Cross-border Enforcement Guidelines Series - Japan Chapter
2026-09-15
One.CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL JUDGMENTS
（one）With which jurisdictions does this jurisdiction have reciprocal arrangements for enforcement of civil and commercial judgments?
[Answer] Japan does not have any treaty-based reciprocity arrangement. Japan is not a party to any multilateral or bilateral treaty concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Whether a foreign judgment may be enforced in Japan depends on whether a Japanese court determines, in the particular proceedings before it, that the requirement of “reciprocity” is satisfied.
Japan has no registration regime comparable to that established under legislation such as the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (REFJA) in certain Commonwealth jurisdictions. Japan has neither signed nor ratified the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005) or the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019 Judgments Convention). Japan’s bilateral arrangements on judicial assistance are limited to matters such as service of judicial documents and the taking of evidence, and do not extend to the recognition or enforcement of judgments.
Accordingly, the enforceability of a foreign judgment depends entirely on satisfaction of the requirement of “reciprocity” under Article 118(iv) of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure. Reciprocity is considered to exist where, in the country in which the foreign judgment was rendered, a judgment of a Japanese court of the same type would be recognised as effective under conditions that are not materially different from those prescribed under Article 118 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure. Japanese courts determine whether this requirement is met on a case-by-case basis after examining the relevant foreign legal system. See Supreme Court of Japan, Judgment of 7 June 1983.
Principal jurisdictions in respect of which Japanese case law has recognised reciprocity
●United States, including California, New York, Hawaii, Texas and the District of Columbia
●United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium
●Singapore, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, South Korea, and Queensland, Australia
Jurisdictions in respect of which reciprocity has been held not to exist
●People’s Republic of China (Osaka High Court, Judgment of 9 April 2003; Tokyo District Court, Judgment of 20 March 2015; Tokyo High Court, Judgment of 25 November 2015)
With respect to China, in the case concerning Japanese national Akira Gomi’s application for recognition and enforcement of a Japanese court judgment by a Chinese court (Ruling of the Dalian Intermediate People’s Court dated 5 November 1994; and the Reply of the Supreme People’s Court of 1995 on Whether the People’s Courts of China Should Recognise and Enforce a Japanese Court Judgment Concerning Creditor-Debtor Obligations), the Chinese courts refused to recognise and enforce the Japanese judgment on the ground that China and Japan had neither concluded nor acceded to any international treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of court judgments, nor established a corresponding relationship of reciprocity.
Japanese courts subsequently took the corresponding position that the requirement of reciprocity was not satisfied in relation to judgments of courts of the People’s Republic of China. To date, no publicly reported judicial decision has been identified that alters this position.
（two）If there is no reciprocal arrangement, is it still possible to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment?
[Answer] Potentially yes. No treaty or reciprocal arrangement is required as such. A foreign judgment may be enforced in Japan by bringing an action for an execution judgment before a Japanese district court, provided that all four requirements under Article 118 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. However, judgments rendered by courts in the Chinese mainland do not satisfy the requirement of reciprocity.
To enforce a foreign judgment in Japan, the judgment creditor must first obtain an execution judgment from a Japanese court pursuant to Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. In deciding whether to grant an execution judgment, the Japanese court will not review the merits of the foreign judgment (Article 24(4) of the Civil Execution Act), but will examine only whether the requirements under Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied:
●Article 118(i): The foreign court that rendered the judgment had international jurisdiction under applicable laws, regulations or treaties, i.e. indirect jurisdiction.
●Article 118(ii): The unsuccessful defendant was duly served with the summons or other order necessary for the commencement of the proceedings, or, although not so served, appeared and defended the proceedings. Service by publication or any comparable form of service is excluded.
●Article 118(iii): Neither the substance of the judgment nor the proceedings by which it was rendered are contrary to public policy or good morals in Japan.
●Article 118(iv): Reciprocity exists.
In addition, it must be established that the foreign judgment has become final and binding pursuant to Article 24(5) of the Civil Execution Act. A judgment that has not become final, a judgment that is merely accompanied by a declaration of provisional enforceability, or a provisional or protective order is not eligible for enforcement under this procedure.
Jurisdiction lies with the district court having jurisdiction over the defendant’s general venue. If the defendant has no general venue in Japan, jurisdiction lies with the district court having jurisdiction over the location of the subject matter of the claim or the location of the debtor’s assets that are capable of being attached, pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Civil Execution Act.
（three）What is the approximate time required to register and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment if unopposed?
[Answer] From the filing of the action to the obtaining of an execution judgment, the proceedings generally take approximately six months to one year. In addition, pre-filing document preparation, including translation and authentication, generally takes two to three months, while compulsory enforcement following the judgment may take anywhere from one month to approximately one and a half years, depending on the enforcement method used.
Typical Timeline
●Preparation before filing: obtaining a certified copy of the foreign judgment, a certificate confirming that the judgment is final and binding, and proof of service; preparing Japanese translations; and arranging for notarization and an apostille for the power of attorney — approximately two to three months.
●From filing of the complaint to the first oral hearing: approximately one to one and a half months.
●If the defendant does not appear or otherwise contest the action at all, the court may close oral argument at the first hearing on the basis of a deemed admission under Article 159 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment is generally rendered approximately two weeks to one month thereafter.
●The judgment becomes final and binding upon expiry of the two-week appeal period, provided that no appeal is filed.
●Grant of an execution clause and service of the authenticated copy of the judgment and the execution clause: approximately two weeks to one month.
●Compulsory enforcement: in the case of attachment of receivables, an attachment order is generally issued approximately one to two weeks after the application is filed, followed by approximately one additional month before actual recovery of the funds. In the case of a judicial sale of real property, the period from the filing of the enforcement application through distribution of the proceeds generally takes approximately eight months to one and a half years.
Where the defendant has a residence or place of business in Japan, service may be effected domestically, and the above timeline generally applies. Where the defendant has no address for service in Japan, service must be effected abroad pursuant to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention), in which case an additional six months to one year should generally be allowed.
（four）What is the approximate time required to register and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment if opposed?
[Answer] Proceedings at first instance alone may take approximately one to two years. If the dispute proceeds through the second and third instances, the overall proceedings may take approximately three to four years or longer.
Where the defendant contests the action, although the court’s review remains limited to the requirements set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, each of those requirements may involve substantial legal and factual issues, and the proceedings can therefore become protracted.
In Japanese civil litigation practice, cases involving multiple disputed issues are generally scheduled for case-management or issue-narrowing hearings approximately once a month. Where the examination of witnesses is required, the proceedings may take considerably longer.
A judgment of the court of first instance may be appealed to the High Court within two weeks from the date of service of the judgment. A further final appeal to the Supreme Court, or a petition for acceptance of a final appeal by the Supreme Court, may thereafter be available. Proceedings before the High Court generally take approximately one year, while proceedings before the Supreme Court generally take approximately six months to one and a half years.
（five）What is the approximate cost of registering and enforcing a foreign civil and commercial judgment (including court fees and other disbursements) if unopposed?
[Answer] Assuming a claim amount of JPY 100 million (approximately RMB 4.3 million), the total cost is estimated to be approximately JPY 1.5 million to JPY 4 million (approximately RMB 64,000 to RMB 172,000).
Breakdown of Costs
●Court filing fee (revenue stamps): The filing fee is calculated on a progressive basis according to the amount in controversy. For a claim of JPY 10 million (approximately RMB 430,000), the filing fee is JPY 50,000 (approximately RMB 2,150); for a claim of JPY 100 million (approximately RMB 4.3 million), the filing fee is JPY 320,000 (approximately RMB 13,700); and for a claim of JPY 1 billion (approximately RMB 42.9 million), the filing fee is JPY 3.02 million (approximately RMB 130,000).
●Advance payment for postage: Approximately JPY 6,000 to slightly over JPY 10,000 (approximately RMB 260 to RMB 650).
●Translation fees: The prevailing market rate for professional legal translation from Chinese into Japanese is approximately JPY 10 to JPY 25 per Chinese character (approximately RMB 0.4 to RMB 1.1), or JPY 10,000 to JPY 25,000 per 1,000 characters (approximately RMB 430 to RMB 1,070). Where the judgment, proof of service, corporate qualification documents and other supporting materials total approximately 30 to 50 pages, translation costs are generally in the region of JPY 200,000 to JPY 600,000 (approximately RMB 8,600 to RMB 25,800).
●Notarization and authentication costs: Powers of attorney and corporate qualification documents may need to be notarized. Since 7 November 2023, the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Hague Apostille Convention) has applied to China. Accordingly, documents issued in China and submitted for use in Japan generally no longer require consular legalization and may instead be authenticated by means of an Apostille. The out-of-pocket cost is generally several hundred to approximately RMB 1,000 per document.
●Attorneys’ fees: For an uncontested enforcement action, attorneys’ fees are generally approximately JPY 1 million to JPY 3 million (approximately RMB 43,000 to RMB 129,000).
●Costs at the compulsory enforcement stage: For an attachment of receivables, the court application fee is only JPY 4,000 (approximately RMB 170), plus postage. In the case of a judicial sale of real property, a registration and license tax equal to 0.4% of the amount of the claim is payable, together with an advance payment toward enforcement expenses. At the Tokyo District Court, such advance payment is generally approximately JPY 800,000 to JPY 2 million, depending on the amount of the claim (approximately RMB 34,000 to RMB 86,000). Any unused balance is refunded upon completion of the enforcement proceedings.
（six）What is the approximate cost of registering and enforcing a foreign civil and commercial judgment (including court fees and other disbursements) if opposed?
[Answer] Where attorneys’ fees are charged on an hourly basis, there is no fixed cap. Based on past experience, attorneys’ fees for proceedings at first instance are generally in the range of approximately JPY 5 million to JPY 15 million (approximately RMB 215,000 to RMB 644,000). If the dispute proceeds to the appellate stage, the total legal fees will increase further.
In cross-border matters in Japan, typical hourly rates are approximately JPY 30,000 to JPY 80,000 (approximately RMB 1,300 to RMB 3,400) for partners, and approximately JPY 20,000 to JPY 40,000 (approximately RMB 900 to RMB 1,700) for associates. A contested action for an execution judgment will typically require approximately 200 to 400 hours of legal work at first instance.
One of the principal factors contributing to increased legal costs is the need to establish the applicable foreign law in relation to the reciprocity requirement. This will generally require obtaining an expert opinion on the relevant foreign law and case law from counsel qualified in the jurisdiction in which the judgment was rendered, resulting in additional legal fees and expenses.
（seven）Are there any unusual difficulties in enforcing a foreign civil and commercial judgment?
[Answer] Yes. In the case of judgments rendered by courts in the Chinese mainland, the absence of reciprocity is the decisive obstacle. In addition, there are a number of other specific issues, including strict service requirements, non-recognition of punitive damages, and limited mechanisms for identifying and investigating a debtor’s assets.
1.Absence of Reciprocity — a Particular Issue for Judgments from the Chinese mainland
As noted above, Japanese courts have held that reciprocity does not exist between Japan and the Chinese mainland. Accordingly, judgments rendered by courts in the Chinese mainland are not eligible for recognition and enforcement in Japan.
For Chinese companies, this constitutes a decisive obstacle. The issue should therefore be addressed at the contractual stage through careful drafting of the dispute resolution clause, including the appropriate choice of forum or arbitration mechanism.
2.Strict Requirements Concerning Service of Process
Japanese case law interprets the service requirement under Article 118(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly.
Both China and Japan are Contracting States to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention). With respect to service on defendants located in Japan, Japan declared on 21 December 2018 that it objects to the methods of service provided for in Article 8 of the Convention, concerning direct service through diplomatic or consular agents, and Article 10(a), concerning service by postal channels. Japan has also objected, since its accession to the Convention, to the methods provided for in Articles 10(b) and 10(c).
Accordingly, service on a Japanese national or Japanese legal entity must, in practice, generally be effected through the Central Authority mechanism under Article 5, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan acting as the relevant authority, and the documents to be served must be accompanied by a Japanese translation. Service through consular channels may be available under the exception in Article 8(2) where the addressee is a national of the State of origin of the documents, for example where a Chinese court serves process on a Chinese national residing in Japan.
Therefore, where a Chinese court attempts to serve a Japanese defendant directly by international post, such service is likely not to be regarded in Japan as valid service for the purposes of recognition. The resulting judgment may therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of Article 118(ii).
In addition, judgments rendered following service by publication, including service by public notice under Chinese procedural law, are expressly excluded from recognition under Article 118(ii).
3.Punitive Damages Are Not Recognised
In its judgment of 11 July 1997 in the Mansei Kogyo case, the Supreme Court of Japan held that the portion of a California judgment awarding punitive damages was contrary to the fundamental principles of the Japanese law of damages and therefore violated Japanese public policy.
Accordingly, any portion of a foreign judgment that exceeds compensatory damages and is punitive in nature will not be recognised or enforced in Japan.
4.Procedural Public Policy
In its judgment of 18 January 2019 (2017 (Ju) No. 2177), the Supreme Court of Japan held that the mere fact that a foreign judgment was not formally served on a party does not, in itself, render the relevant proceedings contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article 118(iii) of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure. However, where it was possible for the party to be informed of the contents of the foreign judgment, but the party neither actually became aware of those contents nor was afforded a meaningful opportunity to do so, with the result that the judgment became final and binding without the party having had an opportunity to appeal or otherwise challenge it, the foreign proceedings may be regarded as contrary to Japan’s procedural public policy. Accordingly, in proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, the court must examine not only whether the judgment was formally served, but also whether the party was afforded a meaningful opportunity to learn of its contents and to exercise the available rights of appeal or other forms of challenge.
5.Limitations on the Types of Decisions Eligible for Enforcement
A judgment that has not become final and binding, a judgment that is merely accompanied by a declaration of provisional enforceability, and an interim or protective measure, including a provisional attachment or provisional disposition, are not eligible for enforcement under the foreign judgment enforcement procedure.
6.Limited Asset-Discovery Mechanisms
Japan does not have a broad asset-disclosure regime comparable to a worldwide freezing order in England and Wales or the broad discovery mechanisms available in the United States.
For further details, see Question 10.
7.Time and Cost of the Proceedings
Because an enforceable foreign judgment must first be converted into an enforceable title through an ordinary civil action for an execution judgment, the procedure is generally more time-consuming and costly than in jurisdictions operating a registration-based enforcement regime.
In addition, Japan generally does not apply a comprehensive loser-pays rule under which the unsuccessful party is required to reimburse the successful party’s attorneys’ fees. As a result, a substantial portion of the legal fees incurred in the enforcement proceedings will ordinarily remain with the judgment creditor even if the enforcement action is successful.
（eight）If there is no agreement or reciprocal arrangement, is it possible to enforce a judgment rendered by a court in this jurisdiction, which was rendered through a civil action based on a civil and commercial judgment in force in the Chinese mainland?
[Answer] Japan does not have a procedure under which a Japanese court will render a judgment merely on the basis of a Chinese court judgment. In order to enforce the substantive rights underlying a Chinese judgment in Japan, the claimant must commence fresh proceedings before a Japanese court and obtain a final and binding Japanese judgment.
Bringing Fresh Proceedings in Japan
Where a foreign judgment does not satisfy the requirements for recognition, it has no res judicata effect in Japan. Accordingly, even where a judgment has already been obtained from a Chinese court, the claimant must bring fresh proceedings before a Japanese court on the underlying cause of action, such as the contractual debt, and the merits of the dispute will be adjudicated afresh.
In such proceedings, the Chinese judgment and the records of the Chinese proceedings may be submitted as documentary evidence. Under the principle of free evaluation of evidence pursuant to Article 247 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such materials may constitute persuasive evidence. They are not, however, legally binding on the Japanese court, which will make its own independent findings of fact and determinations of law.
The claimant must also establish that the Japanese courts have international jurisdiction under Article 3-2 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. In practice, commonly relied-upon jurisdictional grounds include:
●the defendant’s domicile or principal place of business being located in Japan;
●the place of performance of the contractual obligation being in Japan;
●the existence in Japan of assets of the defendant that are capable of attachment; and
●a written choice-of-court agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Japanese courts.
Practical Conclusion
In transactions with Japanese companies, parties should not proceed on the assumption that recovery in Japan can ultimately be achieved through a judgment obtained from a court in the Chinese mainland. It is therefore strongly advisable to address enforcement risk at the contract-drafting stage by adopting one or more of the following arrangements: (i) an arbitration clause, which is generally the most reliable option; (ii) a jurisdiction clause designating the Japanese courts; and/or (iii) security or a guarantee located or enforceable in Japan.
（nine）Which types of foreign civil and commercial judgments can be recognized and enforced in this jurisdiction?
[Answer] Any final and binding judgment in a civil or commercial matter may in principle be recognised in Japan. Recognition is not limited to judgments ordering the payment of money; non-monetary judgments may also fall within the scope of recognition and, where appropriate, enforcement.
Judgments Eligible for Recognition
The expression “a final and binding judgment rendered by a foreign court” under Article 118 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure refers to a final adjudication by a foreign court concerning a legal relationship governed by private law, irrespective of the title, procedure or form of the decision. Accordingly, even where the decision takes the form of an order or ruling rather than a “judgment”, it may still qualify for recognition if it substantively satisfies the relevant requirements.
The following are generally capable of recognition:
●Money judgments.
●Non-monetary judgments, including orders for the delivery of property, orders requiring a party to perform or refrain from performing an act, and orders for specific performance. Depending on the nature of the obligation, such judgments may be enforced in Japan through substitute performance under Article 171 of the Civil Execution Act or indirect compulsory enforcement under Article 172 of the same Act.
●Declaratory judgments and constitutive judgments. These may be recognised in Japan, although, by their nature, they are generally not subject to compulsory enforcement.
●Final judgments or decisions rendered by foreign courts in family matters, subject to the applicable provisions, including Article 79-2 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act and Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act.
Judgments and Decisions Not Eligible for Recognition or Enforcement
The following do not fall within the scope of recognition or enforcement:
●Judgments that are not yet final and binding, including judgments that are merely accompanied by a declaration of provisional enforceability.
●Provisional or protective measures, including interim attachment or provisional disposition orders.
●Criminal judgments, administrative acts or decisions, and decisions concerning tax claims.
●The portion of a foreign judgment awarding punitive damages, on the ground that such an award is contrary to Japanese public policy. See the above-mentioned Supreme Court of Japan judgment of 11 July 1997.
（ten）What are the practices and channels for investigating the properties of the executor?
[Answer] Once an enforceable title has been obtained, statutory asset-investigation procedures are available, including the property disclosure procedure and the procedure for obtaining information from third parties. Before an enforceable title is obtained, asset investigations principally rely on Bar Association inquiries and searches of publicly available information. Japan does not have a broad asset-disclosure regime comparable to those found in common-law jurisdictions, nor does it have an equivalent of a worldwide freezing order.
1.Bar Association Inquiry (Article 23-2 of the Attorneys Act) [Available Even Before an Enforceable Title Is Obtained]
Under this procedure, an attorney acting for a client may, through the Bar Association to which the attorney belongs, request financial institutions, employers, insurance companies, government agencies and other entities to provide information necessary for the handling of a matter. The procedure may, for example, be used to ascertain whether a debtor maintains bank deposits, the balances of such deposits, and whether relevant transactions have taken place.
Although the recipient of an inquiry is subject to a legal obligation to respond, there is no direct compulsory mechanism for enforcing that obligation, and the manner in which financial institutions respond varies from institution to institution.
2.Property Disclosure Procedure (Article 196 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act) [After an Enforceable Title Has Been Obtained]
This procedure requires the debtor to appear before the court and, after taking an oath, disclose information concerning his or her assets. Amendments that came into force on 1 April 2020 substantially strengthened the effectiveness of the procedure.
●The categories of creditors entitled to apply were expanded. In addition to creditors holding a final and binding judgment, creditors holding, among other things, a judgment accompanied by a declaration of provisional enforceability, a notarial deed constituting an enforceable title, or a court settlement record may also apply.
●A debtor who, without justifiable grounds, fails to appear, refuses to take the oath, or makes a false statement may be subject to imprisonment for up to six months or a criminal fine of up to JPY 500,000 (approximately RMB 21,000) under Article 213 of the Civil Execution Act. Prior to the amendment, the sanction was limited to a non-penal fine of up to JPY 300,000 (approximately RMB 12,900).
●The court application fee is JPY 2,000 (approximately RMB 90).
3.Procedure for Obtaining Information from Third Parties (Article 204 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act) [After an Enforceable Title Has Been Obtained]
This procedure was introduced by the amendments that came into force on 1 April 2020 and is one of the most useful mechanisms in practice.
In addition to possessing an original copy of an enforceable title having executory effect, the applicant must satisfy the requirements concerning unsuccessful or insufficient prior enforcement under Article 197(1) of the Civil Execution Act. Specifically, either: (i) the creditor was not fully satisfied through a distribution procedure in prior compulsory enforcement proceedings or enforcement of a security interest, other than proceedings concluded more than six months before the application; or (ii) the creditor can make a prima facie showing that compulsory enforcement against the assets already known to the creditor would not result in full satisfaction. This requirement applies to applications seeking information concerning bank deposits, book-entry corporate bonds and other securities, real property, wages, and other categories of assets.
●Information concerning bank deposits: Information may be obtained from banks and other financial institutions concerning, among other things, the existence of accounts, the branch at which an account is maintained, the type of account and the account balance. Prior use of the property disclosure procedure is not required, although the unsuccessful-enforcement requirement described above must still be satisfied. Before the 2020 amendments, a creditor seeking to attach a bank account generally had to identify the specific branch. Under this procedure, prior identification of the branch is no longer necessary.
●Information concerning book-entry corporate bonds and other securities: Such information may be obtained from book-entry transfer institutions and securities companies. Prior use of the property disclosure procedure is not required, although the unsuccessful-enforcement requirement described above remains applicable.
●Information concerning real property: Information regarding land and buildings registered in the debtor’s name may be obtained from the relevant registry office (Legal Affairs Bureau). For this category of information, the creditor must first have undertaken the property disclosure procedure.
●Information concerning wage claims and the debtor’s employer: Information may be obtained from municipalities, the Japan Pension Service and other designated entities. This procedure is, however, available only to creditors holding certain claims, including claims for child support or other maintenance obligations and claims for damages arising from injury to a person’s life or body. It is not available for ordinary commercial claims.
●The court application fee is JPY 1,000 per application (approximately RMB 40), in addition to an advance payment covering remuneration and expenses payable to the relevant third party.
4. Publicly Available Information [Available at Any Time]
●Commercial registration records: Any person may obtain corporate registration information from any Legal Affairs Bureau in Japan or online through the relevant registration information service. The fee is approximately JPY 332 to JPY 600 per record (approximately RMB 14 to RMB 26). Such records may disclose the location of the principal office, representative directors or other representatives, stated capital, branch offices and other registered information.
●Real property registration records: It is not possible to conduct a nationwide search for real property merely by entering the owner’s name. The relevant land lot number or building number must generally be identified in advance. The inability to conduct a reverse search by owner name is a significant practical limitation of the Japanese system.
●For listed companies, additional information may be obtained from sources such as annual securities reports filed through EDINET and published financial statements or statutory accounts.
5. Private-Sector Investigation Methods
●Credit-reporting and corporate investigation agencies: Corporate investigation reports may be obtained from agencies such as Teikoku Databank and Tokyo Shoko Research, generally at a cost of approximately JPY 30,000 to JPY 150,000 per report (approximately RMB 1,300 to RMB 6,400). Such reports may contain information regarding the company’s financial position, principal banking relationships and major business counterparties. Information identifying a debtor’s banks can be particularly valuable in practice when seeking to attach bank deposits.
●Private investigators: Private investigation agencies may also be retained. Their activities are, however, subject to restrictions under the Act on the Protection of Personal Information and the legislation regulating private detective businesses, and they cannot generally be expected to conduct the kind of broad-ranging asset investigation available in some common-law jurisdictions.
6. Provisional Measures — Provisional Attachment
To prevent the dissipation of assets, it is often extremely important in practice to apply for a provisional attachment of assets located in Japan, either before or concurrently with the commencement of an action for an execution judgment, pursuant to the Civil Provisional Remedies Act.
●The application must relate to specific assets located in Japan.
●The applicant is generally required to provide security, ordinarily in an amount equivalent to approximately 10% to 30% of the amount of the claim.
●The period from filing the application to issuance of the provisional attachment order is generally approximately two weeks to one month.
（eleven）What is the framework and standard for attorneys’ fees for the enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments? Is a contingency fee possible?
[Answer] Attorneys’ fees in Japan are freely determined by each lawyer or law firm. The most common arrangements are hourly billing or an initial retainer fee plus a success fee. Contingency fee arrangements are lawful in Japan, and lawyers may also accept instructions on a fully contingent fee basis.
1. Regulation of Attorneys’ Fees
The fee schedule formerly prescribed by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations (JFBA) was abolished in 2004. Attorneys’ fees are now freely determined by individual lawyers and law firms.
Under Article 24 of the Basic Rules on the Duties of Practicing Attorneys, lawyers are required to set fees that are reasonable and appropriate, taking into account such factors as the economic value of the matter, the complexity of the case, and the time and effort required.
2. Principal Fee Structures
●Hourly billing: This is relatively common in cross-border matters. Typical hourly rates are approximately JPY 30,000 to JPY 80,000 (approximately RMB 1,300 to RMB 3,400) for partners and JPY 20,000 to JPY 40,000 (approximately RMB 900 to RMB 1,700) for associates. Time is commonly recorded in increments of six minutes (0.1 hour).
●Initial retainer fee plus success fee: Many law firms continue to use the former JFBA fee schedule as a reference point. For the portion of the economic benefit exceeding JPY 30 million (approximately RMB 1.29 million) and up to JPY 300 million (approximately RMB 12.88 million), the indicative initial retainer fee is 3% of the economic benefit plus JPY 690,000 (approximately RMB 30,000), while the success fee is 6% of the economic benefit plus JPY 1.38 million (approximately RMB 59,000).
●Fixed-fee arrangement: For an uncontested action for an execution judgment, some law firms may accept instructions for a fixed fee of approximately JPY 1 million to JPY 3 million (approximately RMB 43,000 to RMB 129,000).
3. Contingency Fee Arrangements
In Japan, it is lawful to agree on a success-based fee in civil matters, and the Basic Rules on the Duties of Practicing Attorneys do not prohibit such arrangements. A lawyer may therefore accept a matter on a fully contingent basis, under which no initial retainer fee, or only a reduced initial retainer fee, is charged and the lawyer instead receives a specified percentage of the amount recovered.
The following practical points should, however, be noted:
●Fully contingent fee arrangements are generally limited to cases in which the prospects of recovery are relatively strong. Law firms will typically assess the debtor’s financial position and recoverable assets before deciding whether to accept a matter on this basis.
●Out-of-pocket expenses, including court filing fees payable by revenue stamps, translation costs, advance payments to the court and similar expenses, are ordinarily borne by the client even where the legal fees are contingent on success.
●The applicable percentage varies depending on the case, but a fee in the range of approximately 20% to 30% of the amount recovered may be used as a general reference point.
●Third-party litigation funding is not yet widely used in Japan.
4. Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees from the Opposing Party
As a general rule, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable from the unsuccessful party in Japan. See Question 21 for further details.
In practice, this issue may be addressed by including an attorneys’ fees clause in the underlying contract or by choosing arbitration, where the arbitral tribunal may order the opposing party to bear all or part of the legal costs in the arbitral award.
Two.ARBITRATION AWARDS
（twelve）Is this jurisdiction a party to the New York Convention?
[Answer] Yes. Japan deposited its instrument of accession on 20 June 1961, and the Convention entered into force for Japan on 18 September 1961. Japan made the reciprocity reservation, under which it applies the Convention only to arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State. Japan did not make the commercial reservation.
China ratified the Convention on 22 January 1987, and it entered into force for China on 22 April 1987. Accordingly, both China and Japan are Contracting States to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). Arbitral awards rendered by Chinese arbitral institutions such as the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Beijing Arbitration Commission, the Shanghai International Arbitration Center, and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration may therefore be recognised and enforced in Japan.
As a matter of domestic law, Japan’s Arbitration Act (Act No. 138 of 2003), which was enacted with reference to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, provides for the recognition of arbitral awards, including foreign arbitral awards, under Article 45, and for applications for an enforcement order under Article 46.
In addition, the 2023 amendments to the Arbitration Act (Act No. 15 of 2023), which came into force on 1 April 2024, introduced concurrent jurisdiction for the Tokyo District Court and Osaka District Court in specified arbitration-related proceedings. The amendments also confer discretion on the court, after hearing the respondent’s views, to dispense with all or part of the requirement to submit a Japanese translation of the arbitral award or other relevant documents.
In contracts between Chinese and Japanese parties, given that reciprocal recognition and enforcement of court judgments cannot presently be relied upon, arbitration is, in practical terms, the only effective dispute resolution mechanism if enforcement in Japan is contemplated. Whether the parties choose an arbitral institution in China, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, or another Convention jurisdiction, the resulting arbitral award may, subject to the applicable requirements of the New York Convention and Japanese law, be recognised and enforced in Japan.
（thirteen）What is the approximate time required to register and enforce a foreign arbitration award if unopposed?
[Answer] From the filing of the application to the issuance of an enforcement order, the proceedings generally take approximately three to six months. In addition, preparation of the application typically requires approximately one to two months.
Typical Timeline
●Preparation of the application: obtaining a copy of the arbitral award and documentation certifying its authenticity, preparing a Japanese translation where necessary, and arranging for notarization and an Apostille for the power of attorney — approximately one to two months.
●Filing an application for an enforcement order pursuant to Article 46 of the Arbitration Act.
●Service of the application and related documents on the respondent and designation of a hearing date — approximately one to two months.
●Hearing(s): generally one or two hearings.
●Issuance and notification of the enforcement order: approximately one to two months after the conclusion of the hearing.
●The enforcement order becomes final upon expiry of the two-week period for filing an immediate appeal, provided that no such appeal is filed.
Courts Having Jurisdiction (Article 46(4) of the Arbitration Act. Applications for an enforcement order are subject to special jurisdictional rules, which differ from the general provisions under Article 5(1).)
Jurisdiction may lie with:
●the District Court designated by agreement of the parties under Article 5(1)(i);
●the District Court having jurisdiction over the place of arbitration under Article 5(1)(ii);
●the District Court having jurisdiction over the respondent’s general venue under Article 5(1)(iii);
●the District Court having jurisdiction over the location of the subject matter of the claim or the respondent’s assets that are capable of attachment; or
●the Tokyo District Court or Osaka District Court, pursuant to the amendments that came into force on 1 April 2024, provided that the place of arbitration, the respondent’s general venue, the subject matter of the claim, or the respondent’s attachable assets are located in Japan.
（fourteen）What is the approximate time required to register and enforce a foreign arbitration award if opposed?
[Answer] Proceedings at first instance generally take approximately six months to one and a half years. If the matter proceeds by way of an immediate appeal to the Tokyo High Court, followed by an appeal with permission or a special appeal to the Supreme Court, the overall proceedings may take approximately two to three years.
The scope of judicial review is limited to the grounds for refusal of recognition set out in Article 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, which correspond to the grounds under Article V of the New York Convention. The court may not conduct any review of the merits of the arbitral award.
The principal grounds that may arise include:
●the arbitration agreement is ineffective due to a restriction on a party’s capacity (Article 45(2)(i));
●the arbitration agreement is otherwise invalid, for reasons other than incapacity, under the law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, under the law of the country in which the place of arbitration is situated (Article 45(2)(ii));
●the party against whom the award is invoked did not receive the notice necessary to present its case or was otherwise unable to present its case (Article 45(2)(iii) and (iv));
●the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was contrary to the parties’ agreement or the law of the place of arbitration (Article 45(2)(vi));
●the arbitral award has not yet become binding in the country of the place of arbitration, or has been set aside (Article 45(2)(vii));
●the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Japanese law (Article 45(2)(viii)); or
●recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy or good morals in Japan (Article 45(2)(ix)).
Japanese courts are generally regarded internationally as pro-arbitration, and the public policy exception under Article 45(2)(ix) is construed particularly narrowly. Reported cases in which Japanese courts have refused to enforce foreign arbitral awards are therefore very rare.
（fifteen）What is the approximate cost of registering and enforcing a foreign arbitration award (including court fees and other disbursements) if unopposed?
[Answer] The total cost is approximately JPY 1.5 million to JPY 4 million (approximately RMB 64,000 to RMB 172,000). Unlike proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign court judgment, the court filing fee is fixed: regardless of the amount of the arbitral award, the filing fee is JPY 4,000 (approximately RMB 170).
Breakdown of Costs
●Court filing fee: JPY 4,000 (approximately RMB 170). This is a fixed fee and, unlike the filing fee applicable to court judgments, does not increase progressively according to the amount in dispute. Accordingly, the larger the amount of the arbitral award, the more cost-efficient the procedure is in terms of court fees.
●Advance payment for postage: Several thousand yen (approximately RMB 100 to RMB 400).
●Translation fees: The prevailing market rate for professional legal translation from Chinese into Japanese is approximately JPY 10 to JPY 25 per Chinese character (approximately RMB 0.4 to RMB 1.1). Where an arbitral award is approximately 50 to 100 pages in length, translation costs may amount to approximately JPY 500,000 to JPY 1.5 million (approximately RMB 21,000 to RMB 64,000). Under the 2023 amendments to the Arbitration Act, the court may, after hearing the respondent’s views, dispense with the requirement to submit all or part of a Japanese translation (see Question 17(3)). As such dispensation is discretionary, however, it is prudent for budgeting purposes to assume that a full translation will be required.
●Authentication and notarization costs: These include the cost of obtaining a certificate of authenticity or identity of the arbitral award from the arbitral institution, as well as the cost of obtaining an Apostille or other required authentication for the power of attorney and related documents.
●Attorneys’ fees: For an uncontested enforcement application, attorneys’ fees are generally approximately JPY 1 million to JPY 2.5 million (approximately RMB 43,000 to RMB 107,000).
（sixteen）What is the approximate cost of registering and enforcing a foreign arbitration award (including court fees and other disbursements) if opposed?
[Answer] As with Question 6, where attorneys’ fees are charged on an hourly basis, there is no fixed cap. Based on past experience, attorneys’ fees for proceedings at first instance are generally in the range of approximately JPY 4 million to JPY 12 million (approximately RMB 172,000 to RMB 515,000).
Compared with an action for an execution judgment in respect of a foreign court judgment, the cost is generally lower because the scope of review is limited to the grounds set out in Article 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, and there is no need to establish foreign law concerning the requirement of reciprocity.
Factors that may increase legal costs include: research into the applicable law where the validity of the arbitration agreement is disputed; obtaining an expert opinion on the law of the country of the place of arbitration; and translating the entire record of the arbitral proceedings.
As noted in Question 6, as a general rule in Japan, attorneys’ fees cannot be recovered from the unsuccessful party. However, where the arbitral award itself orders the opposing party to bear attorneys’ fees, that portion of the award is also capable of being covered by the enforcement order and may be enforced in Japan.
In international arbitration, it is common practice for the arbitral tribunal to address the allocation of costs in the arbitral award. This constitutes one of the practical advantages of choosing arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism.
（seventeen）Are there any unusual difficulties in enforcing a foreign arbitration award?
[Answer] There are no major practical obstacles. Japan is generally regarded as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, and the circumstances in which enforcement of an arbitral award will be refused are very limited. Nevertheless, attention should be paid to the time required for the mandatory hearing procedure, the validity of the arbitration agreement, and the practical burden associated with translation and authentication.
1.Time Required for the Mandatory Hearing Procedure
In Japan, enforcement cannot be obtained through a purely ex parte registration procedure. The court must conduct either oral argument or a hearing at which both parties are given an opportunity to appear, pursuant to Articles 46(10) and 44(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Accordingly, even where the respondent raises no objection whatsoever, such a hearing must still be held. The Japanese procedure, therefore, generally takes longer than an ex parte registration regime of the kind available in jurisdictions such as Singapore.
2. Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
In the case of arbitral awards rendered by Chinese arbitral institutions, the validity of the arbitration agreement may occasionally become an issue.
Because the PRC Arbitration Law requires an arbitration agreement to identify a specific arbitration institution, ambiguity in the wording of the arbitration clause may give rise to disputes concerning both the law governing the validity of the arbitration agreement and the applicable standard for determining its validity.
Accordingly, at the contract-drafting stage, the arbitration clause should clearly specify the arbitral institution, seat of arbitration, applicable arbitration rules, and language of the arbitration.
3. Practical Burden of Translation and Authentication
Where an arbitral award is lengthy, the cost and time required for translation can constitute a significant practical burden.
Under the 2023 amendments to the Arbitration Act, where the court considers it appropriate, it may, after hearing the respondent’s views, dispense with the requirement to submit all or part of a Japanese translation pursuant to the proviso to Article 46(2) of the Arbitration Act.
This is, however, a matter of judicial discretion rather than an entitlement available to the applicant as of right. Where the respondent contests enforcement, the court may still require the submission of a complete Japanese translation.
Accordingly, for budgeting purposes, it is prudent to proceed on the assumption that a full translation will be required, while consulting with the court in advance as to whether all or part of the translation requirement may be waived.
Three.LIMITATION
（ eighteen）What is the limitation period of the enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments or arbitration in this jurisdiction?
[Answer] Japanese law does not prescribe any uniform peremptory period or statutory time limit for filing an application to enforce a foreign civil or commercial judgment or arbitral award. Whether enforcement remains available depends on whether the underlying claim established by the judgment or arbitral award has been extinguished by prescription.
Because Article 45(1) of the Arbitration Act gives a foreign arbitral award the same effect as a final and binding judgment, it is generally understood that the ten-year prescription period under Article 169(1) of the Civil Code applies. By contrast, there is academic debate as to whether Article 169(1) applies directly to foreign court judgments. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume categorically that a ten-year period applies in all cases; the issue must be considered in light of factors including the law governing the underlying claim.
1. Basic Principle
Japanese law does not impose a procedural rule requiring an enforcement application to be filed within a specified number of years. Rather, the relevant issue is one of substantive law, namely whether the claim sought to be enforced has become time-barred by extinctive prescription.
Article 169(1) of the Japanese Civil Code provides that, where a right has been established by a final and binding judgment or by an instrument having the same effect as such a judgment, the applicable prescription period is ten years, even if the right would otherwise have been subject to a shorter prescription period.
2. Application to Foreign Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards
●There is academic debate as to whether Article 169(1) of the Civil Code applies directly to a foreign court judgment. Although there is substantial support for the view that a ten-year period should apply in practice, this should not be treated as an absolute rule. The issue may also depend on factors such as the governing law of the underlying claim.
●An arbitral award in Japan has the same effect as a final and binding judgment under Article 45(1) of the Arbitration Act. Foreign arbitral awards are likewise generally understood to be subject to the ten-year prescription period.
●The period generally begins to run when the judgment becomes final and binding or when the arbitral award is rendered and the right becomes exercisable, pursuant to Article 166(1)(ii) of the Civil Code.
3.Postponement of Completion and Renewal of Prescription
●The commencement of an action for an execution judgment constitutes a judicial claim and therefore has the effect of postponing the completion of prescription and, upon satisfaction of the statutory requirements, renewing the prescription period, pursuant to Article 147 of the Civil Code.
●An application for compulsory enforcement likewise has the effect of postponing the completion of prescription and renewing the prescription period pursuant to Article 148 of the Civil Code.
4. Points to Note in Relation to Chinese Law
The two-year period for applying for enforcement under the PRC Civil Procedure Law is a separate issue from extinctive prescription under Japanese law. Accordingly, the mere fact that the Chinese domestic period for applying for enforcement has expired does not, in itself, automatically preclude enforcement proceedings in Japan.
On the other hand, a Japanese court will determine the applicable limitation rules for the underlying claim in accordance with the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws. Where Chinese law governs the underlying claim, the opposing party may argue that the applicable limitation period under Chinese law has expired; under the PRC Civil Code, the general limitation period is three years.
5. Practical Recommendation
Given that different interpretations may arise as to both the commencement date and duration of the applicable prescription period, it is strongly advisable to commence the relevant proceedings in Japan as soon as practicable after the foreign judgment becomes final and binding or the arbitral award is rendered, and in any event preferably within two to three years.
Four.ENFORCEMENT
（nineteen）What papers will be needed for the enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitration award in this jurisdiction?
[Answer] For the enforcement of a foreign court judgment, the applicant is generally required to submit an authenticated copy of the judgment, a certificate confirming that the judgment is final and binding, proof of service, and Japanese translations of those documents. For the enforcement of an arbitral award, the applicant is generally required to submit a copy of the arbitral award, documentation certifying that the copy corresponds to the original award, and a Japanese translation. As a general rule, foreign-language documents submitted to a Japanese court must be accompanied by Japanese translations.
1. Action for an Execution Judgment in Respect of a Foreign Court Judgment
The following documents are generally required:
●a complaint;
●the original or an authenticated copy of the foreign judgment;
●a certificate of finality, issued by the court of the country in which the judgment was rendered, confirming that the judgment has become final and binding;
●documentary evidence establishing that the summons, complaint, or other documents necessary for the commencement of the proceedings were duly served on the defendant, such as a certificate of service. Where service was effected pursuant to the Hague Service Convention, the relevant certificate prescribed under the Convention should be submitted;
●Japanese translations of all of the above foreign-language documents, pursuant to Article 138(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure;
●a certificate concerning the translator’s qualifications and the accuracy of the translation. This is not legally mandatory, but is advisable in practice;
●documents evidencing the plaintiff’s corporate status and authority, such as a business licence or corporate registry extract, together with Japanese translations;
●a power of attorney for the litigation, together with a Japanese translation. In the case of a Chinese corporate entity, the relevant documents should be notarized and accompanied by an Apostille. Since the Hague Apostille Convention has applied to China since 7 November 2023, consular legalization is no longer required; and
●materials concerning the laws and case law of the country in which the judgment was rendered for the purpose of establishing the existence of reciprocity, together with Japanese translations. In practice, this is commonly supported by a legal opinion issued by counsel qualified in that jurisdiction.
2. Application for an Enforcement Order in Respect of a Foreign Arbitral Award (Article 46(2) of the Arbitration Act)
The following documents are generally required:
●an application for an enforcement order;
●a copy of the arbitral award;
●documentation establishing that the copy is identical in content to the arbitral award, such as a certificate issued by the arbitral institution or a notarized certification;
●a Japanese translation of the arbitral award. However, where the court considers it appropriate, it may, after hearing the respondent’s views, dispense with the requirement to submit all or part of the translation pursuant to the proviso to Article 46(2), as amended with effect from 1 April 2024;
●documentary evidence of the arbitration agreement, such as the arbitration clause contained in the relevant contract, together with a Japanese translation. Although the Arbitration Act does not expressly require this document to be filed with the application, it is commonly requested in order for the court to consider any grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement; and
●documents evidencing the applicant’s corporate status and authority, together with a power of attorney, duly notarized and Apostilled where required.
3. Translation Practice
Japan does not have a formal system of court-certified or court-approved translators. There is no statutory restriction on who may prepare a translation, and translations prepared by professional translation agencies or law firms are commonly submitted.
However, if the accuracy of a translation is called into question, the opposing party may challenge it, and the court may require clarification or a revised translation.
（twenty）What is the general procedure and methods to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment in this jurisdiction (e.g. Garnishee Proceedings, Charging Order, Stop Notice, Enforcement of charging order by sale, Writ of Fi Fa, Examination of judgment debtor, Winding-up Petition, etc)?
[Answer] Once an execution judgment or enforcement order has been obtained and has become final, it is treated in the same manner as a domestic Japanese enforceable title. The creditor may then make use of the ordinary compulsory enforcement procedures available under Japanese law, including enforcement against claims, real property and movable property. In practice, the most important method is the attachment of claims, particularly bank deposits and accounts receivable.
1.Overall Procedure
The general steps are as follows:
●obtain an execution judgment or enforcement order and ensure that it has become final;
●obtain an execution clause pursuant to Article 26 of the Civil Execution Act;
●obtain the original enforceable title, the execution clause, and proof of service; and
●file the appropriate application for compulsory enforcement depending on the type of asset to be enforced against.
2. Principal Methods of Enforcement
(1) Enforcement against Claims (Article 143 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act)
●This is the most commonly used enforcement method. Claims that may be attached include bank deposits, accounts receivable, rent receivables, construction payment claims, and other monetary claims owed to the debtor by third parties.
●The creditor applies for an attachment order. The court filing fee is JPY 4,000 (approximately RMB 170). An attachment order is generally issued within approximately one to two weeks after filing.
●The attachment order is served on the third-party debtor, such as a bank or business counterparty, and the creditor may request a declaration from the third-party debtor pursuant to Article 147 of the Civil Execution Act.
●Once one week has elapsed from service of the attachment order on the judgment debtor, the creditor may directly collect the attached claim from the third-party debtor pursuant to Article 155 of the Civil Execution Act.
●Instead of collecting the claim directly, the creditor may seek a transfer order under Article 159, under which the attached claim is transferred to the creditor at its face value.
●As a general rule, three-quarters of wage claims are exempt from attachment under Article 152 of the Civil Execution Act.
(2) Enforcement against Real Property (Article 43 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act)
●Enforcement against real property may take the form of a compulsory auction or compulsory administration.
●In addition to the filing fee of JPY 4,000 (approximately RMB 170), the creditor must pay a registration and license tax equal to 0.4% of the amount of the claim, together with an advance payment for enforcement expenses. At the Tokyo District Court, the advance payment is generally approximately JPY 800,000 to JPY 2 million (approximately RMB 34,000 to RMB 86,000), depending on the amount of the claim. Any unused balance is refunded upon completion of the proceedings.
●The period from filing the enforcement application to distribution of the proceeds generally takes approximately eight months to one and a half years.
●Where the property is subject to a prior-ranking mortgage or other security interest, the enforcement proceedings may be cancelled if there is no surplus available for distribution to the enforcing creditor, pursuant to Article 63 of the Civil Execution Act. A prior search of the relevant real property registration records is therefore essential.
(3) Enforcement against Movable Property (Article 122 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act)
●A court enforcement officer seizes the debtor’s movable property and arranges for its sale.
●The required advance payment is generally approximately JPY 30,000 to JPY 50,000 (approximately RMB 1,300 to RMB 2,150). In practice, however, the scope of movable property exempt from seizure is relatively broad, and the realizable value of seized movables is often low. As a result, this method is of limited practical effectiveness.
(4) Enforcement against Other Types of Property
Compulsory enforcement may also be available against ships, aircraft, motor vehicles, construction machinery, partnership or membership interests, shares, intellectual property rights, and other categories of property.
(5) Enforcement of Non-Monetary Obligations
●Non-monetary obligations may be enforced through direct compulsory enforcement, substitute performance under Article 171 of the Civil Execution Act, or indirect compulsory enforcement under Article 172.
●Indirect compulsory enforcement is a mechanism under which the court orders the debtor to pay a specified amount of money if the debtor fails to perform the relevant obligation. It is commonly used to compel compliance with obligations to perform or refrain from performing a particular act.
(6) Property Disclosure and Third-Party Information Procedures
See Question 10 for details of the property disclosure procedure and the procedure for obtaining information from third parties.
(7) Provisional Measures
To prevent the dissipation of assets before an execution judgment is obtained, it is often extremely important in practice to apply in advance for a provisional attachment. See Question 10.
(8) Petition for Commencement of Bankruptcy Proceedings (Article 18 of the Bankruptcy Act)
●A creditor may also petition for the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.
●For a corporate bankruptcy, the minimum advance payment is approximately JPY 200,000 (approximately RMB 8,600), although depending on the debtor’s total liabilities and the complexity of the estate, the amount may rise to several million yen.
●Through the bankruptcy trustee’s exercise of avoidance powers, it may be possible to recover assets that the debtor transferred to third parties prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.
3. Remedies Not Available in Japan
Among the enforcement mechanisms commonly found in certain Commonwealth jurisdictions and referred to in your questionnaire, Japan has no direct equivalent of the following:
●a charging order or stop notice;
●a worldwide freezing order; or
●general criminal sanctions for contempt of court of the kind available in some common-law jurisdictions.
However, criminal penalties do apply to certain misconduct in the property disclosure procedure, including failure to appear without justifiable grounds and making false statements. See Question 10.
（twenty-one）How to recover all fees and costs of enforcement?
[Answer] Costs necessary for compulsory enforcement are treated as “enforcement costs” and are borne by the debtor. They may generally be recovered with priority in distribution or similar enforcement proceedings. By contrast, attorneys’ fees incurred at the litigation stage are, as a general rule, not recoverable from the unsuccessful party and must be borne by the party that incurred them.
1. Enforcement Costs (Article 42 of the Civil Execution Act) [High Prospect of Recovery]
Costs necessary for compulsory enforcement, including court filing fees, advance payments, enforcement officer’s fees, registration and license tax for registration of an attachment, and costs of public notices, are borne by the debtor pursuant to Article 42(1) of the Civil Execution Act.
Under Article 42(2), such enforcement costs may be recovered, in priority to other claims, from monies collected by the enforcing creditor or from the proceeds of a judicial sale, without the need to obtain a separate enforceable title for those costs. This is therefore the most effective mechanism for recovering costs incurred in the enforcement process.
2. Litigation Costs (Article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure) [Limited Scope of Recovery]
In an action for an execution judgment, litigation costs are generally borne by the unsuccessful party.
However, the recoverable category of “litigation costs” is prescribed by the Act on Costs of Civil Procedure and Related Matters and is limited to items such as court filing fees payable by revenue stamps, postage, costs of preparing and submitting documents, witness attendance allowances and travel expenses, and interpretation and translation expenses.
Attorneys’ fees are not included within recoverable litigation costs.
3. Attorneys’ Fees [Generally Not Recoverable]
As noted above, under Japanese law, attorneys’ fees are generally not treated as litigation costs and therefore cannot, as a general rule, be recovered from the unsuccessful party.
4. Default Interest
Default interest or delay damages awarded by a foreign judgment or arbitral award may also be enforced in Japan, provided that the applicable rate is not contrary to Japanese public policy.
Where enforcement proceedings become protracted, the accrual of such default interest may therefore offset, to some extent, the costs associated with the delay.
5. Practical Measures
● Include a contractual attorneys’ fees clause requiring the counterparty to bear reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in resolving a dispute. Japanese courts may enforce claims for attorneys’ fees where the obligation arises from a valid agreement between the parties.
●Choose arbitration and seek an award requiring the opposing party to bear attorneys’ fees. A costs award forming part of the arbitral award may likewise be enforced in Japan.
●Seek a provisional attachment at an early stage in order to preserve sufficient assets from which the principal claim and recoverable costs may ultimately be satisfied.
Note regarding time/cost estimates throughout this questionnaire:
Time/costs estimates are based on the assumption that the other party fully cooperates with the relevant legal procedures, which rarely happens in practice. Even without opposition, enforcement can face unexpected delays due to changing legislation or bureaucratic hold-ups. Additionally, as litigation in this jurisdiction is adversarial in nature, when litigation is involved, the actual time and costs of the relevant legal procedures are in large part determined by the parties' litigation strategies. As such, it is almost impossible to provide a general but accurate cost/time estimate, and clients should instead seek a case-by-case evaluation for more specifically accurate estimates.
※The RMB amounts stated in this questionnaire have been converted using the indicative exchange rate as of 6 August 2026 (RMB 1 ≈ JPY 23.3) and are provided for reference purposes only.
※The responses in this questionnaire provide a general overview based on Japanese laws, regulations and case law as of August 2026 and do not constitute legal advice in relation to any specific matter or circumstances.
