*Translated by Google translate

Introduction

 There are many regional quota systems for medical school selection across the country that require students to practice in a specific region after graduation. Regional quota systems are often implemented in conjunction with prefectural student loan systems, and students are exempt from repaying their loans if they practice in a designated region for a certain period of time after graduation. Among these systems, the Yamanashi Prefecture Regional Quota Doctor Career Development Program (hereinafter, the Program) is unique in that it imposes a huge penalty of 8,424,200 yen on top of 10% interest on the total scholarship of 9,360,000 yen if students are unable to practice in the designated region for the designated period of time. We, the Consumer Organization Japan and our legal team, believe that the penalty clauses in the contract for the Program are invalid in light of the Consumer Contract Act.

 Additionally, we believe that requiring young people who take university entrance exams under the regional quota system to predict their futures more than six years into the future and then binding their futures by making them sign contracts that include heavy penalty fees poses serious problems from the perspective of individual self-determination.

 While there are various measures to address policy issues such as eliminating the uneven distribution of doctors across regions, such as improving the working environment for employed doctors and reskilling female doctors who have retired, the adoption of contracts that include heavy penalty clauses that deprive individuals of the right to choose their future is a terrible policy that imposes a burden on young people in economically difficult circumstances, and the validity of such contracts should not be recognized by law.

 The two agreements in question

 The case in question concerns two agreements: 1) an agreement between Yamanashi Prefecture and the applicants who selected the Yamanashi Prefecture regional quota at the time of taking the medical school entrance exam that the program would apply to them ; and 2) a contract was concluded regarding the application of the career development program to those applicants once they had passed the national medical examination after being accepted by medical school .

 The former is an agreement made when applying to university without knowing how one will work as a doctor in the future.

 The latter is an agreement made when becoming a resident, without being able to foresee the early career choices that will come with being a doctor, or the various life events that will occur in one's personal life.

 Issues at issue

 This lawsuit claims that the penalty clauses in these two agreements are invalid and seeks an injunction against Yamanashi Prefecture for using such clauses. The clauses are invalid for two reasons.

 1. Invalidation under Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Consumer Contract Act

 One is a violation of Article 9, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Consumer Contract Act. The penalty clause in question, as shown in the figure below, applies 10% interest on the total scholarship amount of 9.36 million yen, and if the student quits within one year, a penalty of 8.424 million yen will be incurred. This is a high amount compared to the interest rate of scholarships provided by the Japan Student Services Organization, which is used by average university students, which is at most 1%. We argue that the amount stipulated in this penalty clause exceeds the average damage caused to Yamanashi Prefecture. 

 2. Invalidation under Article 10 of the Consumer Contract Act

 Another reason for invalidity is violation of Article 10 of the Consumer Contract Act. According to Article 10 of the Act, contract clauses that impose unilateral disadvantages on consumers in violation of the principle of good faith are invalid. We argue that when comparing the benefits to Yamanashi Prefecture from the penalty clause with the benefits to the examinees and medical interns, the examinees and medical interns will suffer unilateral disadvantages in violation of the principle of good faith. 

 In this case, it was reported that Yamanashi Prefecture cited its own medical system as the interest of both parties. However, since the comparison should be made based on the agreement and the contract, I think it is appropriate to compare the interest of the prefecture and other options if the applicant or intern does not work in Yamanashi Prefecture with the interest of the applicant or intern being bound to the program and other options.

 As mentioned above, it is difficult for medical school applicants to see what life will be like after passing university and the national medical examination. Even when they become residents, the nine years, including their initial training, are a time when many career choices are available, and it is the period when doctors experience the greatest change. The contract they enter into at the time of the examination imposes a high penalty for mid-term cancellation, which means they lose many options.

 If you become a doctor, you will enter into a labor contract with a medical institution within the designated area, but under the Labor Standards Act, fixed-term labor contracts of five years or more are invalid (Article 14, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the same Act), and the expectation of compensation is also prohibited (Article 16). We have to say that Paragraph 7 of the pledge in this case goes against the spirit of the Labor Standards Act, which is to not restrict personal freedom by setting long contract periods or high penalty fees.

 While the defendant's efforts to improve regional medical care could be achieved through other measures, the lives of individual trainees and their working conditions after becoming trainees are irreplaceable, and attempting to resolve the physician shortage by binding individuals with penalty fees violates the principle of good faith as set forth in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, and must be said to be a unilateral detriment to the trainees.

In addition, the plaintiffs' initial request was to delete the clause in Article 1, Paragraph 2 of the contract regarding the application of this program, which states, "Marriage, nursing care, childcare (excluding maternity leave and childcare leave), etc. shall not be considered as unavoidable reasons." Yamanashi Prefecture responded that it would consider this, but has not yet made clear the specific time frame. In reality, it is mostly women who are problematic for these reasons, and we believe that this is an unfair clause that causes serious disadvantages to female students and female doctors, so we would like Yamanashi Prefecture to delete it.

 Background

 ① Our organization was provided with information regarding Yamanashi Prefecture's "Agreement Pertaining to the Application of the Yamanashi Prefecture Regional Quota and Other Physician Career Development Program," and on February 21, 2023, we requested Yamanashi Prefecture to delete the penalty clause, among other things.

 ② In response to our request, we received a document dated March 24, 2023, signed by the Director of the Yamanashi Prefecture Welfare and Health Department, stating that they believe the penalty clause does not violate the law.

 ③ Regarding the response from Yamanashi Prefecture, we sent our opinions and questions to them on May 18, 2023, and requested that they respond by June 19.

 ④ After that, Yamanashi Prefecture contacted us by email to request an extension of the response deadline, which we agreed to, but no response was received even after the new deadline had passed. Therefore, on October 30th, we sent a pre-lawsuit demand document (Article 41 document) before filing the lawsuit.

 Although there was a request to extend the response deadline by another two months, JICA determined, based on past developments, that it could not expect Yamanashi Prefecture to respond sincerely to the request, and was forced to file an injunction lawsuit in the Kofu District Court.

 Social significance

 It is clear from documents from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare that the career development program is aimed at developing the careers of doctors. In other words, since it is not simply a contract for securing the workforce of doctors, even if the trainee changes his/her course (withdraws) midway through, the cost of securing the workforce should not be a loss.

 If this trial were to justify the penalty clause established by Yamanashi Prefecture and lead to other prefectures establishing similar clauses, the "career development program" would become even more divergent from what it should be.

 Use of funds  

 Qualified consumer organizations take on injunctive relief lawsuits for the benefit of an unspecified number of consumers, but because the beneficiaries are an unspecified number of consumers, they cannot earn income from lawsuits. For this reason, the more injunctive relief lawsuits they file, the more they incur a deficit, and they have to make up for this deficit with donations.

 We have entrusted the pursuit of the litigation to several lawyers, but our fiscal year 2023 financial statements show a deficit of approximately 4 million yen, and without donations we will have difficulty paying even the minimum legal fees.

 In the future, class action lawsuits should be used more widely, as in other countries, to resolve social issues that affect an unspecified number of people, but currently, in Japan, they are only institutionalized in the consumer field. I would like to see class action lawsuits supported and nurtured by the power of civil society.

 *Consumer Organization of Japan, the organizer of this case, is a certified NPO. Donations to this case are eligible for tax deductions , so if you would like to receive a tax deduction, please register a CALL4 account and register your name and address as shown on your resident registration card. Consumer Fund Japan will then mail you a donation receipt that can be used when filing your tax return. If you have any questions about donation deductions, please contact the Consumer Organization of Japan Secretariat ( cojfund@coj.gr.jp ).

 About the Plaintiff  

 Consumer Organization of Japan is a qualified consumer organization that can exercise injunctive relief against unfair contract clauses for the benefit of an unspecified and large number of consumers (in May 2024, it received the Prime Minister's Award for Outstanding Contributions to Consumer Support).
 https://www.caa.go.jp/policies/policy/consumer_education/public_awareness/gekkan/2024/assets/consumer_education_cms202_01.pdf

 Our organization has pointed out the problems with the penalty clause to Yamanashi Prefecture and has urged it to correct the problem, but as no action has been taken, we have now filed an injunction lawsuit in the Kofu District Court.

 Introducing the Lawyers 

 We are currently litigating this case with four lawyers from Consumer Affairs Agency Japan representing us.
 From left: lawyers Osugi Toshishi, Nakano Kazuko, Katsuyama Hiroki, and Yamamoto Mizuki.

 Message from the lawyer in charge

 After the news of the plaintiff's lawsuit was published, we received information that, although not from Yamanashi Prefecture, when people tried to withdraw from a career development program, they were treated like criminals and were not able to receive the specialized training they wanted. To be subjected to such personal attacks and to have difficulty obtaining specialist qualifications means that people suffer significant disadvantages in ways other than financial ones.

 I believe that the fundamental problem is the shortage of doctors, and the resulting vicious cycle of excessive work due to the shortage of working doctors, but it is unacceptable to force this policy solution onto a single applicant or a single trainee through a contract.

 Conclusion

 This is an injunction lawsuit for the benefit of "an unspecified number of consumers." We would like to proceed with this lawsuit together with civil society. We would appreciate your donations.