All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2023Da283401 Decided March 27, 2025 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Where acts of exhuming graves or damaging corpses or remains infringed upon a person’s personal legal interests, including commemorative emotions, resulting in mental distress, whether the above person may file a claim for compensation for mental distress against those who committed acts of exhuming graves or damaging corpses or remains even if the above person is not a person superintending the ancestral rites, who is authorized to manage and dispose of the graves (affirmative), and the standard for determining whether acts of exhuming graves or damaging corpses or remains infringed upon a person’s personal legal interests, including commemorative emotions, thereby causing mental distress [2] In a case where Parties A and B obtained a letter of undertaking for the relocation of graves from Party C, the primary heir and the person superintending the ancestral rites of the deceased buried there, for the purpose of developing a forested area where graves were located; thereafter, they excavated the graves, removed the remains of the deceased, placed them all together in a metal container, burned them, and buried the ashes near the entrance of the graves; and Party D, who had been actually managing the graves as a child or grandchild of the deceased, filed a claim for compensation for mental distress caused by Party A and others’ acts of damaging remains, the case holding that even though Party A and others’ acts of damaging remains infringed upon Party D’s personal legal interests, including commemorative emotions, thereby causing mental distress, and thus, Party D can be seen to have a claim for consolation money, the lower court, which dismissed Party D’s claim on the sole ground that Party D is not a person superintending the ancestral rites, who is authorized to manage and dispose of the graves, erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine without due deliberation and adjudication in relation thereto | |
