最判H18.7.20 集合動産譲渡担保設定者による目的動産の処分 3

(和田）　いざ！

2. In this case, the appellee, alleging that it has acquired the ownership of the Properties under Contracts 1 and 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Contracts"), seeks from the appellant delivery of the Properties based on the ownership.
　本件は、契約１・２（以下、【本件契約】という）に基づく各物件の所有権を主張する被上告人が、上告人に対して、所有権に基づく各物件の引渡しを求める事案である。

（かと）　（一つ目の）所有権　→　所有権の取得

In response to this, the appellant argues that: (i) the Contracts should be construed as contracts for non-statutory mortgage; (ii) Because, prior to the conclusion of the Contracts, the Mortgages had been established on the farmed fish including the Properties for A, B, and C and the requirement to assert the Mortgages against third parties had been satisfied, it is impossible for the appellee to acquire the ownership
of the Articles unless it satisfies the requirements for immediate acquisition of ownership.
　これに対して、上告人は以下のように主張した。
（ⅰ）本件契約（the Contracts）は、非法定担保物権設定契約と解すべきであること
（ⅱ）本件契約に先立って、A,B,Cのために、本件物件（the Properties）を含んだ養殖魚に本件担保（the Mortgages）を設定し、第三者対抗要件（the requirement to assert X　against third parties）を具備した（being satisfied　）のであるから、被上告人が即時取得の要件（immediate acquisition of the ownership）を満たさない限り、被上告人は本件物件（the Articles？）の所有権を取得することはできない。

（かと）　the Properties と　the Articles　は、違う訳がいいかもね。物件と物でもいいし、資産と物件でもいいし。

3. The court of the second instance upheld the appellee's claim, on the following grounds:
　原審は、以下のような理由で、被上告人の主張を支持した。

(1) The Contracts were concluded primarily as sales contracts between　the appellant as seller and the appellee as purchaser, and therefore　they cannot be regarded as contracts for non-statutory mortgages.
　本件契約は、もとより、上告人を売主、被上告人を買主とする売買契約として締結されたものであるから、本件契約を非法定担保物権設定契約と解することはできない。

(2) Under a contract of non-statutory mortgage on a set of movables which has commodities as its subject matter, it should be construed that the mortgagor retains the authority to sell the mortgaged commodities to a third party at his/her own discretion within the bounds of an ordinary business.
　商品を目的物とした集合動産非法定担保契約の下では、担保権設定者には、自己の判断で、その通常の営業の範囲内において、担保目的物である商品を第三者に売却する権利が留保されている（retains ）と解すべきである。

The mortgage contracts entered into between the appellant and A and between the appellant and C also
include provisions confirming this principle.
　上告人・A間、上告人・C間で締結された担保契約もまた、この原則（principle? ）を確認した条項を含んだものとなっている。

（かと）原則でよいかと。もっと意訳すると、「このこと」程度なんだろうけど、そうすると意味が薄れちゃうもんね。

Under such a contract of non-statutory mortgage on a set of movables, it should inevitably be construed that the mortgagor remains to have a real right on the mortgaged subject matter and to be entitled to sell it, thereby causing the ownership thereof to be definitely acquired by a third party.
　このような集合動産上の非法定担保物件契約においては、担保権設定者には、所有権に基づき（thereby causing the ownership ?? ）、それを第三者に確定的（definitely）に取得させるための（the ownership thereof to be definitely acquired by a third party ?? ）、担保目的物に関する真の権利（所有権？）及び売却する権利が残されているものと解さざるを得ない。

（かと）～、（it should 以下）「担保権設定者は、担保物に対する真正な権利を未だ有しており、担保物を売却する権利があり、そのことにより、当該物件における所有権は第三者により確定的に取得されるものと解さざるをえない」、で、どうでしょう？

(和田）英訳の勉強から離れますが、結局、【真正な権利】の実質ってナンなんですかね？

（かと）あまり、「真正な」って強い意味があるわけじゃないと思う。ちゃんとした権利くらいのもんなんじゃないかな。

Assuming so, it should be concluded that the appellee has
acquired by succession the ownership of the Properties based on the
appellant's real right.
　そうすると、被上告人は、上告人の真の権利に基づいて本件物件を承継取得（acquired by succession the ownership）したと解すべきである。

Although the Mortgages were established on the
Properties for A, B, and C, this cannot be a defense precluding the
appellee from seeking delivery of the Properties based on the
ownership. Consequently, the appellee's claim is well-grounded.
A,B,Cのために本件物件上に本件担保権を設定したとはいえ、このことは、被上告人が主張する所有権に基づく本件物件の引渡請求を拒む抗弁（a defense）とはならない。
　したがって、被上告人の主張には理由がある。

第2回判例 第1走者（渡辺） 和訳

【　最高裁H15.7.11判決　複数の加害者の過失と被害者の過失が競合する１つの交通事故における過失相殺　】

第1走者　渡辺　

範囲：　主文～理由　第１　まで

Main text of the judgment

主文

1. The judgment of the second instance court shall be changed as follows.

１．第二審の判決（原判決）を以下のように変更する。

The first instance court judgment shall be changed as follows.

第一審判決を以下のように変更する。

(1) The jokoku appellant shall pay the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd.,535,862 yen plus interest at a 5% annual rate from September 2, 1997, until it is completely paid.

上告人は、被上告人である堀口運送株式会社に対し、金535,862円及び1997年9月２日から完済に至るまで年利5%の割合の利息を支払え。

(2) The jokoku appellant shall pay the jokoku appellee, the Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture, 873,388 yen plus interest at a 5% annual rate from September 30, 1999, until it is completely paid.

上告人は、被上告人である三重県相互交通扶助協会に対し、金873,388円及び1999年9月30日から完済に至るまで年利5%の割合の利息を支払え。

(3) The rest of the claims by the jokoku appellee shall be dismissed.

被上告人の請求のその余の部分を棄却する。

2. The whole cost of the lawsuit between the jokoku appellant and the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., shall be divided by ten, nine-tenths of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellant and the rest of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd.

上告人と被上告人、堀口運送株式会社の間の訴訟費用は、10等分し、そのうち10分の9は、上告人が支払うものとし、残りの部分は被上告人、堀口運送株式会社が支払うものとする。

The whole cost of the lawsuit between the jokoku appellant and the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., shall be divided by three, one-third of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellant, and the rest of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellee, Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture.

上告人と、被上告人、三重県相互交通扶助協会との間の訴訟費用は、3等分し、そのうち3分の１は、上告人が支払うものとし、残りの部分は被上告人、三重県相互交通扶助協会が支払うものとする。

（かと）最初の一文は、「被上告人、堀口交通株式会社」ですか。

Reasons

理由

No.1 Outline of the case

第1　事件の概要

1 The following is the summary of the facts determined legally by the second instance court.

以下は、第二審裁判所が適法に認定した事実の要旨である。

(1) "A," an employee of the jokoku appellant, parked an ordinary truck (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellant's car") on a road with one traffic lane for each direction in front of 1-1277 Gotanda-cho, Matsuzaka-shi, Mie (hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case") at around 2:25 a.m. on September 20, 1997, on the west road side over the traffic lane facing north, without using an emergency blinker.

上告人の被用者である"A”は、1997年9月20日午前2時25分ごろ、三重県松坂市五反田町1-1277の前にある、片側一車線の道路（以下、「本件道路」という。）に、普通貨物車（以下、「上告人の車」という。）を、緊急警告表示灯を使用することなく停車させた。

（かと） on the west road side over the traffic lane facing northの訳がないような。

"B," an employee of the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee company") was driving an ordinary truck belonging to the jokoku appellee company (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee's car"), heading north on the road of this case.
被上告人、堀口運送株式会社（以下、「被上告人会社」という。）の被用者である"B”は、被上告人会社所有の普通貨物車（以下、「被上告人会社の車」という。）を、本件道路を北に向かって運転していた。

In order to avoid the jokoku appellant's car, B drove the car over the center line and crashed into C's car, which was traveling on the road of this case from the north heading south at 80 km/h or over, exceeding the speed limit of 40km/h (hereinafter referred to as the "traffic accident of this case").

上告人の車を避けるため、Bは中央分離戦を超えて車を走らせ、本件道路を北から南に向かって80キロもしくはそれ以上という、制限速度である40キロを上回る速度で運転していたCの車に衝突した（以下、「本件交通事故」という。）

（かと）中央分離戦→線　すみません、細かくて。

The road of this case was under a twenty-four hour traffic control parking ban.
本件道路は、24時間駐車禁止とされていた。

However, there was no traffic control to ban passing on the right side.

しかしながら、右側からの追い越しを禁止する交通規制はとられていなかった。

Going from north to south, the road of this case curves to the left around 60m before the site of the traffic accident of this case, and C saw the jokoku appellee's car after negotiating this left-hand curve.

北から南に向かう場合、本件道路は、本件交通事故現場の手前約60メートルのところで、左に曲がっており、Cは、この左に曲がるカーブを曲がりきった後に上告人の車を見つけた。

（かと）上告人→被上告人では？
negotiateには、うまく通り抜ける、乗り越える、なんて意味があるんですね。

In the vicinity of the site of the traffic accident of this case, there were no streetlights, and from the direction that C was traveling, it was not easy to see the jokoku appellee's car before the point where C passed the curve.
本件交通事故現場の付近には、道路灯はなく、Cが走行してきた方向からは、Cがカーブを過ぎた地点より前に上告人の車を発見するのは容易ではなかった。

（和田）from the direction that C was traveling～、なるほど、そう↑訳すんですか。

(2) Negligence can be seen in the case of A because he parked the jokoku appellant's car over a no-parking roadway without using an emergency blinker.

Aは、上告人の車を、緊急警告表示灯を用いることなく、駐車禁止の路上に停車させているのであるから、本件事故におけるAの過失を認めることができる。

（和田）駐車禁止の路上にはみ出すようにして（ｏｖｅｒ）・・・。

Negligence can be seen in the case of B because he passed the jokoku appellee's car by crossing over a center line and into an oncoming traffic lane.

Bは被上告人の車を、中央分離線を越えて、反対車線に進入しているのであるから、本件事故におけるBの過失を認めることができる。

（かと）～進入し、追い越す、ではないですか？

Negligence can also be seen in the case of C because he violated the speed limit and the careful driving obligation.

Cは、制限速度違反及び注意義務違反を犯しているから、本件事故におけるCの過失を認めることができる。

The rate of negligence is one to four to one (1:4:1) respectively.

過失割合は、それぞれ、1対4対１である。

（かと）運転上の注意義務、とでもいえばいいのでしょうか

(3) Due to the traffic accident of this case, the jokoku appellant company suffered damages of 2,703,110 yen and C suffered damages of 5,811,400 yen.

(3)本件交通事故により、上告人会社は2,703,110円の損害を被り、Cは、5,811,400円の損害を被った。

（和田）　英訳の問題ではないのですが、ａｐｐｅｌｌａｎｔ　→　ａｐｐｅｌｌｅｅ（Ｂの会社）だと思うんです。

(4) A mutual aid car insurance contract has been set up for the jokoku appellee's car by designating the jokoku appellee, the Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee association") as an insurer.

(4)被上告人三重県相互交通扶助協会を、保険者とすることによって、相互扶助自動車保険契約が被上告人の車には設定されていた。

（かと）（以下、上告人協会、という）

Compulsory automobile liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile liability insurance" and the insurance benefit to be paid as insurance is referred to as the "automobile liability insurance benefit") has been set up for the jokoku appellant's car under the Automobile Liability Security Law.

自動車損害賠償責任法のもと、上告人の車には、強制的自動車賠償責任保険（以下、「自動車責任保険」という。そして、保険金として支払われる保険利益は、「自動車責任保険利益」という。）が設定されていた。

（おぎ）[insurance]だと保険金で [insurance benefit]で保険利益ということでしょうか？単に「保障として支払われる保険金」でもいいのでは？

（かと）わたしもおぎのイメージに近いです。

(5) An out-of-court settlement was reached between the jokoku appellee's company and C with respect to the damages caused by the traffic accident of this case.

　本件交通事故によって生じた損害に関し、被上告人会社とCの間で、訴訟外解決（示談？）が合意に達した。

（おぎ）　（裁判外の）和解、に一票。

（かと）おぎに同意。

The jokoku appellee company obtained payment of 365,174 yen from C, and the jokoku appellee association paid C 4,747,654 yen as compensation for damages caused by the traffic accident of this case on behalf of the jokoku appellee company.

被上告人会社はCより365,174円の支払いを得、そして、被上告人協会は4,747,654円を本件交通事故の損害賠償として、被上告人会社に代わって支払った。

（かと）（被上告人協会は、）Cに対して（4,747,654円を）

(6) Among the damages of the jokoku appellee company of 2,703,110 yen caused by the traffic accident of this case, the total of which can be claimed by the jokoku appellee company against the jokoku appellant and C, is 901,036 yen, which is equivalent to two sixths of the damages after deducting the rate of negligence (four sixths).

本件交通事故によって生じた,2,703,110円の被上告人会社の損害、つまり、被上告人会社によって上告人及びCに対し請求できる損害額の中には、901,036円があり、それは、過失割合（6分の4)を差し引いた後の損害額の6分の2に相当するものである。

（かと）多分、この訳でいいのだと思うのですが、Sは901,036yen、Vはisでしょうか。あと、whichはdamagesでしょうか。

(和田）イメージとしては、被上告人の損害総額270万円のうち、上告人・Ｃに請求できる額は90万円であり、その90万円というのは損害総額270万円の6分の2に相当する・・・だと思います。ということは、ｗｈｉｃｈは、【the total of which can be claimed by the jokoku appellee company against the jokoku appellant and C】　もしくは、【901,036 yen　】でないでしょうか。

(7) The jokoku appellee association obtained payment of 1,200,000 yen, the automobile liability insurance benefit, with respect to the compensation for damages which the association had paid C.

被上告人協会は、協会がCに対し支払った損害賠償に関し、自動車賠償責任保険益1,200,000円の支払いを得た。

（おぎ）1,200,000yen=insurance benefit ならば、やはり保険金でいいような気がします。

2. This is a case where the jokoku appellee company seeks damages against the jokoku appellant under Article 3 of the Automobile Liability Security Law or Article 715 of the Civil Code, and a case where the jokoku appellee association, which has paid C compensation for damages, seeks the performance of indemnification that is owed by the jokoku appellant against the jokoku appellee company based on the subrogation by the insurer.

本件は、被上告人会社が、上告人に対し、自動車損害賠償責任法3条又は民法715条に基づき、損害賠償を求めた事件であり、また、Cに対し損害賠償をした被上告人協会が、保険者による代位弁済を根拠に、上告人が被上告人会社に対して負う賠償金の支払いを求めた事件である。

ブログ英文判例 第2回 全文（英文）

重判H15　民法14　複数の加害者の過失と被害者の過失が競合する１つの交通事故における過失相殺

Date of the judgment
2003.07.11
Case number
2002(O)No.1689, 2002(Ju)No.1720
Reporter
Minshu Vol.57, No.7, at 815
Title
Judgment upon the method of comparative negligence and perpetrator's liability for compensation in a traffic accident where negligence of several perpetrators concurs with that of a victim and an absolute rate of negligence can be ascertained.
Case name
Case to seek damages
Result
Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, partially dismissed and partially quashed and decided by the Supreme Court
Court of the Second Instance
Nagoya High Court, Judgment of July 17, 2002
Summary of the judgment
1. In a traffic accident where negligence of several perpetrators concurs with that of a victim, when a total rate of negligence which has caused the traffic accident (absolute rate of negligence) can be ascertained, with respect to the amount of damages calculated as comparative negligence of a victim based on the absolute rate of negligence, the perpetrators shall be jointly and severally liable to make compensation caused by their joint unlawful act.
References
Article 719 and Article 722(2) of the Civil Code of Japan
Article 719
If two or more persons have by their joint unlawful act caused damages to another, they are jointly and severally liable to make compensation for such damages; the same shall apply if it is impossible to ascertain which of the joint participants has caused the damage.
2. Instigators and accomplice are deemed to be joint participants.

Article 722
2. If there is any fault on the part of the joint party, the Court may take it into account in assessing the amount of the damages.
Main text of the judgment
1. The judgment of the second instance court shall be changed as follows.
The first instance court judgment shall be changed as follows.
(1) The jokoku appellant shall pay the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd.,535,862 yen plus interest at a 5% annual rate from September 2, 1997, until it is completely paid.
(2) The jokoku appellant shall pay the jokoku appellee, the Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture, 873,388 yen plus interest at a 5% annual rate from September 30, 1999, until it is completely paid.
(3) The rest of the claims by the jokoku appellee shall be dismissed.
2. The whole cost of the lawsuit between the jokoku appellant and the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., shall be divided by ten, nine-tenths of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellant and the rest of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd. The whole cost of the lawsuit between the jokoku appellant and the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., shall be divided by three, one-third of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellant, and the rest of which shall be paid by the jokoku appellee, Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture.
Reasons
No.1 Outline of the case
1 The following is the summary of the facts determined legally by the second instance court.
(1) "A," an employee of the jokoku appellant, parked an ordinary truck (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellant's car") on a road with one traffic lane for each direction in front of 1-1277 Gotanda-cho, Matsuzaka-shi, Mie (hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case") at around 2:25 a.m. on September 20, 1997, on the west road side over the traffic lane facing north, without using an emergency blinker. "B," an employee of the jokoku appellee, Horiguchi Transportation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee company") was driving an ordinary truck belonging to the jokoku appellee company (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee's car"), heading north on the road of this case. In order to avoid the jokoku appellant's car, B drove the car over the center line and crashed into C's car, which was traveling on the road of this case from the north heading south at 80 km/h or over, exceeding the speed limit of 40km/h (hereinafter referred to as the "traffic accident of this case").

The road of this case was under a twenty-four hour traffic control parking ban. However, there was no traffic control to ban passing on the right side. Going from north to south, the road of this case curves to the left around 60m before the site of the traffic accident of this case, and C saw the jokoku appellee's car after negotiating this left-hand curve. In the vicinity of the site of the traffic accident of this case, there were no streetlights, and from the direction that C was traveling, it was not easy to see the jokoku appellee's car before the point where C passed the curve.
(2) Negligence can be seen in the case of A because he parked the jokoku appellant's car over a no-parking roadway without using an emergency blinker. Negligence can be seen in the case of B because he passed the jokoku appellee's car by crossing over a center line and into an oncoming traffic lane. Negligence can also be seen in the case of C because he violated the speed limit and the careful driving obligation. The rate of negligence is one to four to one (1:4:1) respectively.
(3) Due to the traffic accident of this case, the jokoku appellant company suffered damages of 2,703,110 yen and C suffered damages of 5,811,400 yen.
(4) A mutual aid car insurance contract has been set up for the jokoku appellee's car by designating the jokoku appellee, the Mutual Traffic Aid Association of Mie Prefecture (hereinafter referred to as the "jokoku appellee association") as an insurer. Compulsory automobile liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile liability insurance" and the insurance benefit to be paid as insurance is referred to as the "automobile liability insurance benefit") has been set up for the jokoku appellant's car under the Automobile Liability Security Law.
(5) An out-of-court settlement was reached between the jokoku appellee's company and C with respect to the damages caused by the traffic accident of this case. The jokoku appellee company obtained payment of 365,174 yen from C, and the jokoku appellee association paid C 4,747,654 yen as compensation for damages caused by the traffic accident of this case on behalf of the jokoku appellee company.
(6) Among the damages of the jokoku appellee company of 2,703,110 yen caused by the traffic accident of this case, the total of which can be claimed by the jokoku appellee company against the jokoku appellant and C, is 901,036 yen, which is equivalent to two sixths of the damages after deducting the rate of negligence (four sixths).
(7) The jokoku appellee association obtained payment of 1,200,000 yen, the automobile liability insurance benefit, with respect to the compensation for damages which the association had paid C.

2. This is a case where the jokoku appellee company seeks damages against the jokoku appellant under Article 3 of the Automobile Liability Security Law or Article 715 of the Civil Code, and a case where the jokoku appellee association, which has paid C compensation for damages, seeks the performance of indemnification that is owed by the jokoku appellant against the jokoku appellee company based on the subrogation by the insurer.

No.2 Concerning the grounds for the jokoku appeal argued by the jokoku appeal attorney NISHIMURA Eiichiro
1. Concerning the grounds for the jokoku appeal No.1-2 (2) by the jokoku appeal attorney NISHIMURA Eiichiro

The second instance court determined that the jokoku appellee company could demand the jokoku appellant and that C would pay the total of 901,036 yen among the damages suffered in the traffic accident of this case; it had already obtained payment of 365,174 yen from C. Therefore, the amount that the jokoku appellee company could demand from the jokoku appellant was 535,862 yen. However, the second instance court ordered the jokoku appellant to pay 538,242 yen, which exceeded the amount, therefore, there was a discrepancy in grounds by the second instance court. The given line of argument can be accepted because it claimed this point.

2. Concerning the rest of the grounds for the jokoku appeal
The rest of the grounds for the jokoku appeal are claimed on the basis of lack or discrepancy of grounds. However, it claimed only an error of facts and violation of laws in substance, therefore, it could not be regarded as the grounds provided in Article 312(1) or Article 312(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

No.3 Concerning the grounds for the petition for accepting the jokoku appeal No.3-2 (3) argued by the jokoku appeal attorney NISHIMURA Eiichiro
1. The following is the outline of the decision by the second instance court that approved the claim by the jokoku appellee association against the jokoku appellant for up to 1,706,109 yen plus delay charges.
(1) With respect to the damages suffered by C, which was caused by the traffic accident of this case, C may seek damages against the jokoku appellee company and the jokoku appellant for up to five sixths of the damages that can be calculated by deducting one sixth, C's rate of negligence, from the total of the damages in accordance with the relative rate of negligence per party. Thus, C could seek damages against the jokoku appellee company to the limit of 4,842,833 yen, which is equivalent to five sixths of 5,811,400 yen and demand 4,649,120 yen after taking comparative negligence into account at the rate of C's negligence, one fifth, of 5,811,400 yen. Against the jokoku appellant, C could demand 2,905,700 yen after taking comparative negligence into account at the rate of C's negligence, one half.
(2) The scope where the liability for damages of the jokoku appellee company and that of the jokoku appellant concur is 2,711,987 yen, which can be calculated by summing up the above amount of 4,649,120 yen and 2,905,700 yen and then deducting 4,842,833 yen. The amount of liability for damages owed by only the jokoku appellee company is 1,937,133 yen, which is calculated by deducting the above 2,711,987 yen from the above 4,649,120 yen.

The amount of liability owed by the jokoku appellee company is 2,479,530 yen, which can be calculated by multiplying the above 2,711,987 yen by one fifth and then adding the above 1,937,133 yen.

The jokoku appellee company may demand the jokoku appellant indemnification of 2,268,124 yen, which is calculated by deducting the above 2,479,530 yen from 4,747,654 yen that the jokoku appellee company paid C.

(3) The jokoku appellee association obtained payment of the automobile liability insurance benefit to the amount of 1,200,000 yen, and it was to be appropriated in accordance with the following method; the amount of liability for damages owed by only the jokoku appellee company, the amount of liability for damages owed by only the jokoku appellant, and the amount where the liability for damages owed by the jokoku appellee company stands in concurrence with that of the jokoku appellant. In the end, from the above 1,200,000 yen, the amount to be deducted from the indemnification of the jokoku appellee company is 562,015 yen.
(4) In conclusion, the jokoku appellee association may claim 1,706,109 yen from the jokoku appellant, which is calculated by deducting 562,015 yen from 2,268,124 yen.

2. However, the above decision by the second instance court cannot be approved. The following is the reason for the decision.
(1) In a traffic accident where negligence of several perpetrators concurs with that of a victim, when the rate of all negligence which has caused the traffic accident (absolute rate of negligence) can be ascertained, with respect to the amount of damages calculated by carrying out comparative negligence of a victim based on the absolute rate of negligence, it is to be understood that the perpetrators shall be jointly and severally liable to make compensation caused by their joint unlawful act. Aside from this, when a relative comparative negligence is determined in accordance with the rate of negligence per relation between each of the perpetrators and a victim, it will contravene the purpose of Article 719 of the Civil Code that aims to protect a victim by allowing a victim to obtain the whole amount of compensation for damages from each of the joint tortfeasors.

(2) Based on the above reasoning, the jokoku appellee company and the jokoku appellant shall owe the quasi-joint and several responsibility to the limit of 4,842,833 yen (Any fractional sum less than one yen shall be rounded off. Hereinafter all calculations shall be treated as the same.) after carrying out comparative negligence of one sixth, which is the absolute rate of C's negligence to the damages of 5,811,400 yen. Of this amount the share of obligation owed by the jokoku appellee company, is 3,874,266 yen, which is equivalent to four fifths of the amount, and that owed by the jokoku appellant is 968,566 yen, which is equivalent to one fifth of the amount. The jokoku appellee association, which has paid C compensation for damages of 4,747,654 yen on behalf of the jokoku appellee company, is to be regarded as having obtained a right of indemnification to the amount of 873,388 yen, which exceeds the share of obligation, against the jokoku appellant based on the subrogation.

Meanwhile, the automobile liability insurance benefit is used for compensating damages caused by owing the obligation for damages by an insurant. Therefore, in relation to indemnification between joint tortfeasors, the benefit should be appropriated for the share of obligation that is owed by the insurant. In the end, the automobile insurance benefit, 1,200,000 yen, is to be appropriated for the share of obligation of the jokoku appellee company, which was paid by the jokoku appellee association.

In conclusion, the line of argument can be accepted to this extent, and an apparent violation of laws that may affect the judgment can be seen in the decision of the second instance court, which has decided differently.

No.4 Conclusion
From all of the above, the claim by the jokoku appellee company against the jokoku appellant can be accepted to the limit of 535,862 yen plus delay charges. The claim by the jokoku appellee association against the jokoku appellant can be accepted to the limit of 873,388 yen plus delay charges. However, the rest of claims by the jokoku appellees should be dismissed because the grounds were unfounded. As a result of this, the judgment of the second instance court, which was decided differently, should be changed in the form of the main text.

In conclusion, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.
Presiding Judge
Justice KAJITANI Gen
Justice FUKUDA Hiroshi
Justice KITAGAWA Hiroharu
Justice KAMEYAMA Tsugio
Justice TAKII Shigeo
(This translation is provisional and subject to revision.)