Summary
The organization in preparatory proceedings serves efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts.
4.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
Unless the issues come together, the hearing cannot move forward even if the same facts are repeated. The preceding section confirmed the procedural position that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for necessary explanations. Within the same section, the next question now opens. What is the organization of claims and evidence for? Moreover, what is the criterion by which the entrance to this remedy is opened? This question asks, together with the purpose of that organization, about the threshold for participating in it.
The basis for answering this question lies in the wording shown by Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision draws the line that, in preparatory proceedings, "the court shall organize the parties' claims and evidence." In this wording, the subject that "organizes" is the court conducting the preparatory proceedings, the object is the claims and evidence put forward by the parties, and the time is the preparatory stage before oral argument begins. This paragraph contains only wording as to the purpose and object of the organization.
The purpose indicated by that wording is clear. The organization is intended to have oral argument conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner. Here two concepts must be distinguished. One is the procedural purpose of leading the oral argument efficiently and in a concentrated manner; the other is the qualification assessment that the required performance, party, and conditions must be specified in the statement of the claim, and that one must be able to defend the right of action one has chosen. What the organization is for, and when the entrance to this remedy opens, are different questions.
The criticism that context may be cut away in the process of organization targets a substantive loss. A party unfamiliar with legal form, in the process of splitting his story into discrete claims and evidence, may lose the whole context and lose the opportunity to speak without even noticing which facts are unfavorable to him. Such a disadvantage is real and is not erased. Even so, efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts. If the opportunity for necessary explanation and proof is open, the form of organization is not a means that substitutes for and undermines substantive hearing.
In the synthetic scene, plaintiff A submitted a contract but did not state in the cause of action which obligation was left unperformed and in what way. Because the required performance and the party and conditions underlying it were not specified in the cause of action, the case falls short of the preceding condition of specification of the statement of claim. Whether, however, it has become clear which facts are asserted and contested, whether the opportunity for explanation and proof on uncertain points is open, and whether one can defend the right of action one has chosen are matters to be determined from the complaint, the answer, written briefs, and the course of clarification and supplementation. Since the content of the opportunity for supplementation cannot be confirmed from the scene alone, that part remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is the narrow determination that the organization is for the efficiency and concentration of oral argument. The same determination does not extend to mean that the organization process tolerates omission of context, or that the door opens even without specification of the statement of claim. The omission of unfavorable facts is in no case an allowed consequence of organization. If an unclear claim is confirmed to have been supplemented, a blocking determination resting solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained.
4.2The Conditions That Block Relief
At the previous stage it was organized that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for necessary explanations. Yet if, in the course of the preparatory proceedings, there arise means of attack and defense which, even after receiving an opportunity for supplementation from the court, ultimately fail to produce any explanation, under what conditions does that claim lose the passage? This question is the share that this stage of analysis undertakes.
The source text corresponding to the present question is Article 279 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its wording provides that, in preparatory proceedings, the parties' claims and evidence shall be organized so that oral argument may be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner. What this wording takes as the subject of the organization is the court operating the preparatory proceedings, the object is the claims and evidence submitted by the parties, and the condition under which the organization is to be used is the efficient and concentrated conduct of oral argument. Here, the organization of issues means the work of gathering the claims in dispute and the corresponding evidence. Whatever the other paragraphs of the provision may say, the scope of this stage is limited to paragraph (1).
If this wording is joined to the conclusion from the previous stage, it is accurate to write that the organization in preparatory proceedings is for efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. The reason organization and deletion are different stages is that the former is used to gather by discerning which facts are asserted and contested, while the latter is used to make what has been gathered disappear. Accordingly, it is held that if any one of the statutory requirements is not met, the remedy passage is closed. Those requirements refer to a combination in which three things stand together: a statutory opportunity for supplementation was given with respect to means of attack and defense whose import was unclear; thereafter no explanation was given; and a judgment of dismissal on procedural grounds was rendered.
The counterargument that complex context may be cut away in the process of organization is not to be brushed aside lightly. It begins from the concern that requiring a party without legal knowledge to conform to the form of claims weakens substantive hearing; what is cut away and left behind is the contours of the facts, what is weakened is the party's opportunity to speak, and what may ultimately be extinguished is the substance of the claim. The conclusion cannot be bent here, however. That this answer is maintained does not mean denying the loss the counterargument points to; it means, more nearly, that one must not falsely erase unfavorable facts in a manner that avoids that loss.
In this scene the complaint was submitted, the cause of action is empty, and the course of clarification and supplementation and the presence or absence of a judgment of dismissal on procedural grounds remain as they stand. Since the facts of the actual case, service, and the results of performance, as well as a judgment result absent from the synthetic scene, cannot be confirmed, they are left undetermined.
Thus the conclusion this section permits is narrow. It places the purpose of the organization in the efficient and concentrated conduct of oral argument, prevents that organization from being transmuted into permission to delete unfavorable facts, and renders a blocking determination only where absence of explanation after supplementation and a dismissal on procedural grounds stand together. What this section does not permit is to alter the content of facts already stated merely on the strength of the organization, or to close the passage although the statutory requirements have not been fulfilled.
4.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
The preceding section held that this remedy is barred where means of attack and defense whose import was unclear were dismissed for continued absence of explanation after a statutory opportunity for supplementation. The question that follows this report is where the boundary lies that cannot be determined for lack of materials. In such a scene, where the import of the submission and the opportunity for supplementation cannot be confirmed from the records, it must be discerned what is to be judged and how. The organization of issues is the work of gathering the claims in dispute and the corresponding evidence, and what this organization is directed toward in the preparatory proceedings serves as the criterion.
The wording of the provision corresponding to this problem is as follows. Article 279 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "in preparatory proceedings, the parties' claims and evidence shall be organized so that oral argument may be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner" (Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Act). Here the subject of the organization is the court that conducts the preparatory proceedings and handles the claims and evidence, the object of the organization is the claims and evidence submitted by the parties, and the condition lies in enabling oral argument to be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner. The wording points only to this purpose and the scope of the procedure; it does not separately determine which particular facts are to be retained in the process of organization. Accordingly, from this wording alone one cannot know the import of an individual claim or the content of the opportunity for supplementation.
The link connecting this wording to the conclusion of the present question lies in that the purpose of organization and the meaning of deletion differ. The fact that the organization of issues is required for efficient and concentrated oral argument does not mean that omitting some unfavorable fact from the work of gathering the claims in dispute and the corresponding evidence is permitted. Where the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be confirmed, no determination is made while that circumstance remains unconfirmed, and the matter is left undetermined. This undetermined status is distinguished from the case where the remedy is barred. The latter is a case where the course is confirmed, namely where the case was dismissed without prejudice for continued absence of explanation after a statutory opportunity for supplementation; the former is a case where the import or the content of the opportunity for supplementation itself cannot be confirmed.
Where the breadth of the organization is widened, the counterargument that complex context may be cut away in the process has the greatest force: requiring a party without legal knowledge to conform to the form of claims weakens substantive hearing, and words stripped of context may be organized without carrying their original intent. The loss and inconvenience targeted by this counterargument cannot be viewed lightly. Yet so long as the organization in preparatory proceedings is a device for efficient and concentrated oral argument, that organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts. The handling that leaves the unconfirmed import of the submission and the unconfirmed opportunity for supplementation undetermined is a way of guarding the scope of the work of gathering the claims in dispute and the corresponding evidence, while leaving in place the possibility of weakening that the counterargument has identified.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are the submission of the contract and the gap in the description of the cause of action. From these facts alone one cannot know the content of the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court, so contrasted with the preceding condition of this section, namely undetermined status, that determination remains undetermined. Since the scene contains no year, amount, date from which a period runs, or judgment result, the outcome of victory or defeat or recovery cannot be fixed from the scene. The contrast that, if an unclear claim is supplemented, a blocking determination resting solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained, is only the handling of the case where supplementation has been confirmed, and does not fill the present state of non-confirmation.
The conclusion this section permits is that, where the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be confirmed, the determination is left undetermined, and this is distinguished from the case where the remedy is barred. The conclusion not permitted is to authorize the deletion of unfavorable facts solely on the ground that the organization is for efficient and concentrated oral argument. In summary, it is limited to leaving what is unconfirmed unconfirmed and to distinguishing it from the blocking of the remedy attendant upon a confirmed course.
4.4The Records Needed for Determination
A party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for necessary explanations. Here the organization of issues means the work of gathering the claims in dispute and the corresponding evidence, and the present question is on the basis of which materials this gathering process is to be judged. Unless the records are settled, one cannot say at what point the stage has arrived, and one reaches a conclusion only by filling in facts that are absent.
Article 279 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "in preparatory proceedings, the parties' claims and evidence shall be organized so that oral argument may be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner." The subject indicated by this wording is the court operating the preparatory proceedings, the act is the gathering and organization of the parties' claims and evidence, and the condition lies in enabling the ensuing oral argument to be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner. The direction of the wording is set not to the convenience of the organization itself but to the quality of the oral argument that follows the organization.
The purpose of the wording, that the organization is a means for efficient and concentrated oral argument, and the requirement that a settled record must exist in order to judge the stage from the results of that organization, are two different determinations. The former states what the organization is carried out for; the latter fixes what shall be taken as the basis when stating how far the organization has proceeded. In accordance with this distinction, the author judges the stage solely on the materials recorded in the complaint, the answer, written briefs, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the judgment of dismissal on procedural grounds, and does not fill in missing records by conjecture. This standard of determination is coupled with the point that organization for the sake of efficiency does not turn into permission to erase unfavorable facts.
The counterargument that complex context may be cut away in the process of organization targets the loss that requiring a party without legal knowledge to conform to the form of claims weakens substantive hearing. If context is cut away, the circumstances a party actually underwent may not fit the boxes of the form and may vanish from the hearing, and a person who has not mastered the form may meet an unfavorable outcome on the spot. The disadvantage the counterargument identifies must be handled by widening the passage through which matters are left on the record, not resolved by filling in facts beyond the records.
From this fact alone it is not revealed which obligation is the subject of dispute or which evidence is attached in response, so it cannot be judged whether the organization of issues is complete. The materials used for the determination are limited to those recorded in the complaint, the answer, written briefs, the course of clarification and supplementation, and the judgment of dismissal on procedural grounds; no other materials are counted. Insufficiency of materials remains undetermined. If an unclear claim is confirmed to have been supplemented, a blocking determination resting solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained, but in this scene whether supplementation occurred cannot be confirmed.
What can be said in this section is that the purpose of the organization and the judgment of the stage are bound to the settled records, and that within those records it must be revealed which facts are asserted and contested. Filling in context outside the records by conjecture, or reading the organization as permission to omit unfavorable facts on the ground that it is carried out for the sake of efficiency, is not the conclusion of this paragraph. Where the materials are unconfirmed, the matter is left undetermined, while the very distinction of confirmed conditions is maintained.
4.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
At that stage, I confirmed that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for the necessary explanation. Now the question must be asked of the range of determinations that the organizing work is able to overturn. If an unclear allegation is later supplemented, does a blocking determination made solely on the ground that no explanation was given remain in place? If the designated change is confirmed, must the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations be discarded and the determination redone from that stage?
The wording that answers this question is found in Article 279 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision provides that the parties' allegations and evidence are to be organized "in the preparatory proceedings, so that the oral argument may be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner." Here the subject of the organization is the court conducting the preparatory proceedings, the object is the allegations and evidence submitted by the parties, and the purpose is the efficient and concentrated conduct of the oral argument. This wording points at once to the scope of the materials to be taken as the object of organization and to the quality of oral argument at which the organization aims. Even without addressing the procedural provisions of other paragraphs, the standard for the present question is fixed by this purposive wording alone.
This purposive wording makes clear what organization is for. The organization of disputed issues consists in gathering the contested allegations and the corresponding evidence, and that gathering work is a means of making the oral argument efficient and concentrated. The reason the organization as a means must be distinguished from the conduct of the oral argument as the end is that the target materials do not disappear merely because the purpose of the means has been achieved. Deleting unfavorable facts is not the purpose of organization. Accordingly, organization in the preparatory proceedings is for an efficient and concentrated oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. If an unclear allegation is confirmed to have been supplemented, a blocking determination resting solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained, and if the designated change is confirmed, the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations are discarded and the determination is redone from that stage.
The counterargument that in the course of organization complex context may be cut away aims at substantive loss. Where the contextual circumstances in a written submission prepared by a party without legal knowledge are severed, the part the court does not make an issue drops out of the examination, and that party loses the opportunity to develop its own allegation. The criticism that the procedure is simplified at the cost of a weakened hearing points accurately to the shadow of the organizing work. The disadvantage flagged by the counterargument must be dealt with by distinguishing the case in which no explanation remains after the opportunity for supplementation has been opened from the case in which the explanation has been filled in; it cannot be resolved by altering the purpose of organization itself.
On the written submission in this scene alone, the import of the allegation remains unclear, and neither the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court nor the presence or absence of a subsequent explanation has been confirmed. Accordingly, which facts are alleged and contested, and whether an opportunity for the necessary explanation and proof regarding the unclear points has been opened, cannot be determined from this scene alone. The determination is to be made on the complaint, the answer, the preparatory statement, the course of clarification and supplementation, and a ruling of dismissal on procedural grounds. Because the purport of the submission and the content of the opportunity for supplementation given cannot be confirmed, the determination in this section remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. Since the purpose of organization lies in an efficient and concentrated oral argument, organization does not mean the authority to delete unfavorable facts, and the distinction goes no further than that, once an unclear allegation is supplemented, a blocking determination resting solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained. The conclusion this section does not permit is equally clear. Reading the outcome of an actual case or the result of performance into the organizing work, inventing the content of explanations that have not been confirmed, and erasing the disadvantages inherent in the procedure all lie outside this section.
4.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
In the analysis addressed before this, it was already confirmed that the organizing procedure serves the progress of the examination, and the question remaining now is the limit of that organization. Even if one admits that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization, that does not mean that organization itself may erase that context. This question leads to a judgment of what organization is a tool for and how far that tool exerts its force. The point that, unless the issues are gathered, the examination cannot move forward even if the same facts are repeated, comes into question again here. What is to take priority at the point where the purpose of organization and the loss it causes collide is the core of this stage of analysis. The judgment that efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts becomes the answer to this collision. What that answer means becomes clear only after one first settles what the organization of the preparatory proceedings signifies.
Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Act specifies the work to be performed in the preparatory proceedings. The wording of the provision makes clear that the purpose of organization in the preparatory proceedings is to enable the oral argument to be conducted efficiently and in a concentrated manner. The subject this wording indicates is the judicial panel conducting the preparatory proceedings, and its act is the work of gathering and organizing the parties' allegations and evidence. The condition is that the organization be carried out so as to accord with the goal of the efficient and concentrated conduct of the oral argument. Read as written, organization designates the practical work to be performed at the stage of preparing for oral argument, and the provision does not contain the meaning that this work also confers the authority to alter or delete the content of the parties' allegations. This provision only clarifies what the organization of the preparatory proceedings is for; it gives no separate answer as to which facts may be erased in the course of organization. The distinction between the wording of the provision and its application therefore becomes important here. What the wording confirms is the purpose of organization, and the judgment that organization may delete unfavorable facts is a separate issue not derived directly from this wording.
This judgment holds only if the purpose and the limit of organization are viewed separately. At the level of purpose, organization is the work of gathering issues so that the oral argument proceeds efficiently, and the scope of that work is confined to gathering the contested allegations and the corresponding evidence. On this definition, the objects of organization are the allegations that form the issues and the evidence corresponding to them, and what organization aims to eliminate by removing it is duplication or the repetition of irrelevant material. At the level of limit, organization does not permit the deletion of unfavorable facts. The judgment of which side a given fact is unfavorable to is a matter for the stage of examination and judgment, not the stage of organization. The concern that context may be cut away in the course of organization points to a limitation inherent in the manner of organization; it does not mean that this limitation leads to permission to delete. If the two levels are read together, the goal of efficiency can be misused as a ground justifying the omission of facts.
The counterargument that requiring a party without legal knowledge to observe forms of allegation weakens substantive hearing aims most strongly at the accessibility of the procedure. At the root of this counterargument lies the concern that, if allegations not cast in proper form are filtered out in the course of organization, the substantive content contained in those allegations may disappear along with them. In particular, where a party lacking legal knowledge has been unable to fit complex context into the form required in court, it is pointed out as a loss that this context should remain not as an object of organization but as the content of the hearing to be protected. Yet efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts. This answer does not erase the inconvenience flagged by the counterargument. The practical difficulty that allegations lacking form are hard to deal with is acknowledged as it stands. The point is only that the means of alleviating that difficulty must not lie in permitting the deletion of unfavorable facts. So long as organization is a tool for pursuing efficiency, if that tool functions as permission to omit facts, the purpose of organization is inverted. The procedural device by which a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for the necessary explanation is, within this range, a channel for addressing the counterargument's concern.
In this scene, what becomes the object of organization is not the contract itself but the allegation, together with the fact that the contract has been submitted, as to what obligation has gone unperformed. The part not stated in the grounds of the claim remains an issue not clearly disclosed at the stage of organization. But that gap does not immediately lead to the deletion of unfavorable facts. What is confirmed in the course of organization is which allegations are contested issues and which evidence corresponds to those issues, and that confirmation alone does not erase facts not written in the grounds of the claim. A party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for the necessary explanation, and this route stands open as a channel for filling the unclear points. However, since the content of the actual records and the scope of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be confirmed from this scene alone, whether the explanation has been sufficiently made cannot be determined in this scene. Unless the purport of the submission and the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court are confirmed, that part remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is that organization is work for an efficient and concentrated oral argument, and that this work cannot be extended into permission for the deletion of unfavorable facts. The concern that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization is valid, but that concern alone does not alter the purpose of organization. Conversely, if organization justifies the omission of facts on grounds of efficiency, organization then lowers rather than raises the quality of the oral argument it originally sought. What this judgment does not permit is the conclusion that unfavorable facts may be erased at the stage of organization. It is acknowledged that allegations lacking form encounter difficulties in organization, but that acknowledgment does not lead to permission to delete. Parts that require explanation are matters to be handled through the route of demanding explanation, and whether that route stands closed is a matter to be confirmed separately. What can be determined within the scope of this section, however, is only the purpose of organization and its limits. When may an allegation left unexplained be excluded?
4.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The purpose of organization lies in the efficiency and concentration already confirmed. What remains at issue is how the relief applied for within the same preparatory proceedings meshes with the dispositive part. It must be confirmed how far the organizing work of the preparatory proceedings binds the subject matter of adjudication, and at what point the scope of the dispositive part is separately determined.
The subject indicated by this wording is the judicial panel conducting the preparatory proceedings; the act is the organization of disputed issues, gathering the allegations and corresponding evidence put forward by each party; and the condition is that preparation be completed to the extent that the ensuing oral argument can be opened efficiently and in a concentrated manner. This includes the opposing facts, together with the materials supporting or refuting them.
That organizing work seeks to conduct the examination efficiently, but it does not, by itself, fix either party's allegations or facts as the subject matter of adjudication. The formation of the claims and counterarguments to be adjudicated and the request for performance corresponding to them are judgments at different stages. In the former, it is enough that what facts are alleged and contested becomes clear; in the latter, the scope of the dispositive part to be pronounced by the judicial panel is confined to the performance requested in the prayer for relief. Accordingly, where the performance gathered as the object of judgment actually stands in the prayer for relief, it is adjudicated in the dispositive part, but adding to the dispositive part a performance that has not been applied for is not permitted.
The point that what is missed in the course of organization and formation may remain as a loss does not disappear. Where the context of a juristic act or the background woven into a contract is cut into short blocks of allegation, the party who has given the less full explanation may be placed at a disadvantage. However worrying it may be that organization ends without capturing all the complex circumstances, efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts. Organization must therefore be maintained as a collection rather than a summary, and its completeness is evaluated separately from the scope of the dispositive part.
The materials and allegations in the complaint alone make it difficult to determine the scope of the prayer for relief, that is, which performance has been requested. What the corresponding evidence and the counterargument target also varies with that indeterminacy. Unless the purport of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court can be confirmed, it cannot be judged from this scene alone whether the requested performance has been secured in the dispositive part.
The conclusion this section permits is confined to two points. Only the performance requested in the prayer for relief is adjudicated in the dispositive part, and a performance not applied for is not added to the dispositive part. By contrast, from the scope of the dispositive part alone one cannot assert categorically whether the organization of disputed issues has been completed or whether facts were cut away in the course of organization. Taking as the standard of evaluation the dispositive part in which the performance requested in the formation of the claims and counterarguments to be judged has been secured, circumstances outside that scope remain undetermined.
4.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
This observation does not stop at pointing out the waste of mere repetition; it indicates that whether the examination advances depends on what it covers and what it sets aside. In such a scene, what is the organization of the preparatory proceedings for? As the preceding section organized matters, the direction of organization is set toward efficiency.
This wording fixes the subject of organization as the court charged with the preparatory proceedings, its object as the allegations and evidence put forward by the parties, and its condition as the efficient and concentrated conduct of the oral argument. That is, what the provision requires is not the work of gathering every allegation and piece of evidence without omission, but the work of making clear what the issues to be actually dealt with at the oral argument are. That the purpose of organization lies in the quality of the oral argument is the core of this wording.
Accordingly, the conclusion the author draws on the basis of this wording is that organization in the preparatory proceedings is for an efficient and concentrated oral argument and nothing more, and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. This distinction is necessary because the purposive condition in the wording does not immediately lead to permission to delete. That some issue becomes clear through organization, and that a fact unfavorable to the opposing party drops from the records, are different phenomena. This direction, already confirmed by the premise of the preceding section, this section places upon the premise that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for the necessary explanation. So long as the route of requesting an explanation remains open, organization is not the removal of facts.
Even so, the counterargument remains that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization. The point that requiring a party without legal knowledge to observe forms of allegation weakens substantive hearing also touches this counterargument. The moment the convenience of organization cuts away the narrative, the allegation of the side that could not speak the whole context may lose its persuasive force, leaving only a surface. The author does not erase these losses and inconveniences, but answers that, even so, efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts. The judgment that places the purpose of organization on efficiency does not turn into immunity for deletion.
Returning to this scene, the plaintiff submitted the contract but did not state in the grounds of the claim what obligation went unperformed and in what manner. On this fact alone, which obligation remains unperformed does not become clear, nor is the result of the organization of disputed issues determined from the scene alone. Under the premise, however, that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for the necessary explanation, the unclear points can be filled by explanation. The records of the preparatory proceedings are indicated only by the categories of complaint, answer, preparatory statement, the course of clarification and supplementation, and a ruling of dismissal on procedural grounds; they do not presuppose the collection of actual records. Which obligation remains as a contested issue is undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. Organization in the preparatory proceedings is for an efficient and concentrated oral argument, and goes no further than the distinction that the convenience of organization does not lead to the deletion of unfavorable facts. The fact that organization may compress complex context is not denied, and that loss remains as a counterargument. Conversely, extracting under the name of organization a permission to remove from the records facts unfavorable to the opposing party lies outside the answer of this section. The premise that a request for explanation is possible supports these boundaries. How does the wording of Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Act support this conclusion?
4.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
What formation criteria should govern the claims and rebuttals to be adjudicated in this scene? The source passage corresponding to this question is Article 279, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Here the actor is the court conducting the preparatory proceedings, the act is the organization of the parties' claims and evidence, and the condition is that such organization aims at the efficient and intensive conduct of oral argument.
The manner in which this text is used as the basis for adjudication is narrow. Only the text within the scope of this Article is applied; it is not extended to the reasoning of the judgment. That the text places the goal of organization on the efficiency and concentration of oral argument, and that organization does not serve as an immunity erasing unfavorable facts, are distinct stages of judgment. If the former indicates the direction of the act of organization, the latter indicates the boundary that act must not cross. To mix the two yields an interpretation that converts the purpose of organization into the power of deletion.
The strongest counterargument to this distinction is that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization. Requiring claims in proper form from parties without legal knowledge also raises the loss and inconvenience that substantive hearing is weakened. A record organized with its context severed is difficult to restore later, and a party unfamiliar with form may not know what obligations and defects in performance must be specified in the cause of action. The risk of weakening that the counterargument points out remains, but that risk cannot create a power of deletion absent from the text.
This fact alone cannot establish which claim has been specified and which rebuttal formed. Only, in light of the textual condition that the goal of organization lies in the efficient and intensive conduct of oral argument, the key question is whether, from the records of the complaint, the answer, written preparations, the course of explanation and supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling, it is apparent which facts are asserted and contested. Whether opportunities for necessary explanation and proof regarding unclear points remain open must also be confirmed in the same records, and the present scene cannot reach a conclusion on this.
What this section permits is examining the formation of claims and rebuttals to be adjudicated by distinguishing the goal and boundary of organization according to the text. What it does not permit is going beyond that text to bring in the logic of the judgment's reasoning to broaden the power of organization, and reading organization as permitting the deletion of unfavorable facts. When an unexplained claim may be excluded is not determined by this text alone, and items that cannot be verified remain undetermined.
4.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
In the preceding section it was confirmed that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for necessary explanations. Such a request for an explanation extends as far as forming the claims and rebuttals to be adjudicated at the subsequent stage of organization. At this point the present question concerns by what standard the fine distinctions within the stage shall be divided and adjudicated. That is, the issue is what conditions should be taken as the standard when making smaller distinctions within an already established stage.
Article 279 of the Civil Procedure Act regulates what shall be done in preparatory proceedings, providing: "① In preparatory proceedings, the parties' claims and evidence shall be organized so that oral argument may be conducted efficiently and intensively" (Civil Procedure Act Article 279). In this text, the actor of organization is the court conducting the preparatory proceedings, the object of organization is the claims and evidence submitted by the parties, and the condition of organization lies in enabling oral argument to be conducted efficiently and intensively. The text does not address issues in other paragraphs; here only Article 279, paragraph (1) is read.
The purpose set by the above text and the distinctions within the stage point in the same direction. If the purpose of organization lies in efficient and intensive oral argument, then the work of dividing fine distinctions within it must likewise be judged in accord with the same purpose. Here, the fine distinctions within the stage mean, as defined earlier, the work of deciding which parts shall be separately grouped for adjudication within the organization of issues that gathers the contested claims and corresponding evidence. Yet the criterion for dividing this distinction is limited to the conditions already stated, and no new stage should be created by adding to them. The operating case refers to where it is apparent which facts are asserted and contested and opportunities for necessary explanation and proof regarding unclear points are open; the blocked case refers to where, even after the court-ordered opportunity for supplementation, there was no explanation and the matter was dismissed; the undetermined case refers to where the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court cannot be verified.
The counterargument that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization aims at the point that such loss is not small. That requiring claims in proper form from parties without legal knowledge weakens substantive hearing is an inconvenience raised in the same direction. Owing to organization, context may be omitted, and the words of one who has advanced a claim not in proper form may not be properly heard. Even while acknowledging such losses and inconveniences, the distinctions within the stage are limited to the stated conditions. The limit that efficient organization cannot be converted into permission to omit unfavorable facts applies unchanged. The loss the counterargument points out arises not from the deletion of facts, but from the work of marking out the scope of judgment while stating the conditions.
Contrasting this fact with the above conditions, it cannot be held that the submission of the contract alone made it apparent which facts were asserted and contested. If it is not stated what obligation was and how it went unperformed, the condition of disclosure required by the operating case remains unmet. However, whether the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court or the import of the plaintiff's submission can be verified is not determined by this scene alone. The boundary of this question is not to fill in unverified facts and fix the judgment.
The conclusion this section permits is that the fine distinctions within the stage are adjudicated by being limited to the stated conditions of the operating case, the blocked case, and the undetermined case, and that no additional stage beyond that scope is created. This does not mean that organization may eliminate complex context or erase unfavorable facts. Whether such supplementation occurred, and what opportunity the court gave, remain matters to be judged when verified through the records.
4.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
This section asks what device breaks through that blockage. In the preceding section it was confirmed that the organization of issues means the work of gathering contested claims and corresponding evidence, and that the organization in preparatory proceedings is for efficient and intensive oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. On the same premise, the present section examines in turn where the work of organization actually operates, where it is blocked, and where judgment must be reserved. The criterion of distinction is the traces left in the procedural records.
The statutory provision answering this question is Article 279, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text provides: "In preparatory proceedings, the parties' claims and evidence shall be organized so that oral argument may be conducted efficiently and intensively" (Civil Procedure Act Article 279). The actor indicated by this text is the court conducting the preparatory proceedings, the object is the claims and evidence submitted by the parties, and the act required is the work of organizing them. Here organization refers to the organization of issues, that is, the work of gathering contested claims and corresponding evidence. Other paragraphs of the Article and other procedural issues are not addressed within the scope of this text.
The link joining this text to the conclusion is the direction of organization. The statute places the purpose of organization in efficient and intensive oral argument, so it is organization's role to make apparent which facts the parties assert and the opposing party contests. Where, in that process, necessary explanation and proof regarding unclear points are opened to the parties, organization operates. Conversely, since that purpose does not lie in deleting or causing the omission of unfavorable facts, a manner of erasing stated facts without opening opportunities for explanation is not included in organization. The parting of the ways between operation and blockage lies in whether there was an opportunity for supplementation.
The strongest counterargument aimed at this distinction is that formal requirements weaken substantive hearing. A party without legal knowledge speaks only of their circumstances in the raw, and if that speech runs out of the organization process on the ground that it does not fit the courtroom form of claims, the core of the right of defense is shaken. That the context lost during organization is difficult to recover in later hearings is also part of that loss. The case where the court demanded explanation and opened the procedure following that demand, yet there was ultimately no explanation and the matter was dismissed, must be distinguished from the case where the opportunity itself was never opened.
From this fact alone, it cannot be asserted which side it falls on. Instead, recalling the complaint, the answer, written preparations, the course of explanation and supplementation, and the dismissal on procedural grounds ruling as materials to be left in the records, if it is apparent which facts are asserted and contested and opportunities for explanation and proof regarding unclear points have been opened, operation is confirmed; and if there is a record in which an attack or defense method of unclear import was dismissed for lack of explanation even after the court-ordered opportunity for supplementation, blockage is confirmed. On the other hand, where an unclear claim has been supplemented, a judgment of blockage based solely on the absence of explanation is not maintained. If the records do not contain the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court, the judgment remains undetermined.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits is a conditional distinction. Organization is the work of gathering contested claims and corresponding evidence, and it divides operation and blockage by the standard of whether explanation and proof were opened through the opportunity for supplementation. What is not permitted is either to read at once as the deletion of unfavorable facts the parts lost in the process of refining complex context, or to reverse efficient organization into permission to omit facts in order to prevent that loss. When the documentary record is insufficient to verify the import of the submission or the content of the opportunity for supplementation, that fact does not itself mean that no relief is available, and so it remains undetermined.
4.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
What has been organized up to the preceding stage is the single point that a party may request the presiding judge to ask the opposing party for necessary explanations. Even if the work of rereading the same materials continues, unless the issues to be addressed are settled, the hearing remains in place. What the organization of claims and evidence is required for, and what judgment is to be carried forward, remain the questions.
This text fixes as the object to be organized in preparatory proceedings the parties' claims and evidence. The expression "shall organize" sets the direction of the work to be performed by the preparatory proceedings, and taken as written it contains no permission to erase any fact.
Under this Article, the organization in preparatory proceedings is for efficient and intensive oral argument and does not mean the deletion of unfavorable facts. The reason these two must be examined separately is that, on the one hand, the work of gathering in one place the facts the parties contest with each other and the evidence corresponding to them belongs by its nature to organization, while, on the other hand, erasing unfavorable facts that do not enter that gathering lies outside the purpose of organization.
Nevertheless, requiring claims in proper form from parties unversed in the law may produce the inconvenience that a person who brought the suit is excluded without properly speaking of their unjust circumstances, and the criticism remains that complex context may be cut away in the course of organization. The loss this criticism aims at lies in the narrowing of the opportunity for a substantive hearing. The object handled by organization is whether each claim is explained; organization itself is not a stage that finally judges the existence or nonexistence of any fact.
In this scene, the submission of the contract corresponds to the submission of documentary evidence, and the fact that it is not stated what obligation was and how it went unperformed indicates that the explanation of the cause of action is missing. Since the scene alone cannot verify the content of the opportunity for supplementation given by the court or the course that followed, it cannot be determined at this point whether the exclusion was justified.
Accordingly, what can be confirmed here is that organization is the work of gathering which facts are contested, and that a judgment on the ground of absence of explanation can become an issue only after an opportunity for supplementation has followed. The conclusion cannot be hastened on the basis of nothing but the disadvantage arising in the course of organization, nor can the outcome of the actual case be asserted here.