6/25/2020 Details of 1996 (Gyo-Tsu) 28 | Judgments of the Supreme Court the respective election districts was conducted in the room called the voting record review office, which is different from the venue of the election meeting. In the midst of confusion at the venue of the election meeting over the result of vote counting released by the election meeting on April 18, the agent for the voting administrator for the tenth voting district was called into said room by the person in charge of vote counting, and ordered to correct part of the voting record. Since the calculation of the number of votes directly affects the success or defeat of the candidates, there is no need to say that the calculation work should be executed strictly. In view of the circumstances mentioned above---(i) in the release made by the election meeting on April 18, 1993, around 9:55 p.m., the number of votes was larger than the number of voters by 16 votes; (ii) as a result of the inspection conducted for making a determination on review, the number of votes gained by Candidate B decreased by as much as 16 votes; (iii) the inspection of the voting records of the respective election districts was conducted at a place different from the venue of the election meeting despite the significant meaning of such voting records as materials to be used to determine the number of voters and the number of votes not accepted, and part of the voting record was corrected by a third person, other than the person in charge of vote counting, who was called into said place---, we must say that the handling of the vote counting work for the election in question was far from being strict. Taking this into consideration in addition to the illegal aspects in the administration and execution of absentee voting mentioned above, we cannot help having doubt if the whole procedure for the election in question was conducted strictly and fairly, and we also have a suspicion about the result of the election, and thus, it is clearer that these illegal aspects are likely to change the result of the election. III. For the reasons stated above, the illegal aspects in the administration and execution of the election in question can be deemed to be likely to change the result of the election, and the holdings of the court of prior instance that go along with this conclusion can be accepted as justifiable. The appellant and the appeal counselsʼ argument cannot be accepted. Concerning Reason for Final Appeal IV argued by the appellant and the appeal counsels According to the records, it is obvious that the appellees do not seek revocation of the part of the determination in question which relates to the first paragraph of the main text, and the judgment of prior instance does not contain such illegality as argued by the appellant and the appeal counsels. The appellant and the appeal counselsʼ argument is an assertion based on incorrect understanding of the judgment of prior instance, and therefore cannot be accepted. We have examined the case by this courtʼs own authority. According to the records, it is obvious that the appellees indicated in Lists of the Dead I and II were dead as of the respective dates indicated in said lists. It should be construed that in the event of the death of each appellee, there is no room to succeed to this suit, and therefore the suit shall necessarily end. In consequence, the part of the judgment of prior instance which relates to the claims made by the appellees indicated in List of the Dead I, who had already been dead prior to the rendition of the judgment, should inevitably be quashed on the grounds that it was rendered while ignoring the death of the appellees indicated in said list. In order to clearly state that the part of this suit which relates to the claims made by the appellees indicated in Lists of the Dead I and II was terminated as of the respective dates of death indicated in said lists, we hereby make a declaration to that effect. Therefore, according to Article 7 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act, and Article 401, Article 95, and Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment has been rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices. https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=262 7/8