최근(2023-2024) 일본 행정법판례의 동향과 검토

This article examines the rulings of important administrative laws issued in Japan for about a year from November 2023 to the end of October 2024. The related contents are briefly summarized as follows. Judgment 1 is a problem with the law applied to the lease relationship of houses rented by the Local Housing Supply Corporation. In this case, according to the Local Housing Corporation Act, the Housing Corporation is supposed to determine the rent, but the Land and House Lease Act stipulates the tenant's right to claim the rent increase or decrease, which is an issue that discussed the nature of the house, the purpose of the system, and the relationship between public law and civil law in judging the laws applied to these legal relations. Judgment 2 is that the film production company, which received the grant of the Culture and Arts Promotion Fund, decided that it could not issue the grant for the public interest for the film in which the person appeared when the actor of the film was found guilty of violating the Drug Enforcement Act, and the film production company sought the cancellation of the decision. This is an issue that shows whether the performer has directly benefited, how infringement of the "general public interest" such as prevention of drug abuse can be recognized, and how these issues can be discussed with freedom of art. Judgment 3 is a matter of discussion on whether one of the same-sex common-law spouses is possible as a subject to claim benefits such as crime victims paid to the bereaved families, etc. when a person has died due to crime damage. In response, the Supreme Court determined that same-sex common-law spouses can also suffer mental and economic damage and must be mitigated early, so they are eligible for the benefit. It is noteworthy how the interpretation of the legal text and the impact of this ruling in the future will affect other public benefits. Judgment 4 is a matter related to the scope of jurisdiction in administrative litigation. The city council ordered the city council member to read an apology statement, but the council member refused to do so and imposed a disciplinary action for suspension of attendance. In this regard, the importance of the council's autonomy and the authority and scope of judicial review were contested. The judiciary said that if the disciplinary action of suspension of attendance against a city council member is imposed as a reason for disciplinary action, the apology statement is not directly subject to judicial review, even if the disciplinary action is not subject to judicial review, the legality and relevance of the disciplinary action of the apology statement can be judged on the premise of judging the illegality of the disciplinary action of suspension of attendance. Judgment 5 is a question of whether the employer is eligible for the plaintiff in a lawsuit for cancellation of labor accident benefits, as this may increase the insurance premium to be borne by the employer in the future in relation to the insurance premium of labor insurance. Considering the purpose of the system of the Labor Accident Insurance Act, the employer did not recognize the plaintiff's eligibility in that there is a way to remedy his or her rights, so it will be referred to in similar cases in the future. Judgment 6 is a matter of seeking the return of unfair gains such as the remuneration of the relevant city councilor for the elected person who retroactively lost the seat due to a violation of the Public Official Election Act. In judging the cost of political activities and the remuneration of lawmakers, it is that contents such as the fairness of the public office election system became an important judgment factor. However, it is noteworthy what kind of discussion will be in the future in that there were objections within the Supreme Court.