Summary
A counterclaim is subject to the limits of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and significant delay, all together.
5.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
A counterclaim is a claim that enters the same lawsuit; accordingly, the mere fact that the defendant has a right to make a claim does not cause the scope of the pending lawsuit to expand without limit. In the preceding stage, the denial of amendment was distinguished as a procedural judgment on the propriety of the amendment in question. Now, Plaintiff A, having initially claimed delivery of an object, has come to seek damages as well, and Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim. In this synthetic scene, the analysis examines under what conditions the defendant's independent claim enters the same lawsuit; in other words, what the criterion is for opening this channel of relief.
Article 269 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which governs the filing of a counterclaim, provides: "The defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending only where this does not significantly delay the litigation proceedings, and by the conclusion of oral argument. Provided, that the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive Jurisdiction of another court and must be related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense." This text limits the party who may file a counterclaim to the defendant, defines the act as the filing of a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending, and confines the timing to before the conclusion of oral argument. It further requires the absence of significant delay, the exclusion of exclusive Jurisdiction, and relatedness to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense.
These textual requirements serve as the procedural standard that opens the entrance to the same lawsuit; where the conditions are met and the necessary service has been made, the entrance to this relief is opened. The reason the relatedness requirement and the procedure requirements must be examined separately is that, although a counterclaim is a separate claim filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same procedure, the rules governing the connection with the principal action and the rules governing the timing of filing and delay are each laid down in separate textual provisions. That is, whether the claims are related and the propriety of the timing and procedure of filing the counterclaim are distinct stages of determination.
A separate lawsuit, however, increases costs and the risk of contradiction, and the disadvantage remains that gathering disputes into a single procedure may delay adjudication and weaken the right of defense. Notwithstanding such losses and inconvenience, not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim. That is, the fact that the defendant has a right to make a claim does not mean that the claim may enter the same procedure unconditionally; the statutory relatedness requirement and the procedure requirements must both be satisfied.
In the scene where Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, has come to seek damages as well, and Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim, the only fact established is that Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim. Even if the relationship of a "related" claim and the intention to file a counterclaim are established, it cannot be concluded that relatedness to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, the exclusion of exclusive Jurisdiction, the timing requirement of before the conclusion of oral argument, and the absence of significant delay are all satisfied. Since the necessary records, such as service materials and the counterclaim complaint, have not been secured, the facts, service, and performance results of the actual case remain undetermined.
Accordingly, beyond the conclusion that, in order for the defendant's independent claim to enter the same lawsuit, the statutory relatedness and procedure requirements must be satisfied together and, through the necessary service, the performance demanded, the parties, and the conditions must be specified in the claim statement, one cannot go so far as to allow every claim unrelated to the principal action as a counterclaim.
5.2The Conditions That Block Relief
The determination concerning counterclaims carries forward the distinction drawn above, which treated the denial of amendment as a procedural judgment on the propriety of the amendment in question. While maintaining that distinction, the scope of the pending lawsuit does not expand without limit merely because the defendant has a right to make a claim. A counterclaim means an action filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same procedure. In such a scene, under what conditions does the defendant's independent claim enter the same lawsuit?
The text that answers this question is found in Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 269 (1) thereof provides: "①The defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending only where this does not significantly delay the litigation proceedings, and by the conclusion of oral argument. Provided, that the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive Jurisdiction of another court and must be related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense." Here, 'the defendant' is the party who intends to file the counterclaim, and 'the filing of a counterclaim' refers to the act of placing a new claim within the same procedure. 'Before the conclusion of oral argument,' 'no significant delay,' 'non-exclusive Jurisdiction,' and 'relatedness' are the conditions under which that act is accepted.
The conditions prescribed by this provision must be established together, and if even one is missing, the counterclaim channel within the same lawsuit does not open. Among them, where an amendment changes the basis of the claim or causes significant delay and thus departs from the permissibility requirements, if any one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the channel of relief is closed. This determination is not the result of separately reviewing the propriety of the counterclaim, but the procedural consequence of the enumerated requirements not being met. Put differently, the requirements are conditions of allowance and at the same time criteria of blockage, and no determination is made on one axis alone.
A separate lawsuit increases costs and the risk of contradiction. If the same dispute is split across several proceedings, each court may evaluate the same circumstances differently, and the parties must prepare the same evidence again. Notwithstanding such inconvenience, not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim. Relatedness is the connection to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense required by the provision, and the moment a claim lacking such connection is admitted, the scope of adjudication expands and the problem of significant delay arises anew. The costs and risk of contradiction pointed out by the counterargument are legitimate concerns, but they cannot be resolved by undermining the requirements.
These circumstances alone do not determine whether B's claim is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, whether it is subject to the exclusive Jurisdiction of another court, or whether oral argument has not yet been concluded. The counterclaim complaint and service materials are designated as materials for determination, but whether the requirements are met cannot be established from this scene alone. If it is confirmed that the premise of the same basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is reconsidered; accordingly, this is not a fact that establishes that the counterclaim requirements are met.
Accordingly, the permissible conclusion is that, for the defendant's independent claim to enter the same lawsuit, the relatedness, exclusive Jurisdiction, timing, and significant-delay restrictions must be satisfied together, and that if any one of them is not met, this channel of relief is closed. That the satisfaction of the requirements remains undetermined on the face of the scene, however, must be distinguished from a definitive finding that no relief is available, and the service or performance results of the actual case cannot be conclusively determined in this section. A conclusion that would bring even claims unrelated to the principal action within the scope of counterclaims is impermissible.
5.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
The scope of the pending lawsuit does not expand without limit merely because the defendant has a right to make a claim. The preceding section took the view that where an amendment changes the basis of the claim or causes significant delay and thus departs from the permissibility requirements in question, this relief is blocked. Where, then, is the boundary at which no determination can be made for lack of materials?
Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act states in its text that the defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending only where this does not significantly delay the litigation proceedings, and by the conclusion of oral argument, and adds in the proviso to the body thereof that the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive Jurisdiction of another court and must be related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense. This text separately assigns, respectively, the defendant as the party who may file, the act as the filing of a counterclaim, and the conditions as relatedness, exclusive Jurisdiction, timing, and the restriction on significant delay.
The conditions this provision places upon counterclaims and the boundary at which relief is blocked as set by the preceding section are distinct determinations. The former asks whether the door is open for a new claim to enter the same lawsuit; the latter is a determination that the door is closed. Where what the additional demand is, or its relationship to the existing claim, is unclear, one cannot assert which it is—the door being open or closed—and the determination therefore remains undetermined, and this is distinguished from a case where relief is blocked. If a definitive refusal and a deficiency of materials are bundled into one, no room remains to examine again after the shape of the demand becomes apparent.
It is understandable why the incentive arises to gather disputes into a single procedure. If the defendant's related claim is filed separately as a counterclaim, a separate lawsuit increases costs and the risk of contradiction, and the possibility that the two determinations conflict with one another also grows. Even so, not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim. The moment the relatedness requirement is left empty, the scope of the lawsuit spreads to every claim the defendant holds; and so, in trying to resolve the inconvenience emphasized by the counterargument, one would incur, unchanged, the loss on the side of delayed adjudication and a weakened right of defense.
In the synthetic scene, two facts are relevant. One is that Plaintiff A's claim has advanced from delivery of an object to a demand for damages; the other is that Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim. These two facts alone do not establish what Defendant B's claim is, or what relation it bears to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense. If the premise of the same basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit must be reconsidered; accordingly, the state of undetermination is maintained until the materials are filled in.
What this section permits is refraining from rendering a definitive refusal where the relationship has not become apparent; what it does not permit is erasing the relatedness requirement by admitting every claim unrelated to the principal action as a counterclaim. Undetermination is distinct from a case where relief is blocked, and the boundary between the two lies where the shape of the additional demand and its relationship to the existing claim are confirmed.
5.4The Records Needed for Determination
In this scene, where Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim and Plaintiff A has come to seek damages along with delivery of an object, the question whether the independent claim enters the same procedure divides into the question of whether joint filing is possible and the question of what determines the stage.
The text of the counterclaim system sets out the conditions of that channel directly. Article 269 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "The defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending only where this does not significantly delay the litigation proceedings, and by the conclusion of oral argument." It then adds: "The claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive Jurisdiction of another court and must be related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense." By its text, the party is the defendant; the act is the filing of a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending; the timing is before the conclusion of oral argument; the restriction is the exclusion of significant delay; and the requirements are the exclusion of exclusive Jurisdiction and relatedness to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense.
The requirements set by this text and the stage determination based on the records perform different functions. The author takes the view that the foregoing conditions decide whether the channel for admitting a claim is open, and that the records serve as the materials for determining whether that channel was actually used. A counterclaim means an action filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the same procedure; by this definition, for Defendant B's related claim to enter the same procedure, it must follow the restrictions of relatedness, exclusive Jurisdiction, timing, and significant delay together. The stage determination is made solely on the basis of the materials recorded in the claim statement and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim complaint, and the boundary is placed here that records that do not exist are not filled in by presumption.
If matters are turned over to a separate lawsuit, costs increase and the risk also grows that contradictory determinations will be rendered among related cases. The concern that adjudication may be delayed and the right of defense weakened in the attempt to gather a dispute into a single procedure likewise forms one axis of this counterargument. The author nonetheless maintains the conclusion with the answer that not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim. The permissibility requirements for counterclaims do not encompass even unrelated claims, and a stage at which the necessary records have not been preserved cannot be conclusively determined; accordingly, the convenience of reducing the disadvantages pointed out by the counterargument does not lead to a relaxation of the requirements.
What is confirmed in the synthetic scene is only the fact that Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, has come to seek damages as well, and that Defendant B intends to present a related claim as a counterclaim. The point that Defendant B's claim is marked as a "related" claim is one clue as to the relatedness requirement with the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, but whether exclusive Jurisdiction applies, the timing of filing the counterclaim, and whether the litigation proceedings have been significantly delayed are not determined in this scene. Whether service has been effected, and what is recorded in the application for amendment and the counterclaim complaint, likewise remain unconfirmed; accordingly, the parts as to which no conclusion of the stage determination can be drawn from these materials alone remain undetermined. If the premise of the same basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is reconsidered.
Accordingly, the defendant's independent claim enters the same lawsuit only where it satisfies together the statutory relatedness, exclusive Jurisdiction, timing, and significant-delay restrictions of the counterclaim, and whether those requirements are met is determined on the basis of the materials recorded in the claim statement and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim complaint. Conversely, either to regard even claims unrelated to the principal action as unconditionally allowed, or to presume facts not in the records and conclusively deem the requirements satisfied, is a conclusion this section does not permit.
5.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
The scope of the ongoing procedure does not broaden merely because one holds a right to make a claim. The channels through which additional claims enter within the same lawsuit are divided into joinder, amendment, and counterclaim, and each has its own separate requirements. The connection and delay of the counterclaim are the core of this question.
This text limits the party who may file a counterclaim to the defendant and the timing to before the conclusion of oral argument. The court that receives the counterclaim is the court in which the principal action is pending, and the counterclaim must not fall within exclusive Jurisdiction.
This text groups the conditions under which a counterclaim enters into four: relatedness, avoidance of exclusive Jurisdiction, the timing of before the conclusion of oral argument, and the restriction that the litigation proceedings must not be significantly delayed. If it is confirmed that the premise of the same basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is reconsidered. That is, if whether the application for amendment changes the basis of the claim was the premise of the existing blockage determination, then if that premise is confirmed to have collapsed, the existing blockage and effectiveness determination must be discarded and the determination must be redone from the beginning. This is not an existing fact but a hypothetical that alters the conditions of determination. If the designated amendment is confirmed, the character and requirements of the new claim are examined anew from the start.
If the same dispute cannot be gathered into a single procedure, the same issue will be dealt with twice in each of the separate lawsuits, and the possibility that the judgments conflict with one another also grows. The concerns of litigation delay and weakening of the right of defense are also substantial. If adjudication is drawn out and the opportunity to prepare a defense is reduced in the attempt to gather the dispute into a single procedure, this becomes a substantive disadvantage to the defendant. Satisfaction of the Jurisdiction, relatedness, timing, and delay restrictions is distinguished as a procedural judgment on the propriety of that claim, and the disadvantages raised by the counterargument are not erased.
Here it has not been confirmed whether the claim the defendant intends to present is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, or whether it falls outside exclusive Jurisdiction. The types of records—such as the claim statement and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim complaint—are fixed, but the actual service or performance results have not been confirmed. If relatedness and the question of delay cannot be established from the scene alone, those parts remain undetermined.
A counterclaim entering the same lawsuit is allowed only within the scope in which the Jurisdiction, relatedness, timing, and significant-delay restrictions are satisfied together. If the designated amendment is confirmed, it is limited to discarding the existing blockage and effectiveness determination and redetermining from the beginning. Merely because the defendant holds a claim, an unlimited number of claims cannot enter as counterclaims.
5.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
What remains in this scene is what conditions must be satisfied for the defendant's claim to enter through the same procedure. The conclusion was that the disallowance of an amendment is distinguished as a procedural judgment on the appropriateness of that amendment, and that the permissibility of an amendment of the complaint is to be kept apart from the existence or nonexistence of the claim in the principal action. That conclusion is only the starting point of the present question. What is to be examined now is under what limitations the channel for putting a new claim into the case currently in progress opens.
That provision is Article 269, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text reads: "① The defendant may file a counterclaim in the court where the principal action is pending only where it does not markedly delay the litigation proceedings and only until the conclusion of oral argument. However, the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court and must be mutually related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense." Here the subject is the defendant, and the act is the filing of a counterclaim in the court where the principal action is pending. The four conditions set by that text are: it must not markedly delay the litigation proceedings; it must be filed before the conclusion of oral argument; the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court; and it must be mutually related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense. Here a counterclaim means an action the defendant brings against the plaintiff in the same procedure. What this section addresses is nothing more than the meaning of the limitations set by that text.
The text of the Article arranges the four conditions separately, so that if even one is missing, no room for a counterclaim opens. The timing and delay requirements are limitations protecting the speed of the proceedings, while the requirements of exclusive jurisdiction and relatedness are limitations that decide whether the claim is qualified to be handled in this court. The reason these two layers must be distinguished is that the former's being blocked does not extinguish the right to the counterclaim itself, whereas a claim not reached by the latter does not enter this court's examination. Accordingly, the circumstance that the defendant has a right to claim is not the same as the contention that the claim can be placed within the same lawsuit. Only a claim that passes the limitations of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and marked delay together enters the same procedure.
The strongest counterargument arises from the fact that a separate lawsuit increases cost and the risk of contradiction. Alongside the worry that, in seeking to gather a dispute into one procedure, the examination may be slowed and the right of defense weakened, it is pointed out as a loss that, if the claim is split and judgment is obtained twice, the parties bear duplicated time and cost, and the two courts may view the same circumstances differently. This disadvantage is not erased. Yet that does not permit allowing every claim unrelated to the principal action as a counterclaim. The limitations of relatedness and delay set by the text operate precisely at that point. If cost and contradiction are addressed in a manner that draws in even unrelated claims and slows the examination, what remains instead is the loss of a weakened right of defense.
What is confirmed in the synthetic scene extends only to the point that Defendant B seeks to present a related claim as a counterclaim. Whether this claim is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, whether it is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, whether the filing of the counterclaim markedly delays the litigation proceedings, and whether the time of filing precedes the conclusion of oral argument are not determined by the scene alone. The facts, service, and results of performance of a real case, and the years, amounts, commencement dates, and judgment outcomes absent from the scene, remain unconfirmed.
The conclusion this section permits is that not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim, and its basis lies in the text that a counterclaim follows the limitations of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and marked delay together. The conclusions not permitted are that, so long as the defendant merely has a right to claim, any claim may be placed in the same lawsuit, and that merely because the cost and risk of contradiction of a separate lawsuit are great, even unrelated claims may be bundled as counterclaims. Items remaining short of materials are merely unconfirmed and do not thereby at once become incurable.
5.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
If the premise carried over from the preceding section is that not every claim unrelated to the principal action can be allowed as a counterclaim, the question remaining now concerns not the existence of the right but the conditions of entry. What the defendant seeks in this scene is not a separate action instituted on its own, but the convenience of handling an independent claim together within the proceedings already opened. Yet how far is such convenience permitted? The circumstance of having a right and the scope of the procedure must be distinguished.
Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act sets out the conditions of entry for a counterclaim in its text. Paragraph (1) of the Article draws the line: "The defendant may file a counterclaim in the court where the principal action is pending only where it does not markedly delay the litigation proceedings and until the conclusion of oral argument." The subject spoken of here is the defendant, the act is the filing of a counterclaim, and the time is before the conclusion of oral argument. At the same time, the court to hear the matter is bound to the court where the principal action is pending. This also accords with the definition that a counterclaim is an action the defendant brings against the plaintiff in the same procedure. A counterclaim, therefore, is not a separate action filed at any time in any court, but a claim seeking to enter the proceedings of the principal action.
This text shows the requirements of entry and the direction of those requirements together. The proviso of the same Article adds: "The claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court and must be mutually related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense." Relatedness points to the connection with the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, while the exclusion of exclusive jurisdiction points to cases in which another court has reserved that claim. The limitations of timing and marked delay look to how much a claim entering after the proceedings have already begun slows that progress. These four do not substitute for one another. Even where there is relatedness, it may be blocked by exclusive jurisdiction, and even where jurisdiction is not implicated, if the delay is marked it is difficult to open the counterclaim. The entry of an independent claim, then, is a matter of passing all four conditions together.
The inconvenience of having to bring a separate action when a counterclaim is not allowed is not small. If the same facts are handled in two courts, room arises for evidence and judgment to diverge, and the parties must undergo the procedure twice. A counterclaim is a channel for gathering related claims into a single procedure, not a channel for drawing in unrelated disputes. The condition preventing delay from becoming marked operates in the same direction. The point that, in seeking to gather a dispute into one procedure, the examination may be slowed and the right of defense weakened is the loss at which the counterargument is aimed. While that loss cannot be entirely eliminated, it is sufficient to allow that convenience only within the four limitations set by the text.
Comparing those conditions against the synthetic scene clarifies the picture. Plaintiff A demanded delivery of an object and came to add a claim for damages, and Defendant B seeks to bring a related claim as a counterclaim. At this point, whether the defendant's claim is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, whether that claim is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, whether the present point is before the conclusion of oral argument, and whether the counterclaim markedly delays the litigation proceedings must all be confirmed together. Yet the scene has not determined whether the defendant's claim is in fact related, which court has reserved jurisdiction, or at what stage service and the conduct of oral argument stand. Accordingly, whether the counterclaim is accepted in this matter remains unconfirmed. Nor can it be asserted that a counterclaim is constituted merely from the circumstance that it is called a related claim.
The conclusion permitted in this section is the narrow judgment that entry of a counterclaim follows all four limitations together. Even if it is confirmed that the defendant has a right to claim, that claim does not automatically enter the same lawsuit. Conversely, even if all four conditions are not met, the defendant's independent claim itself does not disappear. It is only that the likelihood grows that the claim must be handled outside the current procedure.
5.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The disallowance of an amendment is distinguished as a procedural judgment on the appropriateness of that amendment. The circumstance that the defendant has a right to claim and the defining of the scope of the current lawsuit are different questions. The existence of the right says nothing about what the subject of the counterclaim is, and the scope of the lawsuit widens only after passing the conditions of entry set by law. When the dispute has changed, can the relief be altered within the lawsuit already in progress?
Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act does not permit the filing of a counterclaim generally, but opens it only in limited cases. Its text provides: "① The defendant may file a counterclaim in the court where the principal action is pending only where it does not markedly delay the litigation proceedings and until the conclusion of oral argument." The subject set by this sentence is the defendant, its act is the filing of a counterclaim, and the time runs until the conclusion of oral argument. For the defendant's independent claim to enter within the same lawsuit, it must pass through precisely this route.
What the above text provides is that the counterclaim is bound to the court where the principal action is pending. The same Article places alongside it the proviso that the counterclaim must be one in which "the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit is not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court and is mutually related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense" (Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, relatedness and exclusive jurisdiction are separate thresholds, and the limitations of timing and marked delay stand alongside them. A counterclaim follows the limitations of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and marked delay together. Passing one does not mean that the other requirements are also satisfied, and since the range each limitation blocks differs, the stages must be examined separately. The defendant's independent claim enters the same lawsuit only where these conditions are satisfied together.
The counterargument aims at the losses and inconveniences arising from setting this threshold. If related claims in the same case cannot be handled together, the parties must bear two procedures respectively, and the possibility remains that the two courts reach different judgments on the same facts. The point that, in seeking to gather a dispute into one procedure, the examination may be slowed and the right of defense weakened also belongs to those inconveniences. For if unrelated claims are accepted as well, the examination is rather delayed, and the purpose of protecting the right of defense is ultimately undermined.
Among the facts placed in this scene, what relates to this question is the point that Defendant B seeks to present a related claim as a counterclaim. Whether the claim Defendant B seeks to bring is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, whether that claim is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court, and whether the filing markedly delays the litigation proceedings have not been answered by the scene. The claim statement and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim complaint may serve as the basis of judgment. Where what the additional demand is, or its relation to the existing claim, is unclear, that judgment remains unconfirmed.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. A counterclaim is an action the defendant brings against the plaintiff in the same procedure, and its entry opens only after passing all the limitations of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and marked delay. Accordingly, one cannot say that merely because Defendant B has a right to claim the related claim, that claim is at once accepted as a counterclaim. That the channel of the same procedure has opened does not mean that the results of actual payment, delivery, or recovery have been determined, and on the synthetic scene alone the outcome of victory or defeat and the results of performance cannot be determined. Conversely, if that claim fails to meet even one of the above requirements, the route of the counterclaim is closed. Yet it should not be thought that the claim itself can therefore never be asserted.
5.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
According to the foregoing conclusion, the disallowance of an amendment is distinguished as a procedural judgment on the appropriateness of that amendment. The question remaining in this scene is through what procedural channel, and up to what line, the independent claim Defendant B seeks to present can enter the current lawsuit.
The Article provides that the defendant may file a counterclaim in the court where the principal action is pending only where it does not markedly delay the litigation proceedings, until the conclusion of oral argument (Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject set by the text is the defendant, the act is the filing of a counterclaim, the court concerned is the court where the principal action is pending, and the time is before the conclusion of oral argument.
The proviso of the same Article adds the condition that, for a counterclaim to enter, the claim that is the subject of the lawsuit must not be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another court and must be mutually related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense (Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act). This condition is not a judgment on what contentions the defendant may raise, but a provision on whether that contention can be bound into the current litigation proceedings. Accordingly, relatedness and exclusive jurisdiction, and timing and the limitation of marked delay, must all be considered together, and these four must be read separately and not lumped into one.
If two courts divide and handle the same matter, materials are submitted in duplicate, and the possibility that the two judgments diverge grows that much greater. Such inconvenience is indeed considerable. The above text sets out, not grounds for widening the door of the counterclaim, but conditions for narrowing that door.
The facts relevant in this scene are whether the claim Defendant B seeks to present is related to the claim in the principal action or the method of defense, and whether the filing of the counterclaim markedly delays the litigation proceedings. Yet the scene has not determined the content and amount of the claim, the time of filing, or whether service was made, nor has it set years and amounts or the commencement date. Accordingly, whether there is marked delay, or whether exclusive jurisdiction applies, cannot be determined on this scene alone, and the judgment of relatedness likewise cannot be asserted without looking at the actual records. If it is confirmed that the premise of the identical basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is judged anew, and nothing is added to the present facts.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. That conclusion is that only the text of the provision as originally worded is used as the basis for adjudicating the channel for putting a new claim into the case in progress. One cannot broaden the view to the reasons for the judgment so as to add to the meaning of this text, nor can one say that a counterclaim is accepted merely because the defendant has a right to claim.
5.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
Under what conditions does the defendant's independent claim enter the same lawsuit? In this scene, it remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, an additional demand may come within the same procedure.
Article 269, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "A defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending, until the close of oral argument, only where it does not cause a significant delay in the litigation proceedings." That proviso simultaneously requires that the claim that is the object of the lawsuit not be exclusively within the jurisdiction of another court, and that it be related to the claim of the principal action or the method of defense. By its terms, the defendant is the party who may file a counterclaim, and the act of filing a counterclaim with the same court is permitted only within the time up to the close of oral argument.
Of these, relatedness and significant delay are two distinct gates. The former looks to how closely the claim of the counterclaim is connected to the claim of the principal action or the method of defense, while the latter looks to the degree to which the hearing is delayed when they are gathered in the same procedure. That the path for filing a counterclaim is open means that both gates, together with the timing and jurisdictional conditions, are all satisfied; it is not a path that opens with only one of them met.
When disputes are gathered into a single procedure, the parties deal with related defenses and evidence together within the same hearing, and the inconvenience of contradictory judgments being handed down separately is reduced. The relatedness requirement that keeps counterclaims in check is a device that prevents irrelevant claims from being stacked into a single procedure, delaying the hearing and unsettling the right of defense. The benefit of reducing inconvenience is recognized only within those limits.
The working case refers to cases that satisfy the statutory relatedness and procedural requirements of joinder, amendment, and counterclaim and that have effected the necessary service; the blocked case refers to cases that fail the pertinent requirements for permissibility, such as where an amendment changes the basis of the claim or causes a significant delay. The undetermined case is one in which it is unclear what the additional demand is, or what its relationship to the existing claim is. The possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is re-examined if the premise of the same basis is negated, but it does not newly create other conditions.
The conclusion this section permits is that a counterclaim enters the same procedure when it satisfies the requirements of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and the limitation on significant delay together; what it does not permit is a case in which even a claim unrelated to the principal action is accepted in the name of a counterclaim. From what basis the changed demand arose, and which requirements it satisfied, is determined on a limited basis when it can be confirmed from the records.
5.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
Even if the path for inserting a new demand within the same procedure is open, that passageway is bound by conditions. In this scene, how are the effectiveness, blockage, and undetermined status of the passageway distinguished?
Article 269, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act fixes in words the place into which a counterclaim may enter. Its text presupposes the act of the defendant, as the party, filing a counterclaim with the court in which the principal action is pending, and attaches the conditions that it be before the close of oral argument and that there be no significant delay. It further requires that the claim that is the object of the lawsuit not be exclusively within the jurisdiction of another court, and that it be related to the claim of the principal action or the method of defense. This relatedness is the requirement indicating the qualification for the counterclaim to be heard together with the principal action.
Connecting this text with the foregoing definition separates the conditions that open the way for a counterclaim from the conditions that must block it. The opening side is the case that satisfies the statutory relatedness and procedural requirements of joinder, amendment, and counterclaim and has effected the necessary service; the blocking side is the case that fails those requirements for permissibility, such as where an amendment changes the basis of the claim or causes a significant delay. The reason the two stages diverge here is that one must look separately at whether the demand has the qualification to be heard within the same lawsuit and at whether that demand has actually entered the procedure. The premise, set out in the preceding section, that disallowance of an amendment is distinguished as a procedural judgment on the propriety of that amendment follows the same distinction.
To be sure, the inconvenience of being unable to gather disputes into a single procedure is great. Separate lawsuits increase costs and the risk of contradiction, and repeating the same evidence and the same contest in two courtrooms enlarges the room for differing judgments to emerge. At the same time, it also aims at the concern that, in trying to gather disputes into a single procedure, the hearing may be delayed and the right of defense weakened. Even so, the conclusion does not change. The limit that prevents significant delay, and the relatedness requirement, are precisely that boundary.
Returning to this scene, the demand of Defendant B is still at the stage of seeking to present it in the form of a counterclaim complaint, and whether that claim bears any relation to Plaintiff A's claim for delivery of an object or demand for damages, and whether the necessary service has been made, are not made clear. Once the relation becomes clear and the procedural requirements are in place, the passageway opens; if there is no relatedness or if it causes delay, it closes. Where it is unclear what the additional demand is, or what its relationship to the existing claim is, it remains undetermined. The Records take as their basis the statement of the claim, the basis of the claim, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim complaint before and after the amendment, but it has not been confirmed that such materials have been assembled.
Accordingly, the passageway for adding a claim within the same lawsuit is not a path open unconditionally, but one open only to those who pass the requirements. Only a claim meeting the conditions of relatedness, timing, the absence of delay, and service can be heard within the same procedure, and if any one of them is not met, that amendment is refused. Conversely, one cannot say that a demand whose relation cannot be confirmed for want of materials is forthwith dismissed. The undetermined is merely a state that remains unconfirmed.
5.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
The preceding stage examined the point that a judgment not allowing an amendment remains only a procedural judgment on the propriety of that amendment. On that premise, the question that now remains is under what conditions the defendant's independent claim enters the same lawsuit.
The text answering this question is found in Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act. This definition binds together the party and the counterparty of a counterclaim, because only a claim the defendant asserts against the plaintiff can be counted as a counterclaim within the same procedure. Whereas the amendment discussed earlier concerned rewriting an existing claim, a counterclaim concerns newly adding an independent claim, and it is on that point that the two diverge. The reason for following the requirements of relatedness, exclusive jurisdiction, timing, and the limitation on significant delay together lies precisely in that distinction. Because the provision opens the door on a limited basis only where the necessary requirements are satisfied together, a counterclaim is not a passageway that also contains claims unrelated to the principal action.
If two claims that could not be decided in a single procedure each proceed separately, the same circumstances are dealt with twice, and room remains for judgments to diverge in the meantime. The relatedness demanded by the provision refers to a connection with the claim of the principal action or the method of defense; accordingly, the fact that the defendant has a right to claim does not mean that all such rights enter the same lawsuit. The same answer is maintained with respect to the concern that, in trying to gather disputes into a single procedure, the hearing may be delayed and the right of defense weakened, because the limitation on significant delay leaves that concern within the requirements for permissibility of a counterclaim.
The conditions to be compared are: whether the claim the defendant seeks to assert is related to the claim of the principal action or the method of defense; whether it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court; whether it was filed before the close of oral argument; and whether it causes a significant delay to the litigation proceedings. Because what and how each of these stands cannot be determined from the scene alone, that item remains undetermined. Whether a counterclaim is filed, and the resulting outcome of success or failure or of performance, has not been set forth and cannot be asserted either. To carry it over to say, however, that a related claim may be filed together in whatever procedure is a question lying outside the requirements of the counterclaim addressed this time, and is therefore not asked here.
The conclusion this section permits remains within the narrow scope that, for the defendant's independent claim to enter the same lawsuit, it must satisfy the statutory requirements of a counterclaim together. To continue and say that, beyond that scope, even a claim unrelated to the principal action may be accepted as a counterclaim is not permitted. Items that cannot be determined for want of materials merely remain undetermined, and that in itself does not mean the path of the counterclaim is closed. What has been judged concerning the counterclaim ends here; and if the final appeal on part of the claims joined on an alternative basis has merit, what is reversed?