Summary
A complaint must state the purport and cause of the claim, and the existence of attached materials is distinguished from the cause asserted.
1.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
A contract may run long, yet it fails to reveal which breach of obligation is being contested. At the previous stage, it was concluded that where the appellate judgment dismissed all of the alternative claims, if even one claim on appeal is well founded, the judgment of the court below must be reversed in its entirety. Now, for that judgment to move upon the actual record, it is necessary to examine what preparation must come first—that is, the operating conditions of this remedy. Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the cause of action which obligation went unperformed and how. In this scene, the volume of materials and the specificity of the allegations are distinct questions, and to ask whether the remedy operates, the two must first be separated.
Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a complaint shall state "the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and cause of the claim." Here, the cause of the claim means the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim, which is a separate item to be stated alongside the purport of the claim. The Article also provides that the provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints, so that what a party states and contests in writing becomes the premise of the examination. Since the provision says nothing separately about attached materials, the act of attaching a contract must be distinguished from the act of alleging a breach of some obligation.
Connecting this with the foregoing conclusion yields a basis for measuring the distance between the complaint and the attached documents. What the complaint requires is not the act of producing documents, but a statement of the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim; if the necessary opportunity to explain and prove matters left unclear remains open, this remedy operates. This is why the cause of action is not specified merely by submitting a contract. The existence of materials and the alleged cause are left to judgments at different stages, and the latter judgment becomes possible only when it appears which facts are alleged and contested.
Counterarguments target two losses: waste in practice and the weakening of substantive hearing. Requiring a party to rewrite facts already evident from a document slows the procedure, and requiring even the form of allegations from a party without legal knowledge may rather reduce the opportunity to defend. Yet the attached documents in their entirety cannot be treated as all of the alleged facts. It does not follow that every circumstance contained in a document constitutes a party's means of attack or defense, and on a record that is empty as to which facts are contested, the court will find it difficult to define the scope of rebuttal. The burden identified by the counterarguments is acknowledged, but the operating conditions of the remedy cannot be established by merging materials and allegations into one.
This state of facts shows that the act of submitting materials is acknowledged, while the specification of the alleged cause is not confirmed. Here, what was stated in the complaint, what the opposing party contested, and what the content of the opportunity to explain granted by the court was, are not fixed by the synthetic scene and therefore cannot be confirmed. Only one condition is separately given: if an unclear allegation is supplemented, a blocking judgment based solely on the absence of explanation will not be maintained.
Accordingly, this remedy operates only in cases where it appears which facts are alleged and contested and where the necessary opportunity to explain and prove matters left unclear remains open. No such conclusion can be reached by holding that the cause of action is specified merely by submitting a contract, or by treating the attached documents in their entirety as all of the alleged facts. Conversely, if the alleged cause appears regardless of the volume of materials, it can be said that the corresponding opportunity had been missed.
1.2The Conditions That Block Relief
A document may be thick and yet empty as to which breach of obligation is contested. After the foregoing stage concluded that the cause of action cannot be regarded as specified merely by submitting a contract, what must now be asked is under what conditions alone that judgment holds and in which direction it may incline. The distance that has opened between the volume of materials and the content of the allegations is the starting point of this stage.
The wording that answers this question is set out in Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision designates the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and cause of the claim, as the contents to be stated: "A complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and cause of the claim." Here, "cause" means, as defined above, the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim. Thus, what the provision requires is not the fact that a document was filed, but a statement of which facts and legal relationship are advanced in support of which request, and the attached materials are merely materials supporting that statement.
Linking this wording with the foregoing conclusion separates the answers to the question whether the cause of action is specified merely by submitting a contract. The submitted contract is one of the materials supporting the claim, whereas stating which obligation went unperformed and how is a statement separately required. This is why the existence of materials and the alleged cause must be distinguished. If the two elements are bundled together in judgment, the fact of filing the document becomes entangled with the contention that it has shown which facts and legal relationship are contested, and what conditions must be verified is lost from view.
Of course, requiring a party to rewrite facts already evident in a document amounts to imposing duplicated effort. The counterargument that substantive hearing is weakened if the form of allegations is demanded of a party without legal knowledge arises from the same place. Yet this counterargument cannot be maintained to the end. For the attached documents in their entirety cannot be treated as all of the alleged facts. However thick a document may be, if the party does not clarify what the document supports, the opposing party and the court cannot know which breach of obligation is being contested.
All that can be confirmed in this scene is the fact that Plaintiff A submitted a contract yet did not state which obligation went unperformed and how. Which obligations were borne, and in what manner those obligations went unperformed, are not fixed by this scene and thus cannot be determined. Further, if an unclear allegation is supplemented, a blocking judgment based solely on the absence of explanation will not be maintained. That is, whether the state of an empty explanation was left as it stood and led to dismissal on procedural grounds, or whether an opportunity for supplementation in court was granted, is a matter to be confirmed from the record.
Accordingly, it is difficult to regard the cause of action as specified merely by submitting a contract, and the condition under which that judgment is maintained lies in not treating the attached documents in their entirety as all of the alleged facts. Conversely, where which breach of obligation is contested is stated and the explanation is supplied, this blocking judgment cannot be maintained as it stands.
1.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
If the foregoing stage examined what was filled in by the submission of a contract alone, the question that remains is what shall be left in the place that this submission failed to fill. A contract is a document containing the basis of the contractual relationship, but not every circumstance within that document becomes a fact alleged by the party. Hence the question: is the cause of action specified merely by submitting a contract? Where, for want of ascertainable materials, what has been alleged cannot be discerned, the boundary is drawn here as to whether that place shall be nailed down as impossibility or treated otherwise.
The statute answers this question with the following wording. Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and cause of the claim" (Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act). The same provision goes on to say, "The provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints" (Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject indicated by this wording is the party filing the complaint, the required act is the statement to be made, and the condition is that the statement extends to the parties and legal representatives, the purport of the claim, and the cause. This provision only decides what shall be written in the complaint; it does not say that what is contained in an attached document may substitute for the statement in the complaint. What this section addresses is the limited question of this duty to state, and it does not proceed to a commentary on the other matters the provision has placed alongside it.
Linking the above wording with the conclusion of this section yields two distinctions. One is the existence of attached materials; the other is the alleged cause advanced as something to be supported by those materials. The fact that a contract was submitted belongs to the former, and the explanation that a particular obligation went unperformed for particular reasons is at once the latter. What Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act requires is the statement of the latter, not the mere submission of the former. Thus, if the cause of action is defined as the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim, the thickness of the submitted document and the question whether anything was alleged by that document are placed at separate stages of judgment. This adds no new requirement or exception; it merely preserves the objects of statement that the provision has already distinguished.
The inconvenience that arises from drawing this distinction strictly must also be made clear. Some counterarguments will say this: making someone rewrite facts that are evident from a document is waste. When the document itself shows the contractual relationship in the litigation, compelling the same content to be transcribed into sentences, so the objection runs, weakens substantive examination by demanding the form of allegations from a party without legal knowledge. Such losses and concerns do not disappear. Still, the answer to this is the single one given above: even so, the attached documents in their entirety cannot be treated as all of the alleged facts. If, without discerning which passage of the document's contents was made the basis of which breach of obligation, the entire document is read straightaway as the facts alleged, the result is that the scope of the dispute extends even to matters not in the document and is attributed to the party.
Returning to this scene and confining the analysis to the facts that can be confirmed, Plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the cause of action which obligation went unperformed and how. In this scene the contract was submitted, but the facts of the breach of obligation were not stated. Even examining the complaint, the answer, the preparatory briefs, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling, one cannot confirm what the purpose of the plaintiff's submission was, or, if the court granted an opportunity to supplement, what its content was. Insufficiency of materials does not immediately mean impossibility of relief. Accordingly, this item remains as undetermined, and the conclusion that matters whose materials for judgment are not specified are left undetermined, distinguished from impossibility, is applied to this scene.
The conclusion permitted in this section goes no further than this. It cannot be categorically asserted that the cause of action was specified merely by submitting a contract; conversely, it cannot be said that non-specification immediately results in invalidity or dismissal on procedural grounds. The cause of action is taken to be the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim and its statement is verified, but the place where what was alleged cannot be determined is not fixed as impossibility and is left undetermined. It is not filled in by guessing from unconfirmed reasons, nor is the conclusion of another case borrowed. What follows continues in the direction of the opportunity for supplementation opened up earlier.
1.4The Records Needed for Determination
In this scene the contract is a material, and the cause of action is not that material but a statement of facts and legal relationship. The question here is whether, by the mere circumstance that materials were submitted, it can be regarded as specified which obligation was breached. Alongside this, it must also be settled what must remain in the record in order to adjudicate whether such specification has occurred. The latter question concerns the scope of the record that sustains the former judgment. The two questions are not separate. For the judgment that specification has occurred carries with it the record that must support that judgment.
The provision prescribing the matters to be stated in a complaint reads as follows: "A complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and cause of the claim." Article 249 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act designates the cause as a matter to be stated in the written pleading. Paragraph (2) provides that "the provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints," thereby bringing the rules on the contents of preparatory briefs to complaints as well. The subject fixed by this wording is the party filing the written pleading, the act is the statement in the complaint, and the objects are the parties and their legal representatives and the purport and cause of the claim. The purport of the claim is what is asked for; the cause is the part supporting why it is asked for. The provision does not require attached materials as matters to be stated. Accordingly, the existence of attachments and the statement of the cause are not placed in the same position.
Linking the wording of the above provision with the conclusion of this section, no separate standard is needed for the question whether the cause of action is specified merely by submitting a contract. For the contract is a material supporting the claim, while the cause of action is a matter to be stated. The reason the two must be distinguished lies here. Materials support facts but do not substitute for facts, and which obligation went unperformed and how must appear in the statement. Transposing this distinction onto the established record, the stage determination looks only at the materials recorded in the complaint, the answer, the preparatory briefs, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling. Nothing else is filled in here. Missing records are not made up by presumption. What is not in the record remains not in the record.
The strongest counterargument is the distrust that form conceals substance and that one is merely glaring at the authorities. The counterargument says that requiring a party without legal knowledge to observe form weakens the opportunity to tell one's own circumstances. It is enough for the court that has received the attached documents to read them, it is said; compelling the same content to be transcribed into a written pleading is retaliation. This loss is not ignored. Not everything contained in a document signifies a breach of some obligation, and if it is not made clear which part is contested, there is no opponent to rebut. Even when the respondent seeks the points to contest, the issues must appear in the writing. What is required is not the decorum of sentences but the specification of the circumstances contested.
The facts revealed in the synthetic scene are these alone. From this scene alone, the content of the opportunity for supplementation granted by the court cannot be known, and how the purpose of the submission remained in the record is not confirmed. Which of the complaint, the answer, the preparatory briefs, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling actually existed cannot be confirmed. It follows that the stage cannot be adjudged, and the undetermined nature of the judgment does not mean impossibility of relief. If it is confirmed that which obligation went unperformed and how appears in the record, the conclusion changes. If it is confirmed that the unclear allegation was supplemented, the blocking judgment based solely on the absence of explanation will not be maintained.
The conclusion permitted here is one that preserves the distance between materials and allegations. When it is asked whether the cause of action is specified merely by submitting a contract, the answer is that submission by itself is not sufficient, and that judgment is made only upon the materials contained in the established record. What is not permitted is the reading that converts the existence of materials into the existence of allegations. The attached documents in their entirety cannot be treated as all of the alleged facts. This does not mean that a judgment bound by formality should be followed. The disadvantage identified by the counterarguments remains here. Only the direct reading of materials as allegations must be avoided. How can the court inquire into unclear facts?
1.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
In addition to that question, this time it asks which change overturns the existing stage determination. In this scene, the fact that materials have accumulated and the question of what facts have been asserted stand on opposite sides. If, at the preceding stage, the assertion was classified as an unclear assertion, it then proceeds to examine under what conditions that classification is maintained and under what conditions it disappears. This question is limited to how the existing determination is to be undone when an explanation is added.
The wording of this section concerning the statements to be entered in the complaint is as follows: “The complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim” (Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the subject is the party filing the complaint, and the required act is to state the parties and their legal representatives, together with the purport and grounds of the claim. The purport of the claim refers to what is sought, and the grounds of the claim refer to the basis on which it is sought. The same provision applies the provisions concerning preparatory pleadings to the complaint mutatis mutandis, thereby making clear that the statements in the complaint occupy a place explained by borrowing the form of a preparatory pleading. This wording does not regard the act of attaching a contract as the same as the act of stating the grounds of the claim. What the provision requires is not the existence of a document, but the statement of the facts supporting the claim.
The basis connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section is the point at which the subject of the statement and the subject of the attachment part ways. As explained earlier, the grounds of the claim mean the facts and the legal relationship supporting the claim, and these are distinct from the wording contained in the document itself. A contract may be material showing what relationship existed, but which obligations were stipulated and how those obligations went unperformed must be set out by the party as assertions. Accordingly, not all attached documents can be regarded as all asserted facts. A blocking determination based on the absence of an explanation is maintained only while that absence in fact remains unfilled. If an unclear assertion is supplemented, a blocking determination based solely on the absence of an explanation is not maintained, and once this change is confirmed, the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations are discarded and the matter is reassessed from the stage itself.
The counterargument that requiring facts already evident in a document to be written out again is a waste points out that a procedure that compels form obstructs substantive adjudication. Requiring the form of assertion from a party without legal knowledge weakens the substantive hearing and merely increases the burden of copying out what already appears in the record. This loss is concrete. The party misses a deadline for not knowing what to write, and the court struggles to read what is written in different words as carrying the same meaning. Even so, the conclusion stands. If what obligation is relied upon is left blank, no matter how many documents are attached, the point in dispute is not fixed. The way to reduce the waste targeted by the counterargument is not to abolish form, but to open an opportunity for the explanation to be filled in.
In the scene where plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the grounds of the claim which obligation went unperformed and how, the analysis looks only at the records of the complaint, the answer, the preparatory pleadings, the statements of clarification and the course of supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling. What can be confirmed here is which explanation is contained in which written submission, and what cannot be confirmed is whether performance actually occurred or the outcome of the judgment. Comparing the specified conditions, where, as to a means of attack or defense whose purport of submission is unclear, no explanation is given even after the statutory opportunity for supplementation and the matter is dismissed, the blocking determination is maintained. By contrast, where it becomes clear which facts are asserted and contested, and an opportunity is opened for the necessary explanation and proof as to unclear points, the stage is traversed again. As no year or amount is fixed in this scene, the result of performance or the scope of damages remains undetermined. Likewise, where the purport of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be confirmed, the determination is reserved.
What this section permits is only the distinction that, when an unclear assertion has been supplemented, a blocking determination based solely on the absence of an explanation is not maintained, and the sequence that, once this change is confirmed, the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations are discarded and the matter is reassessed from the stage itself. What it does not permit is the conclusion that the grounds of the claim have been specified merely by the fact that a contract was once submitted, and the interpretation that all attached documents are regarded as all asserted facts. Whether supplementation took place is undetermined for lack of material, and does not immediately amount to an inability to obtain relief. Moving on to what follows, the question remains of how the court may inquire into unclear facts.
1.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
It is at issue whether the grounds of the claim are specified merely by the submission of a contract. The court does not grasp the facts in place of the party by looking at the attached materials; it reads what is asserted within the written statements the party has composed. At this point, the issue is not the volume of the materials but the distance between the materials and the assertions.
The wording corresponding to this question sets out the matters to be stated in a complaint. Article 249 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “the complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim,” and paragraph (2) applies mutatis mutandis the provisions concerning preparatory pleadings. Here, the complaint is the first written statement that the party bringing the action submits to the court, and the matters to be stated are the parties including their legal representatives, the purport of the claim, and the grounds of the claim. What this provision requires is not a list of materials but the words stating what is demanded and a statement of the facts serving as its basis.
On the basis of this wording, the court reads the materials and the assertions separately. The grounds of the claim mean the facts and the legal relationship supporting the claim. The fact that a contract has been submitted means only that the material has entered the court; unless it is also stated which obligation went unperformed and how, the grounds of the claim remain empty. That the materials have arrived and that the assertions have been formed are different stages. The conclusion reached earlier stands squarely on this distinction.
The difficulty this distinction produces is plain. Requiring the form of assertion from a party without legal knowledge weakens the substantive hearing. The less familiar a person is with preparing written statements, the more readily that person expects that, once a contract or similar material has been submitted, the court will read it through on its own. That a demand to write it out again feels like a waste comes from the same reason. Not every fact contained in an attached document is an object the party contests, and unless it is made clear which part is relied upon, the opposing party cannot know what to defend against.
What can be determined in this scene is the fact that plaintiff A submitted a contract and did not state in the grounds of the claim which obligation went unperformed and how. On this condition alone it cannot be determined which breach of obligation plaintiff A is contesting. The course of performance or the outcome of the case is likewise not contained in this scene. If, however, it becomes clear which facts are asserted and contested, and an opportunity is opened for the necessary explanation and proof as to unclear points, the formation of the assertions and rebuttals to be determined does take place.
Only one conclusion is permitted in this section: not all attached documents can be regarded as all asserted facts, and even if materials have been submitted, which breach of obligation is contested must appear in the grounds of the claim. Other determinations—that is, whether plaintiff A can obtain recognition of the claim, or how far the court may proceed to a dismissal on procedural grounds—are not dealt with in this section.
1.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
This takes up the premise of the preceding section that not all attached documents can be regarded as all asserted facts. In this scene there arises the question whether the grounds of the claim are specified merely by the submission of a contract. Even if a voluminous document has been submitted, whether the place for the assertions on which the court is to determine has been filled must be examined separately.
The statutory wording on this question sets out the matters to be stated in a complaint. Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “the complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim.” The same provision adds that the provisions concerning preparatory pleadings apply mutatis mutandis to the complaint. This wording indicates what the party filing the complaint must write, and requires the purport of the claim and the grounds of the claim to be stated together. Without unfolding the other issues the provision addresses, only the wording that the grounds of the claim are among the matters to be stated is isolated here.
The link connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section is the distance between the attached materials and the grounds that have been asserted. Here the grounds of the claim mean the facts and the legal relationship supporting the claim. The contract submitted by plaintiff A bears the character of evidentiary material, but the assertion as to which obligation went unperformed and how must separately appear in the statements of the written submission. Accordingly, the complaint shall state the purport and grounds of the claim, and the existence of the attached materials and the asserted grounds are distinguished. The fact that a contract was submitted and the question which breach of obligation under that contract is taken as the ground are not determinations of the same stage.
The strongest counterargument is that requiring facts already evident in a document to be written out again is a waste. Attached to it is the further disadvantage that requiring the form of assertion from a party without legal knowledge weakens the substantive hearing. If it is not settled which of the contents written in the contract is taken as the ground, the scope of the facts on which the court determines is shaken as well. The place for easing the formal burden pointed out by the counterargument and the place for abolishing the distinction of the grounds of the claim itself are different.
What is confirmed in the synthetic scene is the fact that plaintiff A submitted a contract and did not state in the grounds of the claim which obligation went unperformed and how. From this scene alone the purport of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be confirmed, so whether the opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof has been opened remains undetermined. If, however, a determination proceeds without it becoming clear which facts are asserted and contested, the place for an opportunity of supplementation as to unclear points disappears. Accordingly, what is fixed by this scene is a formal deficiency in the statements, and not an immediate dismissal on procedural grounds or inability to obtain relief.
What this section permits is the determination that the grounds of the claim are not regarded as specified merely by the submission of a contract, and what it does not permit is the determination that all attached documents are regarded as all asserted facts.
1.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
Unlike the scope of reversal dealt with in the preceding section, the position now at issue is one of inquiring what must be written in the complaint for the materials and the assertions to overlap. In this scene the contract is merely the submitted material, and which obligation went unperformed is an issue not yet put into words. Can facts within the materials fall out of relief because they were not submitted as the party's assertions? This question and the scope of what this section deals with were considered together.
The wording in question lies in Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act. The provision states: “The complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim” (Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the document concerned is the complaint, the required act is the statement that must be made, and the necessary items are the parties and their legal representatives together with the purport and grounds of the claim. Of these, the grounds of the claim occupy the place serving as the basis for what is demanded and why, and the same provision adds that the provisions concerning preparatory pleadings apply mutatis mutandis to the complaint. Regardless of whether materials are attached, the subject of the statement is fixed by the wording that it shall be stated.
The link connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section is the distinction between statement and submission. Submitting a contract is the fact that the material came in attached to the complaint; stating which breach of obligation is contested is a separate matter, namely that the facts asserted by the party appeared in the written submission. As defined above, the grounds of the claim mean the facts and the legal relationship supporting the claim. Accordingly, to say that the grounds of the claim have been specified, not the material but the assertion that puts that material forward as its supporting basis must appear. To the question whether the grounds of the claim are specified merely by the submission of a contract, the answer of this section is no, and the reason lies precisely in this distinction. If the existence of a document and the asserted ground are counted together, it cannot be discerned which side is empty.
The strongest counterargument is aimed at the point that binding form produces waste. The observation that requiring facts already evident in a document to be written out again is a waste speaks to the loss and inconvenience of whether it is necessary to transcribe by hand what the court reading it can know at once. Overlaid on this is the concern that requiring the form of assertion from a party without legal knowledge weakens the substantive hearing. If substantive adjudication is lost on account of form, the worth of the protection is diminished. The answer given earlier, however, is that not all attached documents can be regarded as all asserted facts. However great the evidentness of a document, if it is left empty on what basis that document was put forward, that emptiness is not filled, and the concern that the substantive hearing is weakened likewise does not erase the disadvantage that it is hard to find direction while it is not made clear which facts have been asserted.
The facts bearing on this question in this scene are two: the submission of the contract and the blank in the grounds of the claim. The point that a contract was submitted belongs to the existence of the material, and the point that it was not stated which obligation went unperformed and how belongs to the absence of the asserted ground. Contrasted with the condition that the complaint shall state the purport and grounds of the claim, this scene is one in which the material side is filled but the assertion side is left empty. This scene, however, has not fixed which obligation arose from which provision of the document, how the defendant rebutted, or whether the court gave an opportunity for supplementation. Those items cannot be ascertained and remain undetermined. If it is confirmed that an unclear assertion has been supplemented, a blocking determination based solely on the absence of an explanation is not maintained.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow: however thick and evident the materials may be, if the facts within them were not submitted as the party's assertions, they do not take the place of specifying the grounds of the claim, and accordingly may fall out at the stage of relief. The conclusion it does not permit is broad: the determination that all attached documents are regarded as all asserted facts, the determination that specification is complete on the materials alone, and the determination that converts an insufficiency of materials straight into an inability to obtain relief all lie outside this section. At what point a case falls within those dismissed without prejudice for want of an explanation even after the statutory opportunity for supplementation, or what records are required, is not fixed by this section and remains an unverified item.
1.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
In this scene, the submission of the contract and the statement of the grounds of the claim are two different acts. The fact of having produced a thick document and the disclosure of what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner, are not the same. Accordingly, the question here is whether the grounds of the claim are particularized by the mere submission of the contract, and the answer is to be found in the wording of the item in which it is to be written.
Civil Procedure Act Article 249 provides: "(1) A complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim." In this wording, the complaint is a document for which statements are required; the purport of the claim is an indication of what is sought; and the grounds of the claim are the facts and legal relationship that support the claim. The requirement to state refers to what items the parties must fill in. Paragraph (2) provides that the provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints, which indicates that the same requirement for statements is linked to the framework of preparatory briefs as well. When this wording alone is taken as the basis of determination, the issue is not the thickness of the attachments but what has been filled in under the grounds of the claim.
Connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section, the formation of the pleadings to be adjudicated begins with the facts and legal relationship written as the grounds of the claim. The formation of pleadings means a state in which it is revealed which facts are put forward as the basis of attack and which facts are contested as the basis of defense. The reason for defining the grounds of the claim here as the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim is that one must distinguish the existence of the documents submitted from the content of the contentions those documents support. The fact of submission—that a document was filed—and the fact of contention—that it was indicated what is being disputed through that document—are different objects of determination. If this distinction is maintained, the entire content of the attached documents is not attributed to the parties' contentions.
The counterargument raised most strongly against this distinction is that requiring a party to rewrite facts that are evident from the document is wasteful, and that requiring the form of pleading from a party without legal knowledge weakens substantive hearing. This counterargument aims precisely at the loss and inconvenience. It points at once to the trouble of requiring what can be read from a document already placed on the record to be copied out once more, and to the risk that a person unfamiliar with the language of litigation is driven out on account of form. Yet the foregoing answer draws a line: the entirety of the attached documents cannot be regarded as the entirety of the pleaded facts. If it is left blank what the document supports, that space remains not a defect of form but a problem of unindicated content of the contentions.
What can be confirmed in the synthetic scene is the fact that plaintiff A submitted the contract and did not state in the grounds of the claim what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner. Contrasting this fact with the foregoing conditions, the submission of the contract shows only the existence of the document, while the obligation that went unperformed and the manner of that deficiency in performance are not stated. By contrast, at the stage of forming the pleadings and counter-pleadings to be adjudicated, it is revealed which facts are asserted and contested, and the question examined is whether the necessary opportunity for explanation and proof on unclear points is opened. From this scene alone, the other contents of the statements in the complaint or the content of the opportunity to supplement granted by the court cannot be confirmed; that space remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is to use only the wording of the relevant source text as the basis for determining the formation of the pleadings and counter-pleadings to be adjudicated, and to apply only the wording within the scope of that source text. It does not broaden the determination to the reasons for judgment beyond this wording, nor does it regard the entirety of the attached documents as the entirety of the pleaded facts. Nor does it regard the mere circumstance that the submitted document is thick as establishing that any breach of obligation has been particularized; nor, on the other hand, does it mean that the submission of a document is without any significance.
1.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
A complaint shall state the purport and grounds of the claim, and the existence of attached materials is distinguished from the asserted grounds. The basis is the wording of Civil Procedure Act Article 249. Taking up the duty of statement set out in the preceding section, this section asks directly what is designated by the word "grounds of the claim." Herein lies the reason for keeping separate the fact that materials were produced and the basis on which relief is demanded.
In this wording, the grounds are an item to be stated alongside the purport of the claim, an item in which the person filing the complaint is to state the basis on which relief is sought. The matters of legal representatives or the mutatis mutandis application of the provisions on preparatory briefs are not the object of this paragraph. What deserves attention here is that the wording "shall state" indicates that the filing of documents does not substitute for the reasons of the claim. Alongside the fact that a party has produced a document, that party must assert what the document shows.
For that reason, I take the grounds of the claim to mean the facts and legal relationship that support the claim. Here, "facts" designates the asserted obligation and its non-performance, and "legal relationship" designates what can be sought on the basis of such facts. The reason these two must be distinguished from the existence of attached materials is that the fact of submission—that a contract was produced—does not itself indicate what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner. Accordingly, it cannot be held that the grounds of the claim are particularized by the mere submission of the contract, which leads to the conclusion of this section: a complaint shall state the purport and grounds of the claim, and the existence of attached materials is distinguished from the asserted grounds.
Against this distinction, one may raise the counterargument that requiring a party to rewrite facts that are evident from the document is wasteful, and that requiring the form of pleading from a party without legal knowledge weakens substantive hearing. The inconvenience at which this counterargument aims is real. If only unreadable form is emphasized, there is a risk that the person who brought the suit is swept aside without having explained what is being disputed. If the party has not particularized what non-performance of what obligation the document shows, then the adjudicating bench reading the entire document and selecting it in the party's stead is not establishing the pleadings to be adjudicated but making them up in the party's place.
Here the distance between the materials submitted and the assertions not stated is laid bare. The fact that the contract is in the case file is a fact of submission on the record, but which obligation under which clause went unperformed, and in what manner, is blank in this scene. Only by confirming what was written in the complaint can the question whether the grounds of the claim have been particularized be determined; accordingly, from this scene alone, the interpretation of the submitted materials or the content of the obligation cannot be fixed. Nevertheless, this section's distinction—that the grounds of the claim are not particularized by the mere submission of a contract—holds as it stands within this scene.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits goes no further than to regard the grounds of the claim as the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim, and to examine separately the existence of the submitted materials and the asserted grounds those materials are said to support. This section does not determine the outcome of any judgment as to what obligation went unperformed, nor does it proceed to the success or failure of the suit. The question that follows next is how to distinguish the operation, the blocking, and the undetermined in the formation of the pleadings and counter-pleadings to be adjudicated.
1.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
It has already been settled that the grounds of the claim cannot be regarded as particularized on the contract alone. The question remaining here is how to divide the conditions under which contentions and counter-contentions are formed as objects of the court's determination. That is, a distinction must be drawn between the case in which it was revealed which facts are asserted and contested so that the opportunity for explanation and proof was opened, the case in which, even though the opportunity was given, there was no explanation and the path was blocked, and the case in which it cannot even be confirmed what was given on the record. If these three are bundled together as one, the basis of the subsequent determination will differ.
The relevant wording is provided in Civil Procedure Act Article 249: "A complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim." (Civil Procedure Act Article 249.) What this wording requires is not the submission of the document itself, but what is to be stated in the complaint. Here the actor is the party filing the complaint, the act is stating the purport and grounds of the claim, and the condition is the state in which those statements have been made. The same Article then adds: "The provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints." (Civil Procedure Act Article 249.) However, this wording alone does not settle the specific content of the provisions on preparatory briefs or the procedure of clarification. The scope that can be confirmed in this section is the requirement that the purport and grounds of the claim be stated in the complaint, and the existence of attached materials and the asserted grounds are treated as different things.
The point at which this wording and the conclusion of this section meet is the particularization of what is to be stated. The grounds of the claim mean the facts and legal relationship supporting the claim, and only when those facts are revealed can it be determined what point is being disputed. That a contract was produced shows only that materials were submitted; the factual contention that some obligation went unperformed in some manner must be stated separately. Thus two stages diverge. One is the state in which what the asserted facts are is revealed; the other is the state in which, as to the unclear points of those statements, the opportunity for explanation and proof is opened. Only when the former is achieved can the latter operate, and the fact that the latter is opened means only that the legal route has been opened; it does not mean the actual achievement of proof. Where it is revealed which facts are asserted and contested and the necessary opportunity for explanation and proof on unclear points is opened, the object of determination is formed.
The strongest counterargument points to the waste in handling documents. The criticism that requiring facts evident from a document to be written out again is waste aims together at the anxiety that requiring the form of pleading from a party without legal knowledge weakens substantive hearing. Requiring a party who has already submitted a thick and detailed contract to write the same content again in sentences, it is said, only increases procedural cost. This loss is real, and it does not erase the point that form may push substance aside. Yet there is a line this counterargument cannot cross. Not everything written in a document is read as an assertion of some breach of obligation, and deciding which passage is disputed remains, in the end, the party's contention. Only where what is required is not form but the bringing to light of the points of dispute can substantive hearing be preserved.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are limited to one. Contrasting this with the foregoing conditions, the submission of the contract shows the existence of the materials, and the statement of the grounds of the claim shows the asserted facts. The two are different, and so long as it is blank what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner, it cannot be held that which facts are disputed has been revealed. Whether the court in this scene granted an opportunity to supplement, and if it did, what its content was, and whether a ruling of dismissal on procedural grounds was issued, cannot be confirmed. Where the purpose of submission or the content of the opportunity to supplement granted by the court cannot be confirmed, it remains undetermined. The absence of materials does not immediately mean that the opportunity was closed, and the success or failure of the suit or the result of performance otherwise cannot be determined from this scene.
What is permitted in this section is the separation of three conditions. If it is revealed which facts are asserted and contested and the necessary opportunity for explanation and proof has been opened, the object of determination is formed; if, even after an opportunity to supplement at court was afforded for means of attack or defense of unclear purport, there was no explanation and the matter was dismissed without prejudice, the formation is blocked. Conversely, if the purpose of submission or the content of the opportunity afforded to supplement cannot be confirmed, the matter is undetermined, and blocking cannot be asserted before confirmation. What this distinction cannot sustain is the interpretation treating the entirety of the attached documents as the entirety of the pleaded facts, and the determination asserting exclusion on the mere absence of explanation without the course of supplementation.
1.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
The conclusion was that, in an appellate judgment that dismissed all the alternative claims, if the final appeal as to part of the claims is meritorious, the entire judgment of the court below must be reversed. In such a scene, it becomes an issue how far apart the volume of document submission and the content of the assertions are. Before answering that question, it must first be confirmed what the complaint must contain.
What is to be stated in a complaint is provided by Civil Procedure Act Article 249. Its wording stipulates: "A complaint shall state the parties and their legal representatives, and the purport and grounds of the claim." (Civil Procedure Act Article 249.) The grounds of the claim required by paragraph (1) of this Article mean the facts and legal relationship that support the claim. Paragraph (2) of the same Article adds that the provisions concerning preparatory briefs shall apply mutatis mutandis to complaints. (Civil Procedure Act Article 249.) Here the actor is the plaintiff, the act is the statement in the complaint, and the condition is the statement of the purport and grounds of the claim. The submission of attached documents does not substitute for these statements.
Before connecting this wording with the foregoing conclusion, the object of the statement and the method of the statement must be distinguished. Writing down what obligation was violated is the work of particularizing the grounds of the claim; supporting that fact with documents is the later stage. In this scene, the submission of the contract belongs to the latter, the submission of materials, and does not fill in the former, the statement of facts. This is the reason for distinguishing the existence of the attached documents from the asserted grounds. Only when that distinction stands can the question whether the grounds of the claim are particularized by the mere submission of a contract also be answered.
There is, however, the counterargument that requiring a party to rewrite facts that are evident from the document is wasteful. The complaint that requiring the form of pleading from a party without legal knowledge weakens substantive hearing comes from the same direction. The loss at which this counterargument aims is the time and cost entailed by the burden of statement, and the value of the preservation of substantive hearing. Only when it is revealed which part of the content contained in the document supports what breach of obligation is the object of determination fixed. While acknowledging the circumstance that the requirement of form is burdensome, the conclusion that would make the submission of a document a substitute for the statement of contentions is not maintained.
Contrasting the foregoing scene with the earlier conditions, some matters are clear and some are not. What is clear is the fact that plaintiff A submitted the contract and did not state in the grounds of the claim what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner. This fact alone does not determine whether the complaint was supplemented, whether the court demanded clarification, or whether a ruling of dismissal on procedural grounds was issued. If the course of clarification and supplementation cannot be confirmed, how explanation was carried out in that procedure also remains undetermined. This sentence is, however, merely a test that varies the conditions of determination; it does not mean that there was in fact supplementation in the scene.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits goes only so far as that the grounds of the claim cannot be regarded as particularized by the mere submission of a contract, together with the distinction that the entirety of the attached documents cannot be regarded as the entirety of the pleaded facts. Conclusions not permitted are that the grounds of the claim are automatically particularized when the volume of documents is large, or the determination that every statement of facts may be omitted on the ground of the burden of the required form. The point that the objects of contention and counter-contention are fixed only when it is disclosed what obligation went unperformed, and in what manner, lies within the scope of this section.