{"id":111576,"date":"2025-09-10T11:49:17","date_gmt":"2025-09-10T11:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=111576"},"modified":"2025-09-10T11:55:15","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T11:55:15","slug":"japan-enforcement-judgments","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/japan-enforcement-judgments\/","title":{"rendered":"Japan: Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-111576","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-enforcement-judgments","jurisdictions-japan"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Miura &amp; Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/09\/miura_logo_en.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Miura &amp; Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/09\/miura_logo_en.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters laws and regulations applicable in Japan<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What international conventions, treaties or other arrangements apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction and in what circumstances do they apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Generally, no international conventions, treaties or other arrangements apply to the enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan. Although Japan has signed conventions covering specific industrial areas \u2014 for example, the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage \u2014 the focus of this article is on the enforcement mechanisms that are not based on these industry-specific conventions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, reservations has your jurisdiction made to such treaties?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>This question does not apply to Japan. Japan has not signed the 2005 Hague Choice of Courts Convention or the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can foreign judgments be enforced in your jurisdiction where there is not a convention or treaty or other arrangement, e.g. under the general law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 26 June 1996) sets out the conditions for recognising foreign judgments in Japan. The requirements for recognition set out in Article 118 of the Code are as follows:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"padding-left: 0\" type=\"a\">\n<li>Finality and binding nature of the foreign judgment;<\/li>\n<li>The foreign court had jurisdiction over the case on which the foreign judgment was rendered;<\/li>\n<li>The judgment debtor received appropriate service to commence litigation;<\/li>\n<li>Conformity with public order or good morals in Japan; and<\/li>\n<li>Reciprocity of enforcement of Japanese judgments in the country that issued the foreign judgment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>A judgment creditor can enforce a foreign judgment by obtaining an execution judgment from a competent Japanese court under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act (Act No. 4 of 30 March 1979). Conversely, foreign judgments that meet all these requirements are automatically recognised in Japan without any additional procedures.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What basic criteria does a foreign judgment have to satisfy before it can be enforced in your jurisdiction? Is it limited to money judgments or does it extend to other forms of relief?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japanese law recognises three categories of civil judgments: a judgment for performance (<em>kyufu hanketsu<\/em>); a declaratory judgment (<em>kakunin hanketsu<\/em>); and a judgment that creates or modifies legal relationships (<em>keisei hanketsu<\/em>). Foreign judgments falling under these categories will be recognised automatically, without any additional procedures, provided the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recognition of foreign judgments are met. Of these three categories, only a judgment for performance is enforceable in Japan, since the purpose of this type of judgment is realised through compulsory execution procedures (<em>minji shikko tetsuzuki<\/em>) that cover the enforcement of\u00a0 money and non-money judgments. The other types of judgments cannot be enforced through these procedures.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments pursuant to such conventions, treaties or arrangements in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>These mechanisms cannot be used in Japan to enforce foreign judgments, except in cases where they are enforced based on industry-specific conventions to which Japan is a contracting party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If applicable, what is the procedure for enforcement of foreign judgments under the general law in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>To enforce a foreign judgment in Japan, a judgment creditor must follow the two-step procedure outlined below.<\/p>\n<p>The first step:<\/p>\n<p>The judgment creditor must obtain an execution judgment (<em>shikko hanketsu<\/em>) from a competent district court in Japan. This step is not required to enforce a judgment rendered by a Japanese court.<\/p>\n<p>The second step:<\/p>\n<p>Once the judgment creditor has obtained an execution judgment confirming that the foreign judgment fulfils all the recognition requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they can apply for compulsory execution procedures by submitting the execution judgment as a document confirming legal obligation (<em>saimu meigi<\/em>). This is one of the documents required for compulsory execution procedures. These procedures involve a court seising and liquidating a debtor&#8217;s property and distributing the proceeds to the creditor to recover debts. These procedures are the same as those for enforcing a judgment rendered by a Japanese court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What, if any, formal requirements do the courts of your jurisdiction impose upon foreign judgments before they can be enforced? For example, must the judgment be apostilled?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Provided that foreign judgments fulfil the recognition requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they are recognised without any additional procedures. This is known as automatic recognition of a foreign judgment.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, in order to enforce foreign judgments, the following two steps must be completed: (i) obtaining an execution judgment of the foreign judgment and (ii) applying for compulsory execution procedures. To bring an action to obtain an execution judgment \u00a0\u2014 the additional requirement for the compulsory execution procedures of a foreign judgment, as opposed to a domestic one \u2014 the foreign judgment must be submitted to the court with a Japanese translation, pursuant to Article 74 of the Courts Act(Act No.59 of 16 April 1947), if it is not already written in Japanese.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, the recent amendment to Japan&#8217;s Arbitration Act (Act No.138 of 1 August 2003) allows creditors to submit foreign awards written in languages other than Japanese without a Japanese translation when applying for an execution order of the award (an execution judgement is not required), provided that the court deems it appropriate after consulting with the respondent as set out in Article 46.2 of the Arbitration Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long does it usually take to enforce or register a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction? Is there a summary procedure available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In order to enforce a foreign judgment in Japan, two steps must be taken. The first is to obtain an execution judgment. This process usually takes between one and three months. It would take much longer if the judgment debtor were to challenge the enforceability of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>The second step is compulsory execution procedures. The procedures involve a court seizing and liquidating a debtor&#8217;s property and distributing the proceeds to the creditor to recover debts. The procedures are the same as enforcing a judgment rendered by a Japanese court.<\/p>\n<p>According to statistics on cases in 2024 provided by the Supreme Court of Japan, the compulsory execution procedures before district courts take depending on the types of assets to be attached:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"padding-left: 0\">\n<li>within three months for approximately 62% of cases,<\/li>\n<li>within six months for approximately 78% of cases, and<\/li>\n<li>within twelve months for approximately 87% of cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it possible to obtain interim relief (e.g. an injunction to restrain disposal of assets) while the enforcement or registration procedure takes place?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, provided that certain requirements are met. When a Japanese court receives an application for provisional relief in relation to a pending case in a foreign court, it will closely examine its jurisdiction over the provisional relief proceedings. In this regard, the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (Act No. 91 of 22 December 1989) does not explicitly identify the requirements for a Japanese court to have jurisdiction over provisional relief in relation to a case where it does not have jurisdiction over the merits. In such cases, Japanese courts apply Article 12.1 of the Act mutatis mutandis to the requirements for a petition for provisional relief in cases where they do have jurisdiction over the merits. Article 12.1 of the Act states that: &#8216;[a] case involving an order for a provisional remedy is under the jurisdiction of the court with jurisdiction over the merits of the case or the district court with jurisdiction over the location of the property to be provisionally seized or the disputed subject matter&#8217;. Only a limited number of court decisions on this issue are available. For example, in the Asahikawa District Court ruling of 9 February 1996, the lower court determined that a court should implement Article 12.1 of the Act mutatis mutandis when it is asked to grant provisional relief in relation to a case where a Japanese court lacks jurisdiction over the merits of the case. In this case, the parties to the contract agreed that a Korean court would have exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising from the contract. A separate arbitration clause was also included in a separate contract between the parties. The court found that even in instances where a Japanese court lacks jurisdiction over the case&#8217;s merits, it retains the authority to grant provisional relief. This is permitted under the condition that there is a possibility that a foreign court&#8217;s judgment on the case&#8217;s merits will be enforced in Japan, and that the assets subject to enforcement are located within Japan. In the case, the court found its jurisdiction over the provisional relief.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the limitation period for enforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Civil Code (Act No.89 of 27 April 1896) sets out the rules on limitation periods under Japanese law. Article 169 of the Civil Code provides that the limitation period for rights or claims determined by a judgment is ten years from the day after the judgment becomes final and binding. However, this does not apply to rights or claims that are not yet due and payable at the time the judgment becomes final and binding.<\/p>\n<p>As there is no provision stating a different limitation period for rights or claims determined by a foreign judgment, it is reasonable to assume that the limitation period for such rights or claims is also ten years. Commentators generally agree that Article 169 of the Civil Code applies mutatis mutandis to rights or claims determined by a foreign judgment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">On what grounds can the enforcement of foreign judgments be challenged in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets out the criteria for recognising a foreign judgment in Japan. Any foreign judgment meeting all the requirements described in response to Question 3 above will be recognised automatically in Japan without additional procedures.<\/p>\n<p>To enforce a foreign judgment, the judgment creditor must first obtain an execution judgment. During this process, the court will verify that the foreign judgment meets all the necessary criteria. Therefore, the judgment debtor may argue that the court should refuse to issue an execution judgment on the grounds that the foreign judgment does not meet any of the above recognition requirements or jurisdictional objections. The following are examples of such challenges.<\/p>\n<p>(a) A challenge regarding the finality and binding nature of foreign judgments<\/p>\n<p>The judgment debtor may challenge the finality and binding nature of the foreign judgment if it is, for example, subject to an appeal in the country where it was issued.<\/p>\n<p>(b) A challenge regarding the foreign court\u2019s jurisdiction<\/p>\n<p>The judgment debtor may argue that the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the merits of the case.<\/p>\n<p>(c) A challenge regarding the proper service<\/p>\n<p>The judgment debtor may argue that the method of service used did not comply with the requirements of the relevant convention or the law of the country in which litigation was conducted.<\/p>\n<p>(d) A challenge regarding public order and good morals<\/p>\n<p>As a representative example, the Supreme Court of Japan has repeatedly held that a foreign judgment awarding punitive damages is contrary to public order and good morals in Japan.<\/p>\n<p>(e) A challenge regarding reciprocity<\/p>\n<p>The judgement debtor may argue that there is no reciprocity with the country in which the foreign judgement was made. Japanese courts have found reciprocity with the following jurisdictions: Australia (e.g. New South Wales and Queensland), Germany, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland (Zurich), the UK and the U.S. (e.g. California, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, New York, Nevada and Washington, D.C.). As only a small percentage of judgments have been made publicly available in Japan, an exhaustive list of jurisdictions with which Japanese courts have found reciprocity is unavailable. On the other hand, the Japanese court denied reciprocity with China.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Will the courts in your jurisdiction reconsider the merits of the judgment to be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, Article 24.2 of the Civil Execution Act prohibits a court from reconsidering the merits of a foreign judgment. However, it is commonly held that the judgment debtor is permitted to present arguments based on events that occurred after the time up to which the foreign court based its decision on the facts and arguments submitted. For example, the judgment debtor could argue that they are no longer liable due to payment or immunity from debt in proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Will the courts in your jurisdiction examine whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the defendant? If so, what criteria will they apply to this?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. According to Article 118.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Japanese court must find that \u2018[t]he jurisdiction of the foreign court is recognized under laws or regulations or conventions or treaties\u2019. A Japanese court will determine whether the foreign court had jurisdiction or not, based on Japanese law. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Japan holds the view that the criteria used to determine whether a foreign court has jurisdiction is similar to that used by a Japanese court to determine its own jurisdiction over international cases. In its judgment dated 24 April 2014, the Supreme Court of Japan held that the criteria for determining whether a foreign court has jurisdiction over a case for which a foreign judgment has been issued shall, in principle, be based on the rules regarding Japanese courts&#8217; jurisdiction over international cases set out in the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to this general rule, the Supreme Court held that, based on the underlying facts of the specific case, it should be determined whether it is appropriate for Japanese courts to recognise the foreign judgment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts in your jurisdiction impose any requirements on the way in which the defendant was served with the proceedings? Can foreign judgments in default be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. According to Article 118.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one of the requirements for recognising a foreign judgment is that \u2018[t]he defeated defendant has been served (excluding a service by publication or any other service similar thereto) of a summons or order necessary for the commencement of the suit, or has appeared without receiving such service&#8217;. Service by publication (<em>koji sotatsu<\/em>) is a special method employed when the defendant&#8217;s address is unknown. In accordance with the protocol, the court will post the documents on the court bulletin board for a designated period. Following this, service will be deemed to have been completed. As Article 118.2 does not specify the required form of service other than that service by publication does not qualify, this issue is open to interpretation. The prevailing opinion is that the validity of service should be determined by the law of the country in which the judgment was made.<\/p>\n<p>Judgments in default can be recognised and enforced, provided that the parties had an appropriate opportunity to present their case to the competent foreign court. For example, in Nagoya District Court Judgment of 6 February 1987, the lower court recognised a foreign judgment in default. The court ruled that the defendant had received service other than by publication and had had the opportunity to defend themselves before the competent foreign court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts in your jurisdiction have a discretion over whether or not to recognise foreign judgments?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. A foreign judgment that meets all the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure is automatically recognised in Japan. A judgment creditor is not required to apply to a court for recognition of a foreign judgment in Japan. However, in order to enforce a foreign judgment, the judgment creditor must first obtain an execution judgment \u00a0based on Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any types of foreign judgment which cannot be enforced in your jurisdiction? For example can foreign judgments for punitive or multiple damages be enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Any foreign judgments that fail to meet the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not enforceable. For instance, a foreign judgment for punitive damages is not enforceable in Japan as it contravenes public order and good morals. In accordance with Article 118.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a foreign judgment must not contravene public order and good morals in Japan. The Supreme Court of Japan has ruled that the purpose of damages in tort law is to provide compensation rather than punishment. Consequently, punitive damages are inconsistent with this principle. This means that a foreign judgment that awards punitive damages is not enforceable in Japan. However, if a foreign judgment includes both compensatory and punitive damages as remedies, the judgment creditor can partially enforce the foreign judgment relating to the compensatory damages. The Supreme Court of Japan has repeatedly confirmed this view in a number of judgments, including those dated 11 July 1997 and 25 May 2021<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can enforcement procedures be started in your jurisdiction if there is a pending appeal in the foreign jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, according to Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a foreign judgment will only be recognised if it is &#8216;final and binding&#8217;. Should the court ascertain that an appeal is pending in the foreign jurisdiction, it will refuse to issue an execution judgment. In the absence of an execution judgment, the judgment creditor is unable to initiate compulsory execution procedures as outlined in the Civil Execution Act. For instance, in a case involving a French judgment, the Tokyo District Court (Judgment on 19 March 2008) ruled that it was not final and binding because there was a pending appeal in France.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can you appeal a decision recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, the procedure for appealing an execution judgment is the same as the procedure for appealing a judgment rendered by a Japanese court. In general, a district court judgment can be appealed to a relevant high court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can interest be claimed on the judgment sum in your jurisdiction? If so on what basis and at what rate?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A judgment creditor can enforce interest on the judgment sum, regardless of any express statements regarding interest in the judgment. In its judgment dated 11 July 1997, the Supreme Court of Japan ruled that even when interest on the judgment sum is not specified in the foreign judgment, the judgment creditor can claim interest on the judgment sum provided that the law of the country in which the judgment was issued permits this and the judgment is enforceable under the law. The interest rate is determined by the law of the country in which the foreign judgment was issued.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the courts of your jurisdiction require a foreign judgment to be converted into local currency for the purposes of enforcement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No, a foreign judgment in a foreign currency can be enforced without conversion into Japanese yen.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the costs of enforcement (e.g. court costs, as well as the parties\u2019 costs of instructing lawyers and other professionals) be recovered from the judgment debtor in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The judgment debtor is responsible for the costs of the compulsory execution procedures because, if they voluntarily fulfil their obligations specified in the judgement, the judgment creditor is not required to go through the compulsory procedure. In accordance with Article 42 of the Civil Execution Act, the judgment debtor is responsible for converting certain costs of compulsory execution procedures.<\/p>\n<p>With regard to the costs of instructing counsel, it is important to note that only certain types of limited costs can be recovered from the judgment debtor. These include counsel\u2019s travel costs, fees for appearing in courts and accommodation costs for attending court hearings, the prices of which are listed in legislation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third parties allowed to fund enforcement action in your jurisdiction? If so, are there any restrictions on this and can third party funders be made liable for the costs incurred by the other side?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>It depends on the arrangements. Although there is currently no legislation in Japan that specifically aims to regulate third-party funding, existing laws and regulations, including professional ethical rules, provide a framework for evaluating permissible arrangements. For instance, third-party funders are prohibited from acquiring disputed claims for enforcement purposes.<\/p>\n<p>Third-party funders may be held financially responsible for costs incurred by the other party. However, as it is uncommon in Japanese litigation practice for the losing party to bear the prevailing party\u2019s counsel costs, funding agreements would not typically include such a term.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What do you think will be the most significant developments in the enforcement process in your jurisdiction in the next 5 years?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Court proceedings in Japan are scheduled to finally be digitalised within the next few years. This has been a protracted process, as legislative changes were required to implement online civil proceedings. The relevant reforms to the Code of Civil Procedure are scheduled to come fully into force in 2026, as are those to the Civil Execution Act and other relevant legislation in 2028. Once these reforms are fully implemented, most proceedings will be able to take place online. For instance, online filing will become the standard method for submitting a complaint that initiates legal proceedings. Services will be delivered and hearings held online, and judgments will be issued electronically.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant development will be the establishment of a judgment database in 2027. As of 2027, all civil judgments rendered from 2027 will be stored in the database and made available broadly. While the public can currently access civil judgments by visiting a courthouse, only a small percentage of judgments are published by courts or the parties involved. Consequently, meaningful statistical analysis of civil judgments will be feasible from 2027 onwards. The database will be a valuable resource for academics, litigators, and businesses, enabling them to refine their analyses and develop new services.<\/p>\n<p>Please be advised that the language used in court proceedings in Japan is Japanese. Dealing with international cases before Japanese courts necessitates additional time and costs due to bilingual procedures. In this regard, the 2024 reform of the Arbitration Act established an exception to this general rule. The court now has the discretion to allow the award creditor to submit a foreign arbitral award in a language other than Japanese, without a Japanese translation, in order to enforce the foreign award in Japan. As Japanese courts deal with an increasing number of international cases, the same exception should be implemented to enforce foreign judgments in Japan in the future.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country ratified the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005, and if so when did it (or will it) come into force? If not, do you expect it to in the foreseeable future?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is not a signatory of the the Hague Choice of Courts Convention 2005. While there are positive views on joining the Convention from the perspective of improving the harmonisation, there are also cautious opinions due to concerns about inconsistencies with the rules of international jurisdiction under Japanese law. With the reform of the Arbitration Act and the digitalisation of court procedures through the reform of the Code of Civil Procedure now complete, the Japanese government is considering improving global harmonisation of court proceedings in Japan. As part of this government\u2019s initiative, Japan may join the convention in the near future.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Has your country ratified the Hague Judgments Convention 2019, and if so when did it (or will it) come into force? If not, do you expect it to in the foreseeable future?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is not a signatory of the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. As demonstrated by the success of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) in enforcing foreign arbitral awards, some welcome the prospect that increased participation in the Hague Judgments Convention 2019 will lead to a stable international framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments. On the other hand, there are also cautious voices arguing that the requirements for enforcement should be determined independently based on the law of the country in which the judgement is enforced. As stated above, since the Japanese government is aiming to make Japanese court proceedings more global, it may also choose to join the convention in the near future.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4087<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/111576","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}