In this essay, I consider the action, which the plaintiff, Hata Kiyokane brought in Kamino estate headquarters (Kamino-no-sho honjyo, _??__??__??__??__??_) against the defendant, Ryogon-in temple's priest Hankei (_??__??__??__??__??__??_) relating to claim for myoden of 7tan in 3d year of Ryakuou (1340), 11th month, through ascertaining judicial principles appearing in their arguments.
The plaintiff claimed Kui-kaeshi (_??__??__??__??_) according to Okibumi (_??__??_) and Shigai-tekitai (_??__??__??__??_). The former was judicial principle of the right to demand recovery of the once donated land by parents to descendants. The latter was that of the right to exercise Kui-gaeshi over violations against regulations or house rules established by ancestors for the treatment of family wealth.
Then the defendent argued Tanin-wayo (_??__??__??__??_) according to Yuzurijo (_??__??_) and Gechi-ihai (_??__??__??__??_). The former was judicial principle of negation of the right to demand recovery of the land presented to the non-relatives without compensation. The latter was that of a punishment for violations against orders issued by a higher authority.
As a result, these judicial principles reflected rivalry between recoverys and non-recoverys for property.

抄録全体を表示