Tokyo Barrister: Start the law firm bankruptcy

Chapter 498 Concept
The question Asakura Yan pointed out is absolutely true and cannot be refuted.Mikiko's "appeal" to the university in March this year is actually closer to a complaint in terms of legal characterization, and cannot cause a recalculation of the statute of limitations.As soon as the trial began, all hopes of litigation were almost cut off.In order to challenge the decision made by a top university, the two young lawyers faced an extremely difficult and dangerous road on the cliff.

Beiyuan is well aware that one of the weaknesses of this lawsuit has been caught by the other side.When a place falls under the attack of the enemy, the best choice is not to fight with the opponent.Instead, withdraw from the failed forward positions, seize other weak points, and launch a counterattack.

After thinking for a moment, Bei Yuan said, "Chief referee. The other party's claim that the so-called decision to revoke the degree has been served by e-mail since September last year is not valid. The service is a necessary procedure stipulated in the procedural law. , has its statutory form and content requirements.”

"First, the use of electronic form of service is an exception. That is, the use of electronic form of service requires the consent of the other party. In this case, Mei Xizi never made it clear that her campus network mailbox was used as the delivery address. In the absence of the consent of the parties, the claim of alleged delivery by email does not stand."

"Secondly, the object of service should be the original copy of the decision to revoke the doctorate degree." Beiyuan took out several A4 paper materials from the plaintiff's seat behind him, which were copied from the mail communication. version attachment.Beiyuan pointed to the seal of the document and said:

"The so-called decision sent electronically in this case is actually a scanned copy of the decision to revoke the doctorate degree. It can be clearly seen from the attachment of the email that the relevant official seal is not an electronic official seal. Therefore, the decision to revoke the degree delivered by mail is not the original copy. Kyoto University made a decision to revoke my client’s doctorate, and the date on which the relevant documents are delivered to my client shall be counted from the date of delivery of the original copy, not the date of delivery of the scanned copy. In a legal sense, a scanned The document is not the same as the original. Only service of the original constitutes valid service. Service of a scanned copy does not constitute valid service."

In an instant, Beiyuan immediately launched a sophisticated defensive counterattack line.

When Zhuze heard that the lawyer on the opposite side launched a counterattack, his eyes showed a little surprise.After all, the two lawyers opposite were too young.It's exactly like the appearance of less than two or three years after graduation.In such a major case, the lack of experience will inevitably make it stretched.However, the way the other side quickly launched a counterattack slightly exceeded Takezawa's expectations.

However, as for the content.

Takezawa sneered.She is a cutting-edge lawyer with extremely rich experience in administrative litigation.For the counterattack of the opponent in front of her, she can easily deal with it.

"First of all—" Takezawa said, "the plaintiff, Mikiko, consistently used her campus mailbox to communicate with the university when communicating with the university about the revocation of her doctorate degree. Especially on September 4, 9 The plaintiff Mei Xizi voluntarily confirmed to the university that she used the email address to communicate with the university about the revocation of her doctorate degree. This statement is enough to be considered as a confirmation that she uses the campus email address as the delivery address.”

"Secondly, the "Instructions for Using Campus Mailboxes at Kyoto University" is a section in the staff and student handbooks, and it has been indicated that this mailbox will be used as a designated mailbox for teachers and students to receive school materials. That is to say, as early as the school's Among the relevant regulations, the student has explicitly agreed that the email address will be used as a document from the receiving school."

"Whether it is the dimension before the engagement or the dimension of the engagement, it can be confirmed that the plaintiff's university mailbox has been used as the designated delivery address."

"No!" As soon as Zhuze's voice fell, Beiyuan's voice sounded immediately, "The confirmation of the address of delivery must be in an express way, clearly expressing that the address can be used for delivery. The delivery address specified in a private way has Its special legal effect. Once the delivery address is designated and confirmed by the party concerned, even if the legal document is delivered to the address and no one accepts it and is returned, it will be deemed delivered. Considering this special legal consequence, if Without expressly stating that the address is the address for service, it must not be inferred from some ambiguous text fragments that the party has the intention to confirm the address for service.”

"As long as there are no words of address for service, it cannot be determined that my client has designated an address for service!" Beiyuan retorted forcefully, "At the same time, the so-called campus mailbox is under the control of the defendant university. Whether it is opened or closed, its Whether it is valid or invalid can be manipulated at will by the technical background of the university. If this factor is taken into account, if my party does not explicitly use the campus mailbox as the delivery address, it will still be recognized as the delivery address. caused great injustice."

Takezawa didn't refute Beiyuan's words, as if dismissing them, he just continued, "Secondly, the relevant laws do not stipulate that the content to be served must be the original. The object of service is also a copy. The e-mail has attached the scan of the original The document should be regarded as a copy. That is to say, although what Kyoto University delivered in the e-mail is not the original, it has delivered a copy. The relevant delivery can also take effect!"

In an instant, the senior lawyer on the opposite side countered Beiyuan's argument that the service was not the original.

However, Beiyuan immediately retorted, "The defendant's attorney confused the crucial legal concept, that is, what is a copy. A copy in the legal sense is not equal to a scanned copy, nor is it a photocopy. The so-called copy is A copy that can be used as an original. It still needs to bear a specific official seal, such as the words "this copy is verified with the original". It is only a copy if it has these legal elements. However, the mail attachment is missing The legal nature of the said copy. It is only a scan, not a copy in the legal sense."

Just as Asakurahiko pointed out that the date when the administrative act is known is different from the date when the administrative act is known to be illegal.Beiyuan also pointed out in court that copies, scanned copies, and photocopies are also different legal concepts.The extremely subtle distinctions in the legal provisions are vividly displayed in the debate between the two sides.The profound legal knowledge is displayed in front of everyone in an unprecedented way.

This is the spark that can only be produced when the strong meet the strong.Under the sniping of senior administrative litigation lawyers and top administrative law experts, can the two lawyers on the plaintiff's bench pass this lawsuit...

(End of this chapter)