Supreme Court, Second Petty Bench · September 30, 2026 · Reiwa 7 (2025) (Kyo) No. 23 · Decision; ruling below quashed and the case decided by the Court itself

The Court held that a creditor who has attached a claim to a refund of fees under Article 9(3) of the Act on Costs of Civil Procedure may apply for a refund under that paragraph in exercise of the right to collect.

Permitted appeal against a decision dismissing an appeal from a decision rejecting an application for refund of fees

Facts

The plaintiff in the principal action paid a filing fee of 36,000 yen and withdrew the action before the first date for oral argument. The appellant obtained an attachment order against that plaintiff as debtor, with the State as third-party debtor, covering the plaintiff's claim to a refund of the fee under Article 9(3) of the Act on Costs of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the right to collect under Article 155(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the appellant applied under Article 9(3) for a refund of 18,000 yen. The court below held that the refund claim has a personal character as regards its exercise and can be exercised only by the person who paid the fee, and rejected the application.

Issue

Does the claim to a refund under Article 9(3) of the Act on Costs of Civil Procedure have a personal character as regards its exercise? May a creditor who has attached it apply for a refund under that paragraph in exercise of the right to collect?

Ruling

The Court held that the paragraph aims at fairness of burden by allowing a refund of part of the fee when, at an early stage of the proceeding, a dismissal becomes final or the application is withdrawn. An application for a refund under the paragraph is an act aimed solely at an economic benefit, namely receiving part of the fee back; receiving the refund causes no disadvantage to the payer; and the existence of the grounds under each item and the amount of the refund are to be determined formally from the case record once the application is made. There is therefore no reason to leave the decision whether to apply to the payer alone. Accordingly, the refund claim does not have a personal character as regards its exercise, and the application for a refund is an indispensable act for collecting the attached refund claim that does not exceed the scope of collection, so an attaching creditor may apply in exercise of the right to collect. The Court quashed the ruling below, set aside the first-instance ruling that had rejected the application, and ordered a refund of 18,000 yen to the appellant. The opinion was unanimous. One Justice wrote a supplementary opinion. In outline, it states that the scope of the purpose of collection is determined not only by the creditor's need to collect but also by the degree of disadvantage to the debtor and whether the debtor's not exercising the right can be regarded as justified, and that here the withdrawal of the action was the debtor's own decision, no particular disadvantage to the debtor is expected, and the application does not exceed the purpose of collection.

Provisions

Act on Costs of Civil Procedure (before amendment by Act No. 48 of 2022), art. 9(3); Civil Execution Act, art. 155(1)