Combining Claims in Japanese Boundary Disputes (e.g., Boundary Fixing + Damages): How Are Court Fees Calculated?

Property boundary disputes can be multifaceted, often involving not just the question of where the precise boundary line lies, but also claims for damages caused by encroachments, or demands for the removal of structures built on what is asserted to be one's own land. In Japan, when a landowner initiates a "land boundary determination suit" (土地境界確定訴訟 - tochi kyōkai kakutei no uttae), they may also wish to join these related claims into a single lawsuit for efficiency. This joinder of claims has direct implications for the calculation of the "value of suit" (訴額 - so'gaku), which in turn determines the court filing fees. The rules governing this calculation, particularly the concept of "economic unity" between claims, are key.

General Principles of "So'gaku" for Joined Claims in Japan

Under Japanese civil procedure, when a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a single lawsuit (an objective joinder of claims), the general rule is the principle of aggregation. This means that the individual "value of suit" (so'gaku) for each distinct claim is calculated separately, and these values are then added together to arrive at the total so'gaku for the lawsuit. This total so'gaku is then used for determining court jurisdiction and calculating the filing fees, as stipulated by Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Costs Act.

However, there's a crucial exception to this aggregation rule. If the joined claims are deemed to possess a common economic purpose or are economically unitary (その訴えで主張する利益が各請求につき共通である場合 - sono uttae de shuchō suru rieki ga kaku seikyū ni tsuki kyōtsū de aru baai), then aggregation is prohibited. In such instances, the so'gaku for the combined lawsuit is based on the single highest value among those economically linked claims, not their sum.

Applying Joinder Rules to Land Boundary Determination Lawsuits

Let's examine how these principles apply when a land boundary determination suit is combined with other common types of related claims.

Scenario 1: Boundary Determination + Claim for Damages

Imagine a plaintiff files a suit to determine the boundary and, in the same action, claims monetary damages for an act related to the disputed boundary area—for instance, damages for trees that were cut down by the neighbor within the area the plaintiff claims as their own.

In this scenario, the boundary determination claim and the damages claim are generally not considered economically unitary.

• The boundary determination suit is a formative action aimed at establishing the official boundary line. Its so'gaku is typically based on the value of the disputed land area itself.
• The damages claim seeks monetary compensation for a past wrongful act and has its own distinct value (the amount of damages sought).

Because their economic objectives are distinct, the principle of aggregation applies. The so'gaku for the boundary determination portion would be calculated (as discussed in a previous article), the so'gaku for the damages portion would be the amount claimed, and these two values would be added together to determine the total so'gaku for the lawsuit.

Scenario 2: Boundary Determination + Claim for Removal of Structures and/or Surrender of the Disputed Land Area

This scenario is more complex and has been subject to differing legal interpretations regarding economic unity. Here, the plaintiff seeks not only to have the boundary determined but also to compel the defendant to remove an encroaching structure (e.g., a wall or part of a building) from the disputed area and/or to surrender possession of that area.

The Affirmative View (Supporting Aggregation – Claims are Distinct):
One line of reasoning, which the author of the source material finds more logically sound, argues that these claims have distinct legal and economic objectives and thus their so'gaku values should be aggregated. The arguments are as follows:

• A final judgment in a land boundary determination suit, being formative, primarily establishes the public law boundary. It does not, by itself, confirm the plaintiff's private ownership scope over the disputed area with res judicata effect.
• Consequently, such a boundary judgment does not automatically grant the plaintiff the right to demand the removal of structures or the surrender of land with res judicata effect based on established ownership of that specific strip.
• Conversely, if a plaintiff separately sues for (and obtains) a judgment ordering the removal of structures or surrender of land based on their asserted ownership of the disputed strip, that judgment, while deciding ownership as a prejudicial question for the purpose of the removal/surrender order, does not definitively establish the public law boundary with res judicata effect in the way a dedicated boundary determination suit does.
• Therefore, because the legal effects and primary objectives are different, the claims are seen as legally and economically distinct, warranting the aggregation of their respective so'gaku values. The so'gaku for the boundary determination would be the value of the disputed area, and the so'gaku for the removal/surrender claim would typically be based on half the value of the land in question if it's an ownership-based possessory claim (as per So'gaku Notification 7(1)).

The Opposing View (Arguing for Economic Unity – No Aggregation):
An alternative view suggests that these claims are economically unitary and their so'gaku values should not be aggregated.

• The argument often starts by noting that So'gaku Notification No. 10 values boundary determination suits based on the value of the disputed land, which is similar to how ownership-related claims are valued.
• Therefore, joining a boundary determination suit with a claim for the surrender (明渡し - ake watashi) of the same disputed land should be treated analogously to joining an ownership confirmation suit with a land surrender suit.
• In the case of an ownership confirmation suit joined with a claim for land surrender concerning the same property, Japanese law does recognize these as having a common economic interest, and aggregation is prohibited; the higher of the two so'gaku values applies. Proponents of this view would extend this logic to the boundary suit + surrender claim scenario.

Critique of the Opposing View:
The author of the source text finds the reasoning for this opposing view unpersuasive. The critical distinction, according to this analysis, is that a claim for ownership confirmation is a prejudicial legal relationship (先決的法律関係 - senketsuteki hōritsu kankei) to a claim for land surrender of the same property. If ownership is confirmed, the right to surrender often follows.
However, a boundary determination is legally distinct and is generally not considered a prejudicial legal relationship for an ownership-based claim for the removal of structures or surrender of land from that disputed area. A Supreme Court judgment (December 2, 1982, Hanrei Jihō No. 1065, p. 139) is cited in support of the point that boundary determination is not a prejudicial legal relationship to an ownership-based land surrender claim. Thus, the analogy underlying the opposing view is deemed flawed.

Implication of Prevailing Practice if Economic Unity is Admitted:
The author of the source material adds a final, important reflection: If, notwithstanding the above legal reasoning, court practice frequently does find economic unity and prohibits aggregation when boundary determination suits are joined with possession-based claims (like removal or surrender), this would suggest a more fundamental issue with the valuation of boundary determination suits themselves, specifically with So'gaku Notification No. 10. It would highlight the potential inconsistency of valuing a boundary suit—whose judgment lacks res judicata on the private ownership of the disputed land—based on the full value of that disputed land in the first place.

Conclusion

When a land boundary determination suit is combined with other claims in Japan, the default rule under the Code of Civil Procedure is the aggregation of their respective "values of suit" for court fee purposes. However, this is subject to the crucial exception that aggregation is prohibited if the claims share a common economic purpose.

• Joining a boundary suit with a claim for damages related to the disputed area typically results in aggregation of their so'gaku values, as their economic objectives are considered distinct.
• The joinder of a boundary suit with a claim for removal of structures or surrender of the disputed land is more contentious. Strong legal arguments, focusing on the distinct legal effects and lack of a direct prejudicial relationship, support treating these claims as separate for so'gaku purposes, thus also leading to aggregation. An opposing view argues for economic unity by analogy to ownership confirmation plus surrender, but this analogy is critiqued.

Litigants should be aware that while the principle of economic unity is designed to prevent unfair fee inflation, its application in the specific context of boundary determination suits combined with possession-based claims involves complex legal reasoning. The ultimate determination may depend on the court's interpretation of the relationship between the claims and the prevailing understanding of the scope and effect of boundary judgments.