Article 19-10Restrictions on Rescission of Decision of Sale, etc. of Real Property, etc.
第十九条の十（不動産等の売却決定等の取消しの制限）
Where a request for review of a delinquent tax collection procedure has been made on the ground that there is a defect in a disposition set forth in Article 19-4, item (iii), and the disposition is unlawful but falls under any of the following cases, the head of the local government may dismiss the request for review.
Where a disposition that is to follow the disposition relating to the request for review (hereinafter in this item referred to as a "subsequent disposition") has already been carried out, and the unlawfulness of the disposition relating to the request for review is minor and it is found inappropriate to let it affect the subsequent disposition;
その審査請求に係る処分に続いて行われるべき処分（以下この号において「後行処分」という。）が既に行われている場合において、その審査請求に係る処分の違法が軽微なものであり、その後行処分に影響を及ぼさせることが適当でないと認められるとき。
Where the property realized is being used for public purposes, or in other cases where rescinding the disposition relating to the request for review would cause significant harm to the public interest, and it is found that rescinding that disposition would still not be consistent with the public welfare even taking into consideration the extent of the damage suffered by the person who made the request for review, the extent and method of compensation for that damage, and all other circumstances.
換価した財産が公共の用に供されている場合その他審査請求に係る処分を取り消すことにより公の利益に著しい障害を生ずる場合で、その審査請求をした者の受ける損害の程度、その損害の賠償の程度及び方法その他一切の事情を考慮してもなおその処分を取り消すことが公共の福祉に適合しないと認められるとき。
A ruling dismissing a request for review under the provisions of the preceding paragraph must expressly state that the disposition is unlawful and the reasons for dismissing the request for review.
前項の規定による審査請求の棄却の裁決には、処分が違法であること及び審査請求を棄却する理由を明示しなければならない。
The provisions of paragraph (1) do not preclude a claim for damages against a local government.
local governmentmachine translation
「地方団体」
A prefecture (道府県) or a municipality (市町村).
Defined inArticle 1, paragraph (1), item (i)· applies throughout the law
head of a local governmentmachine translation
「地方団体の長」
The governor of a prefecture (道府県知事) or the mayor of a municipality (市町村長).
Defined inArticle 1, paragraph (1), item (ii)· applies throughout the law
subsequent dispositionmachine translation
「後行処分」
In Article 19-10, paragraph 1, item 1, a disposition that is to follow the disposition a request for review (審査請求) of a delinquent tax collection (滞納処分) concerns; where it has already been made and the earlier disposition's illegality is minor and should not be allowed to affect it, the head of the local government (地方団体の長) may dismiss the request.
Short name set inArticle 19-10, paragraph (1), item (i)· applies only in this item
damages
損害賠償
Compensation for loss one person has caused another. A debtor who does not perform an obligation as it should be performed, or cannot perform it, must compensate the creditor for the loss that results, unless the failure comes from a cause the debtor is not responsible for, judged by the contract or other source of the obligation and by accepted views in dealings (Civil Code, Article 415, paragraph (1)); and a person who, intentionally or negligently, infringes another's rights or legally protected interests must compensate for the loss that results (Article 709). It is paid in money unless otherwise agreed (Articles 417 and 722, paragraph (1)), and the parties to a contract may agree in advance the amount due if it is not performed; a sum fixed for breach (違約金) is presumed to be such an agreement (Article 420, paragraphs (1) and (3)). The Consumer Contract Act makes void the part of such an amount in a consumer contract, for its cancellation, with any penalty added, above the average loss the business would suffer from the cancellation of consumer contracts of that kind, measured separately for each category the clause sets, such as the reason for and time of cancellation (Consumer Contract Act, Article 9, paragraph (1), item (i)).
Written by AI using Civil Code, Arts. 415, 417, 420, 709, 722 and Consumer Contract Act, Art. 9 as a reference.
request for review
審査請求
A request to an administrative agency (行政庁) to review a disposition (処分) the person objects to, or, where the person applied for a disposition under a law or regulation and a reasonable time has passed with none made, the agency's failure to act (不作為) (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Articles 2 and 3). Unless an Act, or for a disposition based on a local ordinance (条例) that ordinance, provides otherwise, it is made to the agency that made the disposition or failed to act where that agency has no superior agency or is itself the competent minister (主任の大臣) or the head of certain agencies; where such a minister or head is the agency above it, to that minister or head; and otherwise to its highest superior agency (Article 4). Another Act can set rules of its own for it, naming another body to make it to or another route (Article 1, paragraph (2); Article 4): the Employees' Pension Insurance Act, for instance, has a request about a disposition (処分) of the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (厚生労働大臣) on a person's status as insured, standard remuneration or insurance benefits, other than a decision on a request to correct the pension insurance register, made to a social insurance examiner (社会保険審査官), and disapplies most of the Administrative Complaint Review Act's rules for it (Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Articles 90, paragraph (1), and 91-2). Under the Administrative Complaint Review Act, a request about a disposition must be made within three months of the day after the person learned of it — or one month after learning of the decision, where a request for re-investigation (再調査の請求) was made first — and within a year of the disposition or that decision, unless there is a justifiable reason (Administrative Complaint Review Act, Article 18, paragraphs (1) and (2)). Making one does not by itself stop the disposition taking effect or being carried out, or the proceedings going on (Article 25, paragraph (1)), but the agency reviewing it can suspend them in whole or in part on the application of the person who made the request — and, where it made the disposition or is the agency above the one that did, of its own motion — and, once the person who made the request has applied, must where that is urgently needed to avoid serious harm, unless that would seriously affect the public welfare or the request appears to have no grounds (Article 25, paragraphs (2) to (4)). The agency reviewing it (審査庁) decides it by a determination (裁決): it dismisses a request that is unlawful, for instance one made too late, rejects one that is groundless, and, where one is well founded, revokes the disposition in whole or in part or changes it — though never to the disadvantage of the person who made the request, and an agency that neither made the disposition nor is above the agency that did cannot change it (Articles 45, paragraphs (1) and (2), 46, paragraph (1), and 48). Where the request is about a de facto act (事実上の行為), the determination instead declares the act unlawful or unjust and orders it abolished in whole or in part or changed, or abolishes or changes it (Article 47). A well-founded request about a failure to act ends instead in a determination declaring the failure unlawful or unjust, and, where the agency finds a disposition should be made, an order to make it or the disposition itself (Article 49, paragraph (3)). Where revoking an unlawful or unjust disposition, or abolishing an unlawful or unjust de facto act, would seriously harm the public interest, the agency can reject the request while declaring in the determination that it is unlawful or unjust (Article 45, paragraph (3)). The determination takes effect when it is served on the person who made the request — or, where someone other than the disposition's addressee made it and the determination revokes or changes the disposition or deals with a de facto act, once it is served on the addressee too — and binds the agencies concerned (Articles 51, paragraph (1), and 52, paragraph (1)).
Written by AI using Administrative Complaint Review Act, Arts. 1 to 4, 18, 25, 45 to 49, 51, 52 and Employees' Pension Insurance Act, Arts. 90, 91-2 as a reference.