旧優生保護法訴訟大法廷判決と2017年改正前民法724条後段

旧優生保護法の下で行われた優生手術の被害者が国家賠償を求めた裁判で、最後まで争われたのは損害賠償請求権の期間制限の問題であった。この訴訟で適用されたのは2017年改正前の民法724条であり、同条後段をめぐる従前の判例法理に従えば、請求は棄却されても不思議ではなかった。下級審では判断が分かれたが、最高裁判所は、従前の判例法理を変更し、被害者の請求を認容する判断を示した。
同判決の結論そのものは高く評価されるべきものであるが、同条後段の解釈論として見たときに、この判断でよかったのかについてはなお検討が必要である。同条後段の期間は消滅時効と解釈すべきであったし、少なくとも、除斥期間の主張を信義則違反・権利濫用として封じる要件はもう少し緩やかにすべきであったと思われる。

In cases where victims of eugenic surgeries performed under the former Eugenic Protection Act sought redress from the state, a key issue which remained until the end was the time limitation regarding the right to claim damages. The provision applicable in this case was Article 724 of the Civil Code before the 2017 amendment, and it was not surprising that the claim would be dismissed according to the previous case law on the same article. While the lower courts were divided in their decisions, the Supreme Court ultimately changed the case law and ruled in favor of the victims’claims.
Although the conclusion of this decision itself should be highly evaluated, it is important to further examine whether this decision was justifiable from the perspective of the interpretation of the provision. The period set out in the provision should have been interpreted as an extinctive prescription, and at the very least, the requirements for barring the assertion of a period of exclusion as a violation of the principle of good faith or abuse of rights should have been more lenient.