Supreme Court First Petty Bench Decision of March 23, 1995, 49 Minshu 3-984, 1527 Hanji 82, 877 Hanta 166. The Court held a guarantor's claim of indemnity against the debtor for an obligation paid by the guarantor had not been tolled despite the fact that the guarantor’s claim had not been asserted until after the debtor had declared bankruptcy and after the passage of the statutorily prescribed period for research of creditors (saiken chosa kiritsu) at which time the guarantor sought to amend the list of creditors to add its name as the creditor of the debt paid by the guarantor. The Court found that the statute of limitations had been suspended upon the guarantor's filing for amendment of the creditor's list and was reinstated upon the issuance of the final order in bankruptcy but was not extended for an additional ten (10) year period applicable to claims reduced to judgment pursuant to Civil Code Article 143-2(1).

Supreme Court Third Petty Bench Decision of April 25, 1995, 49 Minshu 4-1163, 1530 Hanji 53, 877 Hanta 171. The Court affirmed a lower court determination that a medical care provider's failure to inform a patient that she suffered from cancer did not amount to nonperformance of the medical services contract. Based on the psychological condition of the patient and her family, the defendant physician had impressed upon the plaintiff patient the need for an operation for removal of a gallstone, but did not inform the patient that the true nature of her illness was cancer. Believing it was not urgent, the plaintiff failed to report for the operation, and later died as a result. While recognizing the importance of the conveyance of accurate information to patients, the Court acknowledged that the defendant provider's conduct was consistent with accepted medical practices.

Supreme Court Decision of June 9, 1995, 49 Minshu 6-1499. The Court reversed and remanded a lower court's dismissal of claims against a medical facility for failure to undertake laser treatment to prevent retinal scarring in a premature infant suffering from cyanosis. The lower court had determined that laser treatment was not included in the appropriate medical standard of care at the time because the Ministry of Health and Welfare had not promulgated regulations prescribing laser treatment until shortly after the doctors at the defendant facility had been consulted. The Court remanded for further consideration the medical standard applicable to the contract for treatment, noting that such a determination would involve consideration of a number of factors including the character of the medical facility, and the special characteristics of the medical environment of the area in which it is located.

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of June 23, 1995, 49 Minshu 6-1737, 1534 Hanji 35, 880 Hanta 140. The Court affirmed the lower court's refusal to find that a bank’s enforcement of a security interest against one borrower when it had agreed to release of its security interest in the assets of another party did not violate public morals and welfare. The borrower and the other party had offered their respective property as collateral in consideration for the bank's guaranty of a loan. The bank had released the other party as a result of its partial payment of the underlying loan but later sought to execute against the collateral offered by the borrower based on a provision in a security agreement between the parties which excused the bank's obligation to preserve its security interest in the offered collateral. The borrower claimed the bank's release of the other party violated Civil Code Article 804, which provides that an obligee who negligently reduces its security thereby relieves the obligor of liability, that the provision of the mortgage agreement was therefore void and that the bank's efforts to enforce its interest pursuant to the provision in its mortgage agreement with the debtor was in violation of public morals and welfare and an abuse of rights.

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of January 26, 1996, 1556 Hanji 76. The Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant creditor who was forced to disgorge funds received as a result of sale of property pursuant to a forced auction. The defendant creditor had sought to compel auction sale of a building owned by a defaulting debtor. The building was subject to a lease of the underlying property, a fact that was noted in the inspection report, appraisal and building description prepared in accordance with the procedure for forced auction sales. The plaintiff purchaser, based on examination of these documents, bid at the auction and on August 2, 1989 was awarded the right to purchase the property, and on September 4, 1989 remitted approximately 3.7 million yen to the debtor, a third of which was immediately transferred to the creditor. However, on July 27, 1989, the owner of the underlying property had issued notice of termination of the lease for nonpayment, and later prevailed in a suit against the plaintiff purchaser for evacuation of the building and surrender of the underlying property. The purchaser, in turn, asserted an action against the debtor for nullification of the contract for sale of the building and return of the transferred funds. As the debtor was insolvent, the plaintiff asserted its claims against the defendant creditor. Despite claims that the purchaser knew of the lease at the time of the sale, lower court granted claims against the creditor by application of Civil Code Articles 566 and 568 which allow for rescission of a contract associated with a compulsory auction sale where a servitude in favor of the object of the sale no longer exists and, where the debtor is insolvent, the assertion of claims for reduction of the purchase price against any person to whom funds have been distributed.

Supreme Court Second Betty Bench Decision of April 26, 1996, 50 Minshu 5-1267, 1567 Hanji 89. The Court reversed a lower court determination allowing the return of funds erroneously transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant. Approximately 5.6 million yen in lease funds transferred from the Aomori branch of the plaintiff lessor’s bank to the Aomori branch of the lessor’s bank was mistakenly deposited in the savings account of another depositor with the same last name. Before the mistake was corrected, a provisional judgment for attachment of 5.7 million yen was obtained by the depositor’s creditor based on its security interest in the account balance. The lower court had permitted the plaintiff's assertion of a third party opposition to the provisional order, determining the erroneously transferred funds were not subject to attachment as the depositor agreement between the receiving bank and its depositors applied only to funds correctly transferred to such accounts as a result of a legal relationship between the parties to the transfer. The Court, however, disagreed. Account balances are subject to attachment whether or not the sums transferred to such accounts stem from a legal relationship between the person requesting the transfer of funds and the person receiving the transfer of funds. To suggest that banks be required to scrutinize the legal relationship between parties to a fund transfer would undermine the smooth and efficient operation of the fund transfer process. Where the account of a transfer recipient are subject to the security interest of another, the person requesting the transfer has a claim for unjust enrichment and return of that amount, but has no standing to impede the creditor from collecting funds owed to it.

Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Decision of July 12, 1996, 50 Minshu 7-1876, 1579 Hanji 77, 922 Hanta 212. The Court reversed and remanded the lower court's refusal to allow termination of a property lease under Land Lease Law Article 12(1). The plaintiff lessor and defendant lessee had succeeded to rights and obligations under a lease of underlying property for the purpose of construction of a building entered into by the plaintiff and defendant’s fathers in 1960. In August of 1980, after approximately twenty (20) years without significant change in their relationship, the plaintiff lessor notified the defendant lessee of an increase in monthly lease payment to 60,000 yen. In 1989, as a result of a reevaluation of the property, the annual property taxes associated with the property were increased to approximately 740,000 yen. Accordingly, in October of 1989 plaintiffs again notified defendants of an increase in the monthly lease payment to 120,000 yen. The defendant ignored this notification and continued to pay a monthly lease fee of 60,000 yen despite notification from the plaintiffs, in February of 1990, that in the event defendants failed to pay the increased monthly lease fee within one week, the lease would terminate. The lower court had refused to allow termination of the lease under Land Lease Law Article 12(2), which allows a lessee to respond to a valid demand for increased lease payments by remitting "an amount which lessee subjectively considers appropriate" pending judicial resolution of the appropriate amount. As payment of an amount which the lessee subjectively considers appropriate does not give rise to default under the Land Lease Law, the plaintiffs’ attempt to terminate the lease and its request for vacation of the building and surrender of the property lacked adequate basis and was therefore invalid. Reversing and remanding, The Court determined that the court below had misinterpreted the purpose of Land Lease Law Article 12(2), which is to protect the lessee from payment of an increased lease fee prior to judicial determination of the appropriate fee. Absent special circumstances, where the lessee is aware that the amount paid is insufficient to meet to the tax burden associated with the leased property, the such amount could not be considered "subjectively appropriate" and may give rise to default under the lease, justifying its termination. The Court remanded for investigation as to whether the defendants were justified in considering payment of a monthly lease fee of 60,000 yen "subjectively appropriate."