the extent of 23,000 yen, which is the one-eighteenth of 414,000 yen per month.</p> <p>&ensp;&ensp;3. According to the records, the Land is still registered in the name of K and the registration of the title to the Building has been transferred, one-third to Kinsetsu (cousin of J), 2/12 each to jokoku appellees D, E, and C, and 1/12 each to jokoku appellees B and F. Therefore, the claim of the jokoku appellant in Case 2 shall be acknowledged to the extent that, concerning the Land, the jokoku appellees should transfer registration of one-third each of their shares of the inheritance (jokoku appellee D, 7/54, jokoku appellees C and E, 4/54 each, jokoku appellees B and F, 1/36 each, i.e. with the common denominator, D, 14/108, C and E, 8/108, B and F, 3/108) and concerning the Building, one-third each of the registered share (jokoku appellee D, C, and E, 2/36 each, jokoku appellees B and F, 1/36 each) on the ground of acquisitive prescription on May 16, 1970. Thus, the justices unanimously rule as the main text of the judgment.</p> <pre> Presiding Judge Justice OIDE Toshiro Justice ONO Mikio Justice ENDO Mitsuo Justice ISHIMA Kazutomo Justice FUJII Masao </pre> <p>(*Translated by Sir Ernest Satow Chair of Japanese Law, University of London)</p> </td> </tr> </table> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <a name="justices"></a> <!-- ********** --> <!-- JUSTICES --> <!-- ********** --> <h3>Justices</h3> <p>Forthcoming.</p> <p align="right"> <a style="text-decoration: none;" href="../nationality/Nationality_law_2000_inheritance_ruling.html"> <font class="red">Top</font></a>&ensp;&ensp;</p> <hr /> </div> <!-- FOOTER --> <div id="footer"> Copyright &copy; by William Wetherall<br /> <font class="f6blue"> www.yoshabunko.com</font><br /> <!-- W3 XHTML VALIDATOR --> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"><img src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10" alt="Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional" height="31" width="88" /></a> </div> </body> </html>