One day, even if someone suddenly destroys your building with an excavator, won't it be 'damage to the building'?
When the editor-in-chief went to GIGAZINE's former head office in Nishiyodogawa-ku, Osaka to pick up luggage by car, I happened to encounter the scene where GIGAZINE's first warehouse diagonally in front was destroyed by an excavator. .
The warehouse you own was destroyed by an unknown excavator
The above warehouse looks like this.
A demolition company is destroying with an excavator. Of course, I immediately said, ``This place is in our name, we have registered it and we own the rights to it. We have fire insurance, and we pay taxes. By the way, I was told that 'the president of the real estate company above told me to demolish it and I am working on it', but the dismantling work was immediately suspended and he said that he would check with the president and started contacting me by cell phone. I was.
However, ``The person in charge will come in about 20 minutes, but I was told to continue the work,'' so the destruction resumed. Even though I asked him to stop, he refused to stop and was told to 'get out of here because it's dangerous'.
Fortunately, there was a police box nearby, so I ran to it. but unmanned.
As soon as I called 110 from the police box, I was immediately connected to the Nishiyodogawa police, told them my address, and told them about the situation.
Editor-in-chief: 'That's why the building in my name is being demolished without permission.'
Nishiyodogawa Police Officer: 'Huh? Why?'
Editor-in-chief: 'I don't know. I didn't hear from you in advance. Anyway, there's no way to stop it right now, so I want you to come to the site and see it. Please.'
Nishiyodogawa Police Officer: 'Huh? Really?'
Editor-in-chief: 'It's true. Can you come and have a look anyway? Even if I say that, you won't stop breaking it, and there's nothing I can do about it.'
Nishiyodogawa Police Officer: “Really? Why?”
At first, the police were skeptical about it, but they were ordered to wait at the police box as they were going to send the police officers on patrol, and after a while, one police officer appeared. to the site together.
When I arrived at the site, I confirmed that Mr. Y, the landlord, and Mr. N, an employee of a real estate brokerage company, were newly at the site.
Mr. Y, the landlord, said, 'This land belongs to me.' 'This building belongs to me.' 'My lawyer told me so.' 'It's not yours.' Claiming 'I got it back'.
Furthermore, while I was explaining the situation to the police, I rang the doorbells of neighboring houses one after another and called them in order, saying, 'I had that house returned,' and 'I was originally an old man (= editor-in-chief).' I lent it to my grandfather), and I don't know anything about this person (=editor-in-chief)' and began to make false claims.
Two more police officers arrived, but Mr. Y, the landlord, continued to lie and insult him. .
◆Is it not a crime of damaging buildings?
Manager N, an employee of the real estate company who had acted as an intermediary with the police officer, intervened, and the landlord, Mr. Y, who was lying, was evacuated, and the situation settled down.
The following is the explanation given by Director N of the real estate brokerage company Power Estate Co., Ltd., who was present at the time.
・We were unable to contact the owner of one of the three houses being dismantled (=editor-in-chief).
↓
Editor-in-chief: 'They say they can't contact you, but the company is right in front of the building they're destroying without permission.'
There is GIGAZINE former headquarters in front of the first warehouse. Even though it's so close, what is it that 'I can't contact you' ...?
・Although the registration is 'editor-in-chief', Mr. Y, the landlord, claims that 'it was returned'.
↓
Editor-in-chief: 'Even though there are no documents to support that claim...?'
Furthermore, the explanation of Director N continued.
・Mr. Y, the landlord, and the real estate company knew that the registered name of the real estate company was 'editor-in-chief.'
・Demolition contractors were instructed to dismantle by the real estate company.
Destroying a house without contacting the owner despite confirming the owner in the registry looks like the act of raising the land in the last century.
In addition, the following explanation was received from the police.
・Although it is a civil matter, the house is actually destroyed without permission.
・Despite a request from the site to stop demolishing the house, the demolition continued.
・As long as the registration documents, insurance documents, and tax documents are all claimed to be in the name of the 'editor-in-chief', it is normal to think that it would be strange to continue to destroy them without obtaining permission from the 'editor-in-chief' in the first place.
・If you bring the relevant documents, you can report the damage or file a lawsuit.
In addition, we will receive a business card from Manager N, an employee of a real estate company, and discuss detailed explanations of the past and future responses at GIGAZINE's new headquarters (Ibaraki City, Osaka Prefecture) from 13:00 on Friday, February 22nd. It's decided.
I have to do what I can do until then.
First of all, I contacted the insurance company and asked if it would be covered by insurance, but the answer was 'It's impossible because it's an unprecedented case.' disappointing.
Next, when I consulted with GIGAZINE's legal counsel, who was a former prosecutor and a special investigation,
'Generally, I think it is possible for the other party to request the vacation of the land for which the building has been removed, but if the other party believes that he or she is right and intends to carry out this, we will not file a civil lawsuit. In addition, it is not permissible for the other party to forcibly demolish the building as self-help.”
'At least, from a criminal point of view, self-help is not allowed, and I think it would be good if we proceeded with prosecution for building damage crimes.'
reassuring answer. Upon investigation, it seems that there is a high possibility that it corresponds to the following crimes. I will read Wikipedia because it is easy to understand.
Crime of damaging buildings, etc. - Wikipedia
A person who damages another person's building or ship shall be punished by imprisonment with work for not more than five years.
This offense makes 'damage' a constituent act. There are many different theories, but judicial precedents and common theories say that it means any act that impairs the utility of the object. Therefore, it can be said that damage is not limited to physical damage, but also acts that psychologically make it unusable.
Certainly, this case seems to be a 'building damage crime'.
Therefore, I went to the legal affairs bureau and submitted a register, took it to the Nishiyodogawa Police Department, and conveyed the opinion of the above lawyer.
'No damage to buildings'
It is said that it will be a decision. The reason is as follows.
・“Building damage” in building damage crimes is “intentional (=doing on purpose)” such as “running into a building with a car”, “blowing up a building with a bomb”, and “spraying graffiti on a wall”. ' requires
・There is no “deliberateness ” because the landowner destroys the building on his land under the belief that he has “returned” it.
So what are the registers for, and what are the legal formalities for? Are you that stupid? So, when I went to the Legal Affairs Bureau again to consult about it, I was able to get a registrar to connect me, and a terrible fact was discovered.
・There is a system called “application for registration of loss” (which is different from “application for registration of loss of building”)
・No matter what method you use, if you make the land empty anyway, you can rewrite the registration by “application for lost registration”.
・It doesn't matter whether this method of clearing is legal or illegal, because it doesn't matter at all on paper
・If you have the proper documents for the procedure, you can rewrite the name on the registry with a “request for lost registration”.
See the following pages for details.
Who is the owner of the building? where are you now Are you alive at all? Do you have an heir? Who knows.
In such a case, the land owner asks the Legal Affairs Bureau, ``There is only a building registered on the land, but it definitely does not exist, so please destroy it ex officio.'' Application for registration.
Upon receipt of this, the Legal Affairs Bureau will destroy the building registration ex officio after various investigations.
Editor-in-chief: '...In other words, if I suddenly rush here with an excavator, destroy the building of the Legal Affairs Bureau, and make a 'request for lost registration', it will be possible to rewrite the name on the registry. mosquito?'
Legal Affairs Bureau: 'If we go to check on the local situation and find that there are no buildings, that's the official authority of the registrar. Of course, we will contact you by mail to the address listed in the registry. , it is possible to block the registration itself at that point.”
Editor-in-Chief 'Is there a legal way to stop destruction/dismantling before it is destroyed?'
Legal Affairs Bureau 'No'
Editor-in-chief: “In other words, even if you contact the police, the contractor will stop dismantling on the spot, but if the police are gone, you can resume the work again.
Legal Affairs Bureau 'No...'
I also investigated various things with the registrar of the Legal Affairs Bureau, but it seems that there is no legal means to stop the dismantling itself at the moment. As for the procedure, if the application is made, the registrar will go to the site and confirm that the land is vacant. that's right.
In other words, this time, I happened to be at the site during dismantling, so I was able to stop it, but the procedure for raising the ground is as follows.
・Destroy the house with an excavator without permission and dismantle it to make it a vacant lot.
↓
・'Apply for registration of loss'
↓
・If successful, the name on the register can be rewritten. Even if the name cannot be changed, the house itself can be destroyed.
↓
・After that, use the land as you like
Regardless of the house where someone actually lives, in a 'warehouse' like this one, there is no one inside and there is a time when no one is watching, so it is not possible to 'destroy without permission' It becomes possible. And if you destroy it, you can't restore it anymore, so you can even 'apply for lost registration', so you can aim for the possibility of perfect takeover.
However, since everything is too messy, I consulted GIGAZINE's corporate lawyer again,
'You just need to make it clear that you own it and make it clear to those who want to dismantle it.'
That's what I'm talking about. In other words, if the dismantling company's client or the name of the owner who is different from the prior explanation is displayed, the dismantling company should be able to recognize it as 'What?' It seems that the illegality will rise considerably because it was dismantled even though it was there.
Therefore, create a nameplate laminated with deca deca as follows.
I stuck it here and there.
Furthermore, at a later date, a copy of the register was also pasted on the wall to ensure perfection.
I hung it inside the house. With this, you can see in one shot no matter where you try to break it.
And at 13:00 on February 22nd (Friday), when I talked with Manager N of Power Estate Co., Ltd., ``Why did you destroy the building that was clearly owned by the editor-in-chief?'', the following was revealed. This is also recorded and video recorded.
'In the normal procedure, Power Estate Co., Ltd. will contact the address listed in the registry obtained by requesting a land and house surveyor.'
'Regarding this time, Mr. Y, the landlord, knew the contact information for the next two cases, but I was told that he did not know the contact information for the editor-in-chief, so I did not contact him .'
“After that, it was Power Estate Co., Ltd. that proposed the demolition, and the landlord, Mr. Y, gave the demolition instructions.”
'The person who arranged the dismantling company was the 'buyer's real estate company,' which is trying to buy the land from Mr. Y, the landlord, but I can't say the name.'
'It is Mr. Y, the landlord, who pays the demolition contractor.'
'A third-party company (=buyer) wanted to buy that land, so they approached Power Estate Co., Ltd. to talk about mediation, and Power Estate Co., Ltd. contacted Mr. Y, the landlord.'
'Power Estate Co., Ltd. and Mr. Y, the landlord, only have an intermediary brokerage contract, and there are no other contracts.'
'There are no documents exchanged between the landlord Mr. Y and the editor-in-chief, and Power Estate Co., Ltd. has not confirmed .'
'Mr. Y, the landlord, told Power Estate Co., Ltd., 'I got the key back,' but Power Estate Co., Ltd. has not confirmed the key.'
' I was told by Mr. Y, the landlord, that the building being demolished this time contains Mr. Y's luggage.'
In other words, it is a method of “do not check anything” .
Then he suggested, ``I don't know if Mr. Y, the landlord, said that he would pay 1 million yen. 'There is no way to be correct, so I refused the proposal.
But at this rate, I have no choice but to cry and fall asleep.
Or rather, isn't it strange that even though you've been destroying it so far in the first place, you won't be questioned as 'structural damage'? So, in addition to the registry, there are documents that will prove all kinds of rights and causal relationships (receipts at the time of purchase and sale, sales contract, registry of the previous owner, at the time when you clearly stated that you have superficies. I decided to go to the Nishiyodogawa police again with GIGAZINE's corporate lawyer.
At that time, the following 'Supreme Court Case Showa 58 (A) 1072' discovered by a lawyer was the most effective.
Case number:
Incident name: Building damage
Court name: Third Court of the Supreme Court
The issue in this case is 'Who owns the house?' If that is the point of contention, it will become a 'civil case' instead of a 'criminal case', and the police will not be able to get involved. put away. The important point is that the other party's statements and methods are all logically constructed in such a way as to avoid criminal liability. The above-mentioned Supreme Court precedent 'Showa 58 (A) 1072' can be used to counter this vicious land-raising act, which can be summarized as follows.
・In the case of building damage, it is possible to separate it from civil matters and to pursue criminal charges solely based on the phenomenon that occurred.
It is clearly stated that it belongs to the editor-in-chief on the register, and tax (fixed asset tax) is paid to the country properly every year, and since there is also the actual use as a warehouse by GIGAZINE, the rest is 'damage to the building' In other words, let's look only at the part of the criminal case.
The police, who were hesitant at first, were handed a printout of this Supreme Court case by a lawyer, read it carefully, and received an explanation. Criminal responsibility cannot be questioned if there is only a common leasehold or superficies, and it will only be a civil trial, but it is actually possible to narrow it down to 'building damage' by looking only at the phenomenon side. ,about it.
On the other hand, we have notified Power Estate Co., Ltd., 'We will be filing a damage report with the police, and we will have to see how the investigation goes, so we cannot discuss it at this time.' This is because, from the standpoint of the police, if filing a damage report is taken for granted, and if the damage report and the complaint are withdrawn as a condition, the investigation will end in vain. It's for For that reason, it is necessary to continue to thoroughly and clearly show the police that 'I will not do civil matters. I want criminal punishment.' The publication of this article also serves as a reference for cases in which similar acts and methods are troubled, as well as 'clearly and publicly demonstrating a strong will to punish'.
As a result of gathering various materials, I finally completed the damage report and statement on March 27 (Wednesday), so I went to the Nishiyodogawa Police Department and signed and stamped.
Basically, I asked him to include all of my claims, and at the end of the statement, I wrote something like the following.
'I don't understand how my building was demolished this time, but Manager N of Power Estate said that Mr. Y, the owner of the land, gave permission to demolish it. At first, I thought, ``If it's broken due to some mistake, we have no choice but to discuss it. I'm angry at what I tried to do.This isn't about the money.I don't want to receive any amount of money, so I'm going to have this incident where my building was demolished by myself to be thoroughly investigated and demolished. Please give severe punishment to the person who gave the instruction.'
In addition, when
In this article as well, 'I will never back down' and 'I want the police and prosecutors to fight with all their might to counter the people who do what they want to do because they think there is no way it will become a criminal case.' It is written to show the will to fight.
After that, I accompanied the police to the site and took pictures again.
If you leave it as it is, the wind will blow and the dismantled pieces will fly away here and there, so I've put them together.
Come to think of it, the 'name tag', 'name tag', and 'copy of the register' that should have been pasted on the wall are missing. It should have been wrapped around and tied with wire, but what happened?
The 'nameplate', 'nameplate', and 'copy of the register' that should have been pasted inside the house have also disappeared. It seems that someone accidentally peeled it off.
Anyway, this was the end of the story, and all that was left to do was to wait for the progress of the investigation. It has started.
◆ Destroyed warehouse again
Thursday, March 28, 9:57:58 a.m.
Around 11:00 am
Content-certified mail arrives at the new head office from Mr. Y. At the end of the document, it was clearly stated that the land rights had been transferred to Nisshin Planning Co., Ltd.
12:45:37 noon
An excavator arranged by 'Nissin Planning Co., Ltd.' begins to destroy the first warehouse. Chariderman reports to the police.
Around 13:05
Editor-in-chief rushed to the site due to a report from Chariderman.
In this way, once again, the dismantling and destruction began without permission. The reason why the 'name tag', 'name tag', and 'copy of the register' had disappeared during the shooting at the police presence the day before was probably this omen.
13:33
The editor-in-chief called the detective in charge of the Nishiyodogawa Police Department on a mobile phone and requested confirmation of the site.
13:36
Call GIGAZINE's legal counsel.
14:00:40
Arrive locally.
A man claiming to be an employee of 'Nissin Planning Co., Ltd.'
・I bought land from Y.
・I was working to remove the asphalt and 'accidentally' broke it a little.
・Let the lawyer of 'Nissin Planning Co., Ltd.' contact the Nishiyodogawa Police
・I don't want to talk directly to the editor-in-chief
・Please let the editor-in-chief's legal counsel contact the police.
unilaterally argued.
In short, it is a flow that we have taken further steps to create an excuse that the police should not intervene because this is a civil matter.
Even if you do so far, it seems that it is not 'intentional'.
What would it take to be 'intentional'? If you can shoot the moment of destruction without questioning 'deliberateness', what should you do ...?
The corporate lawyer was also quite angry about the police's immediate willfulness issue, saying, 'Do you think all criminals will say 'I did it, I knew it was a crime'? It would be normal to cut through the unknowingly.' As expected, I was originally just a prosecutor, and the persuasive power of words is different. As a result of putting too much emphasis on willfulness, we end up relying on confessions. I think that the reality in front of us, the scientific facts, should be clearly more important than intentionality, but is that wrong?
14:31
Contact the corporate lawyer again, explain to the Nishiyodogawa police, and clearly refuse contact between lawyers for 'civil affairs'.
This put a stop to further one-sided destruction for the time being.
Around 15:30
Arrived at the Legal Affairs Bureau to confirm whether the name of the land was really rewritten. Obtain a register and check the current status. The name of the land had not yet been changed from Mr. Y.
Around 16:30
Arrived at the scene of the incident again. Make sure there is still footage on the security cameras. In addition, as a result of interviewing local residents who heard the commotion and gathered, Mr. Y has been thoroughly trying not to issue documents, such as not issuing receipts or writing contracts. I have received many different testimonies. They have also been reported to the police.
18:18
Call from Nishiyodogawa Police.
・When I returned to the police station and checked, it was not from the 'lawyer' as claimed by the other company, but only a fax from the company.
・When I was told the contact information by phone, it was the same 'Nissin Planning Co., Ltd.' as the one specified at the end of the content-certified mail that arrived this morning.
・The police told me, ``Civil proceedings should be handled as civil matters.'' However, he strongly and repeatedly insisted, ``I have absolutely no intention of proceeding as a civil matter.
・When I asked, 'I have received a content-certified mail, but the content is unclear and I cannot understand it. Is it okay for me to directly ask Mr. Y about this matter?' I'm doing it, so I want you to stop it while the investigation is still going on.'
The above is the progress at the time of writing the article.
To be honest, I never thought that in modern Japan, the police would be so overwhelmed by contractors that they would be so helpless that there would be no way to stop houses from being forcibly destroyed by heavy machinery such as excavators. In addition, even if there is physical evidence such as photographs, the police cannot arrest the offender red-handed, and can only watch over them. As expected, yesterday, all the police officers looked bitter and seemed to be very frustrated.
We have to wait for the progress of the future investigation to see what will happen in the end, but at the moment there is nothing we can do about it. Although it is clear to anyone who sees it as 'damage to a building,' I never thought that they would do whatever they wanted just because it was 'unprecedented.' Even if there are pictures of the destruction on purpose, even if there are witnesses who witnessed it, it is useless.
One day, even if someone suddenly destroys your building with an excavator, won't it be 'damage to the building'? It seems that it will be 'not' if it remains as it is.
Finally, I would like to ask readers to widely provide information to the GIGAZINE editorial department about this 'building damage' and such ground-raising acts.
・Is this case too special?
・In fact, is it a normal practice to evade the law and try to abuse such a 'request for lost registration' just by not appearing on the surface?
Or is there actually a way to counter such cases?
Any information will do. As it is now, the police can not stop the act of raising the ground, and even GIGAZINE is the limit that can be done so far. If you have any useful information or someone who says 'I was also damaged by the same trick', please provide information anonymously from the form below. In that case, the protection of the information provider will be thorough.
Please fill out the form below with the subject line 'About Jiage', specify the information you would like to provide, and provide an email address where we can contact you. We may not be able to reply to everything, but we will review the information you have provided with our legal counsel and may contact you if you would like us to provide you with more detailed information.
Well, then, I'm looking forward to working with you.
[Click here for information on how to raise the ground]
One day, even if someone suddenly destroys your building with an excavator, won't it be 'damage to the building'? https://t.co/9wEP4cCTiO
— GIGAZINE (@gigazine) March 29, 2019
Related Posts:
