Beyond the Ruling: How to Analyze the 'Facts' (Jijitsu) and 'Reasoning' (Riyū) in Japanese Civil Judgments for Deeper Insights

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 13 min read

While the Shubun (main text of judgment) in a Japanese civil judgment delivers the court's definitive orders, a comprehensive understanding of the case and the court's decision-making process requires a thorough examination of two other substantial sections: "Facts" (事実 - Jijitsu) and "Reasons" (理由 - Riyū). These sections provide the narrative backdrop, the evidential contest, and the intellectual scaffolding upon which the final ruling is built. For U.S. legal professionals and business people, dissecting these components is key to unlocking deeper insights that go far beyond the surface-level outcome.

It is crucial to grasp a fundamental distinction from the outset: in a traditional Japanese judgment, the "Facts" section primarily records the allegations and procedural claims of the parties. It is the story as told by the litigants. In contrast, the "Reasons" section is where the court speaks, presenting its own findings of fact, its evaluation of the evidence, and its application of the law. This article will guide you through analyzing both, enabling a more nuanced interpretation of Japanese civil judgments.

Deconstructing the "Facts" (事実 - Jijitsu) Section: The Litigants' Narrative

The "Facts" section serves as a meticulously organized record of the parties' formal positions and the history of their arguments before the court. Understanding its structure is the first step in piecing together the puzzle of the dispute.

I. Judgment Sought by the Parties (当事者の求めた裁判 - tōjisha no motometa saiban)

This initial part within the "Facts" section frames what each side formally requested from the court.

  • A. Purport of the Plaintiff's Claim (請求の趣旨 - seikyū no shushi)
    The seikyū no shushi is a precise statement of the relief the plaintiff seeks from the court. It is, in essence, the plaintiff's proposed Shubun – what they want the court to order if they are entirely successful. Its clarity is paramount, as it defines the outer boundaries of the plaintiff's demand. This part will also typically note the plaintiff's ancillary requests, such as the defendant bearing the litigation costs and the court granting a declaration of provisional execution. If the court ultimately grants the plaintiff's request in full, the Shubun in the judgment may simply refer back to this section by stating "As per the main text" (主文同旨 - shubun dōshi) in the "Facts" section, indicating that the "Purport of Claim" has been adopted as the order.
  • B. Defendant's Answer to the Purport of the Claim (請求の趣旨に対する答弁 - seikyū no shushi ni taisuru tōben)
    This subsection outlines the defendant’s formal response to the plaintiff’s demands. Usually, the defendant will request that the plaintiff's claim be rejected and that the plaintiff bear the litigation costs. If the defendant sought a declaration to avert provisional execution (should the plaintiff win and obtain such a declaration), that would also be noted here. This sets the stage for the ensuing legal battle by clearly stating the defendant's primary defensive posture.

II. Allegations of the Parties (当事者の主張 - tōjisha no shuchō)

This is the core of the "Facts" section, detailing the substantive arguments.

  • A. Cause of Action (請求原因 - seikyū gen'in)
    Here, the plaintiff's detailed factual and legal basis for their claim is laid out. This is not just a loose narrative; it must contain the yōken jijitsu (要件事実), which are the essential, operative facts legally required to establish each element of the asserted claim. For instance, in a breach of contract claim, the seikyū gen'in would need to allege facts proving the contract's formation, its terms, the plaintiff's performance (if a precondition), the defendant's breach, and the resulting damages.Japanese civil procedure places significant emphasis on this structured pleading. The facts alleged must directly correspond to the legal requirements of the specific cause of action being pursued. General or vague allegations are insufficient. For example, in a claim for a loan repayment, the plaintiff would need to specify the date of the loan agreement, the amount loaned, the agreed repayment date (if any), and the fact that the money was actually disbursed to the defendant. If interest or delay damages are claimed, the factual basis for these (e.g., an interest agreement, the date of default, the legal or agreed interest rate) must also be meticulously alleged.If the plaintiff is asserting multiple causes of action, or alternative claims, these are typically set out distinctly or with clear delineation of the common and distinct factual allegations. The seikyū gen'in often concludes with a summary statement known as yotte-gaki (よって書き), which explicitly links the alleged facts to the relief sought in the seikyū no shushi. For example, "Therefore (yotte), based on the foregoing facts, the plaintiff claims against the defendant payment of X yen...".
  • B. Defendant's Admissions and Denials Regarding the Cause of Action (請求原因に対する認否 - seikyū gen'in ni taisuru ninpi)
    This crucial subsection details the defendant's specific responses to each factual allegation made by the plaintiff in the seikyū gen'in. The defendant must clarify whether each fact is:The manner of these responses is important. A simple denial contests the truth of the plaintiff's allegation. An "active denial" (積極否認 - sekkyoku hinin), on the other hand, involves the defendant not only denying the plaintiff's version but also asserting an alternative set of facts that are inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim (e.g., plaintiff claims a loan; defendant denies loan and asserts the money was a gift).If a defendant remains silent or provides an ambiguous response to an alleged fact during the oral argument phase, the court may, under certain conditions, deem that fact to have been admitted (constructive admission or 擬制自白 - gisei jihaku). This section of the judgment thus crystallizes which factual matters are truly in dispute and require proof, and which are taken as common ground.
    • Admitted (認める - mitomeru): The fact is conceded as true.
    • Denied (否認する - hinin suru): The fact is contested as untrue.
    • Claim of No Knowledge (知らない - shiranai or 不知 - fuchi): The defendant asserts they have no knowledge of the fact. For evidentiary purposes, this is generally treated as a denial, meaning the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving that fact.
  • C. Affirmative Defenses (抗弁 - kōben)
    Following the response to the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant may present their own affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense introduces new factual allegations which, if proven, would defeat or diminish the plaintiff's claim, even if the facts alleged in the seikyū gen'in were true. Common examples include:Just as with the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant must plead the essential facts (yōken jijitsu) supporting each affirmative defense. For instance, a defense of payment would require alleging the amount, date, and method of payment.
    • Payment (弁済 - bensai)
    • Statute of Limitations (消滅時効 - shōmetsu jikō)
    • Set-off (相殺 - sōsai)
    • Right of Retention (留置権 - ryūchiken)
    • Defense of Simultaneous Performance (同時履行の抗弁権 - dōji rikō no kōbenken).
  • D. Plaintiff's Response to Defenses (抗弁に対する認否 - kōben ni taisuru ninpi) and Counter-Defenses (再抗弁 - sai kōben), etc.
    The "Facts" section will then record the plaintiff's admissions or denials concerning the factual allegations supporting the defendant’s affirmative defenses. If the plaintiff seeks to overcome an affirmative defense by alleging further new facts, this is termed a "counter-defense" (sai kōben). For example, if the defendant pleads the statute of limitations, the plaintiff might raise a counter-defense of acknowledgment of debt by the defendant (which would interrupt the limitations period). This can, in theory, continue with further responses (再々抗弁 - sai-sai kōben, and so on), creating a layered record of the parties' arguments.

Analytical Value of the "Facts" Section:
For any U.S. professional reviewing a Japanese judgment, it is paramount to remember that the "Facts" section is a recitation of party allegations, not the court's established findings. Its value lies in:

  • Providing a clear and structured record of the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's responses.
  • Identifying the specific factual and legal issues that were joined between the parties.
  • Understanding the narrative framework and the strategic lines of argument adopted by each side.
  • Serving as a roadmap to the issues that the court will then address in the "Reasons" section.

Interpreting the "Reasons" (理由 - Riyū) Section: The Court's Voice and Decision-Making

The "Reasons" section is where the court transitions from recorder to adjudicator. It details the court's own determination of the facts, its assessment of the evidence, and its application of legal principles to those facts, ultimately justifying the orders given in the Shubun. This section forms the intellectual core of the judgment.

1. Structure and Order of Adjudication (判断の記載順序 - handan no kisai junjo)

The court typically addresses the issues in a logical sequence, generally mirroring the order of allegations presented in the "Facts" section: plaintiff's cause of action, then affirmative defenses, then counter-defenses, and so forth.

However, the court is not strictly bound to this order and may address issues in a manner it deems most efficient or logical for resolving the case. For example:

  • If a critical element of the plaintiff's seikyū gen'in is found to be unproven, the court may reject the claim at that point without needing to delve into all the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant.
  • Conversely, if a potent affirmative defense (e.g., statute of limitations) is clearly established, the court might address and uphold this defense first, thereby rendering the plaintiff's primary claim moot, even if some elements of that claim were otherwise provable.
  • When multiple claims or defenses are presented, the court must address each one that remains relevant to the outcome. A defense of set-off (sōsai) is often considered towards the end, as the court's finding on the existence of the debt claimed as a set-off can itself have res judicata effect for that separate debt.

2. Fact-Finding by the Court (事実の確定 - jijitsu no kakutei)

This is the pivotal part of the "Reasons" where the court sifts through the evidence and disputed allegations to establish what it considers to be the true state of affairs.

  • A. Facts Not Requiring Proof (証拠を要しない場合 - shōko o yōshinai baai)
    Certain facts do not need to be proven through evidence:
    • Undisputed Facts (当事者間に争いのない事実 - tōjisha kan ni arasoi no nai jijitsu): Facts explicitly admitted by the opposing party during the proceedings are taken as true by the court for the purpose of the judgment.
    • Constructive Admissions (擬制自白 - gisei jihaku): If a party fails to clearly dispute a fact alleged by the opponent in court, that fact may be deemed admitted.
    • Notorious Facts (顕著な事実 - kencho na jijitsu): These are facts of common knowledge (e.g., historical events, basic scientific principles) or facts that are officially known to the court by virtue of its duties (e.g., the date a complaint was served in the very same case, or average life expectancy figures from official statistics). These do not require formal proof.
  • B. Facts Determined by Evidence (証拠によるべき場合 - shōko ni yoru beki baai)
    For facts that remain in dispute, the court makes its findings based on the evidence presented.
    • The Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence (自由心証主義 - jiyū shinshō shugi): This is a cornerstone of Japanese (and many civil law) evidence systems. It means that judges are not bound by rigid, formal rules stipulating the weight or conclusiveness of particular types of evidence. Instead, they are to evaluate all evidence presented with an open mind, using their rational judgment, logic, and experience to determine its probative value and arrive at a conviction about the facts. This is similar to the role of a U.S. judge in a bench trial or a jury in determining facts, but in Japan, it's always the professional judges who undertake this. The standard of proof in most civil cases is a balance of probabilities, similar to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard in the U.S.
    • Evaluation of Documentary Evidence (書証 - shoshō):
      • A key preliminary issue is the authenticity (成立の真正 - seiritsu no shinsei) of the document. A document cannot be relied upon for its content unless the court is satisfied it is genuine. The judgment will often note if authenticity is undisputed (e.g., 「成立に争いのない甲第1号証」 - "Exhibit A-1, the authenticity of which is not disputed"). If disputed, authenticity can be proven through witness testimony (e.g., by the author or a signatory), or through legal presumptions, such as those for official documents or private documents bearing a person's signature or seal.
      • Dispositive documents (処分証書 - shobun shōsho), such as contracts or deeds, which are created for the purpose of evidencing a legal act, are generally given high probative value as to the occurrence of that act once their authenticity is established.
      • The court will also consider the use of copies (写し - utsushi) if originals are unavailable, assessing arguments regarding their correspondence to the original.
    • Evaluation of Witness Testimony (人証 - ninshō, including 証人 - shōnin (witnesses) and 当事者本人 - tōjisha honnin (parties themselves)):
      • The court meticulously assesses the credibility of testimony. Factors considered include the witness's opportunity and capacity to observe the events, their memory, potential biases or interests in the outcome, consistency of their statements, and their demeanor while testifying. The court may consider the witness's sincerity, their perceptual abilities, the circumstances under which they perceived the events, their memory capabilities and the conditions at the time of recall, and their ability to accurately convey their memories.
      • The judgment may explicitly state why certain testimony is accepted or rejected. For instance, it might say, "Witness A's testimony on this point is difficult to credit because it is inconsistent with [other established facts/documents]," or "While Witness B testified to X, this testimony is vague and uncorroborated, and therefore cannot be readily adopted." While judges are not required to detail every reason for every credibility assessment, critical testimony often receives more explicit commentary.
    • Other Forms of Evidence: The court also considers expert opinions (鑑定 - kantei), the results of physical inspections conducted by the court (検証 - kenshō), and information obtained through commissioned investigations from public or private entities (調査嘱託 - chōsa shokutaku; 鑑定嘱託 - kantei shokutaku for expert reports from such entities).
    • Use of the "Entire Tenor of Oral Argument" (弁論の全趣旨 - benron no zen shushi): This is a somewhat unique concept in Japanese civil procedure. It allows the court, in its overall assessment, to consider the entirety of what has transpired during the oral argument proceedings. This can include the parties' attitudes, the timeliness and manner of their submissions, their responses (or evasiveness) to questions, and other circumstances observed by the court during the litigation process. While it is rarely the sole basis for establishing a crucial disputed fact, it can serve as a supplementary factor in the court’s overall conviction regarding the evidence.
    • Manner of Stating Findings (説示の要領 - setsuji no yōryō):
      • When direct evidence supports a finding of a primary fact (主要事実 - shuyō jijitsu), the court will cite that evidence and state the fact as found. E.g., "Based on Exhibit A-1 and the testimony of Witness B, it can be found that..."
      • When primary facts are established through inference (推認 - suinin) from indirect facts (間接事実 - kansetsu jijitsu), the court will first establish the indirect facts based on evidence, and then explain the logical process of inferring the primary fact from those established indirect facts. E.g., "From facts X, Y, and Z (established by [evidence]), it can be inferred that fact A occurred."
      • If the court finds there is insufficient evidence to establish an alleged fact, it will typically state so directly, e.g., 「請求原因記載の事実は、これを認めるに足りる証拠がない。」 (Seikyū gen'in kisai no jijitsu wa, kore o mitomeru ni tariru shōko ga nai.) – "There is insufficient evidence to find the facts alleged in the cause of action". The court will not generally find the non-existence of a fact unless there is positive evidence to that effect; rather, it finds the evidence insufficient to meet the proponent's burden of proof.

3. Application of Law (法律の適用 - hōritsu no tekiyō)

Once the court has established the relevant facts, it proceeds to apply the applicable legal provisions to these facts to arrive at its legal conclusions.

  • This involves identifying the relevant statutes, regulations, and sometimes referring to influential judicial precedents (although Japan, as a civil law country, does not have a strict doctrine of stare decisis, higher court decisions, particularly those of the Supreme Court, carry significant persuasive authority and are generally followed).
  • If the interpretation of a legal provision is itself a point of dispute, or if the court is adopting a particular interpretation, it will articulate its reasoning for that interpretation. However, judgments usually avoid lengthy academic discussions on legal theory, opting for a concise statement of the court's legal position.

4. Reasons for Ancillary Orders (訴訟費用の負担の裁判及び仮執行の宣言についての理由 - soshō hiyō no futan no saiban oyobi kari shikkō no sengen ni tsuite no riyū)

Typically, at the very end of the "Reasons" section, the judgment will briefly state the legal basis for its orders concerning litigation costs and any declaration of provisional execution. This is often a formulaic reference to the relevant articles of the Code of Civil Procedure. For example: "Applying Article 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the burden of litigation costs and Article 259, paragraph 1, of the same Code for the declaration of provisional execution...". More detailed reasoning might be provided if the cost allocation is unusual (e.g., ordering a winning party to bear some costs due to their litigation conduct).

Drawing Deeper Insights: What to Look For

Analyzing the "Facts" and "Reasons" sections requires more than just a superficial reading. To gain deeper insights, U.S. professionals should look for:

  • The Narrative Flow: How does the court construct the story from the parties' allegations to its own factual findings?
  • Evidentiary Battles: Which pieces of evidence were contested? How did the court resolve conflicts in evidence? Which evidence was deemed most credible or dispositive, and why?
  • Focus of Judicial Analysis: Which legal issues or factual disputes received the most detailed attention from the court? This often indicates the perceived crux of the case.
  • The "Why" Behind the "What": The "Reasons" section explains why the court arrived at the orders stated in the Shubun. Understanding this rationale is crucial for assessing the judgment's strength, potential grounds for appeal, or its precedential value (if any).
  • Unstated Implications: Sometimes, the way the court frames an issue or evaluates evidence can offer clues about its stance on related matters not explicitly decided, which can be valuable for future strategic considerations.

Conclusion

The "Facts" and "Reasons" sections of a Japanese civil judgment are rich, detailed components that provide the context and justification for the court's ultimate decision. While the "Facts" section lays out the battlefield of the parties' allegations, the "Reasons" section offers a window into the judicial mind, revealing how the court sifted through evidence, determined the truth as it saw it, and applied legal principles to arrive at its conclusions. For U.S. legal and business professionals, moving beyond the dispositive Shubun to carefully analyze these narrative and analytical sections is essential for a complete understanding of a Japanese judgment, enabling more informed advice, strategic planning, and effective engagement with the Japanese legal system.