The plaintiff, who had divorced her former husband and remarried seven months later, sued the State claiming that she had suffered mental distress due to a provision in the Civil Code which barred women from remarrying until six months after the dissolution or rescission of her previous marriage. Both the District Court and the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument, saying that the restriction was not necessarily unreasonable because it was meant to avert confusion over the paternity of any children born immediately after a divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the provision violated the Constitution only to the extent that the restriction exceeded 100 days, because 1) the Civil Code already provided that a child born more than 200 days after the formation of a marriage or less than 300 days after the dissolution/rescission of a marriage would be presumed to have been conceived within the marriage, and 2) advances in medical technology and societal changes made it difficult to justify a restriction lasting beyond 100 days. However, the Supreme Court also affirmed the District Court and High Court in finding that the State was not liable in this case for failing to abolish the regulation, as this did not constitute an exceptional case that might incur liability under the State Redress Act. Shortly after this judgment, the Civil Code was amended to decrease the six-month waiting period to 100 days.
前夫と離婚し、7か月後に再婚した原告が、民法に基づく６か月の再婚禁止期間により精神的苦痛を受けたとして、国家賠償法に基づき損害賠償を求めた事案である。地裁、高裁ともに、再婚禁止期間に関する規定は、父子関係をめぐる紛争の発生を防ぐことにあり、直ちに過剰な制約であると言えないと判断し、原告の請求を棄却した。一方、最高裁は、民法では、婚姻の成立の日から200日を経過した後又は婚姻の解消の日から300日以内に生まれた子を当該婚姻に係る夫の子と推定していること、また、医療の発達及び社会の変化により、100日を超える制限を正当化することは困難であることなどから、100日を超える制限については憲法違反であるとした。しかし、最高裁は、国家賠償法の適用の観点から見た場合には、国家賠償法は適用されないとする地裁および高裁の判断を支持した。本判決直後、民法が改正され、6か月の再婚禁止期間が100日に短縮された。
Year
External URL
- Type