Twenty-six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled against the appeal by the fishermen who were in the position to open the sluice gate of the embankment that had been closed for the reclamation project in Isahaya Bay, Nagasaki Prefecture, and ordered the government to open the gate. The decision to invalidate the judgment was finalized.
Regarding this drainage gate, there were conflicting final judgments, such as "order to open gate" and "prohibition of opening gate", and the judicial judgment was twisted, but it was virtually settled in the direction of "not to open".
In the Isahaya Bay reclamation project, after the national government closed the embankment in 1997, a
court case was filed by a fisherman claiming that the fishing industry was seriously damaged, and a ruling ordering the opening of the gate was finalized
. In another lawsuit, the decision to prohibit the opening of the gate was finalized.
As the judicial judgment became twisted, the country that was in a position not to open the drain gate demanded that the final judgment that ordered the gate to be opened be invalidated.
In this trial, the Fukuoka High Court said last year, "Compared to the time when the gate was ordered to open, the impact on the fishing industry has decreased, but if the drainage gate is opened, the disaster prevention and hindrance to agriculture on the reclaimed land have increased." I accepted the claim of , and indicated a judgment to invalidate the effect of the final judgment that ordered the opening of the gate.
The fishermen were dissatisfied with the ruling and filed an appeal, but Chief Judge Yasumasa Nagamine of the 3rd Petty Court of the Supreme Court made a decision to dismiss the case by the 2nd, and the country's victory was confirmed.
The final judgment that ordered the gates to be opened is no longer effective, and judicial decisions have become virtually unified in the direction of "do not open."