Enforcing Japanese Civil Judgments: What is the Process and What Challenges Might Arise?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 10 min read

Obtaining a favorable judgment in a civil lawsuit is a significant milestone, but it doesn't always mean the dispute is over or that the awarded relief will be voluntarily provided by the losing party. When a judgment debtor fails to comply with the terms of a Japanese civil judgment—such as paying a monetary sum or performing a specific act—the judgment creditor must turn to formal "civil execution" procedures (民事執行 - minji shikkō) to compel performance. This process, while providing the necessary legal teeth to a judgment, has its own set of rules, procedures, and potential challenges.

This article outlines the general process for enforcing Japanese civil judgments, the types of execution available, and some of the common difficulties that creditors may encounter in turning a legal victory into tangible recovery.

I. The Prerequisite: An Enforceable "Title of Obligation" (Saimu Meigi)

Before any compulsory execution can begin, the creditor must possess a valid "title of obligation" (債務名義 - saimu meigi). This is an official document that irrefutably establishes the creditor's right to seek compulsory execution against the debtor. Article 22 of Japan's Civil Execution Act (民事執行法 - Minji Shikkō Hō) lists the recognized titles of obligation, which include:

  1. Final and Binding Judgments (確定判決 - kakutei hanketsu): A judgment that is no longer subject to ordinary means of appeal.
  2. Judgments with a Declaration of Provisional Execution (仮執行宣言付判決 - kari-shikkō sengen-tsuki hanketsu): Allows enforcement even before the judgment becomes formally final and binding (see CCP Art. 259).
  3. Judicial Settlement Records (和解調書 - wakai chōsho): An agreement reached in court and recorded in the court record has the same effect as a final judgment, including enforceability (CCP Art. 267).
  4. Acknowledgement of Claim Records (認諾調書 - nindaku chōsho): A defendant's formal acknowledgement of the plaintiff's claim, recorded by the court, also has the same effect as a final judgment (CCP Art. 267).
  5. Enforceable Notarized Deeds (執行認諾文言付公正証書 - shikkō nindaku mongon-tsuki kōsei shōsho): An out-of-court settlement or other agreement documented by a notary public that includes a specific clause where the debtor acknowledges they will submit to immediate compulsory execution upon default on a monetary obligation.
  6. Execution Judgments for Foreign Judgments (外国判決についての執行判決 - gaikoku hanketsu ni tsuite no shikkō hanketsu): A judgment from a Japanese court specifically authorizing the enforcement of a recognized foreign court judgment.
  7. Other specific documents designated by law (e.g., certain types of payment demands in summary proceedings).

Grant of a Certificate of Execution (Shikkōbun no Fuyo)

Generally, to initiate compulsory execution, the creditor must not only have a title of obligation but also obtain a "certificate of execution" (執行文 - shikkōbun) from the court clerk of the court that issued the judgment (or the notary public for an enforceable notarized deed) (Civil Execution Act Arts. 25, 26). This certificate attests that the title of obligation is currently valid and enforceable by the named creditor against the named debtor. There are exceptions where a certificate of execution is not required (e.g., for certain small claims judgments or orders for payment).

II. Types of Compulsory Execution in Japan

Japanese law provides for different types of compulsory execution depending on the nature of the claim established in the title of obligation:

A. Execution of Monetary Claims (金銭債権の執行 - kinsen saiken no shikkō)

This is the most common form of execution, aimed at satisfying a judgment for the payment of money.

  1. Real Property Execution (Fudōsan Shikkō - 不動産執行):
    • Compulsory Auction (強制競売 - kyōsei keibai): The creditor petitions the District Court where the debtor's real property (land, buildings) is located. If granted, the court will order the attachment (差押え - sashiosae) of the property, followed by an appraisal, public notice, and ultimately a public auction. The proceeds are then distributed to the creditor(s). This can be a lengthy and complex process.
    • Compulsory Administration (強制管理 - kyōsei kanri): Instead of selling the property, a court-appointed administrator manages the income-producing real property (e.g., rental buildings), and the net income is used to satisfy the creditor's claim.
  2. Movable Property Execution (Dōsan Shikkō - 動産執行):
    • This involves the attachment and sale of the debtor's tangible movable assets (e.g., vehicles, machinery, inventory, luxury goods, household items beyond basic necessities).
    • A court execution officer (shikkōkan - 執行官) visits the debtor's premises (or where the assets are located), identifies and seizes attachable assets.
    • The seized assets are then typically sold at a public auction or by other prescribed methods, and the proceeds are distributed.
  3. Claim Execution (Saiken Shikkō - 債権執行) / Garnishment:
    • This is a very common and often effective method, involving the attachment of monetary claims that the judgment debtor holds against third parties (third-party debtors – 第三債務者 daisan saimusha).
    • Commonly Targeted Claims:
      • Bank Deposits (預金債権 - yokin saiken): The court issues an attachment order to the bank where the debtor holds an account, freezing the funds up to the claimed amount.
      • Salary/Wages (給料債権 - kyūryō saiken): A portion of the debtor's salary can be attached by an order served on their employer. Statutory limits protect a certain portion of wages necessary for living expenses.
      • Accounts Receivable (売掛金債権 - urikakekin saiken): If the debtor is a business, its receivables from customers can be attached.
      • Rent Owed to the Debtor: If the debtor is a landlord.
    • Procedure: The creditor petitions the court, identifying the third-party debtor and the claim to be attached. If the order is issued, the third-party debtor is prohibited from paying the judgment debtor and is usually ordered to pay the creditor directly. The creditor may obtain a "collection order" (取立命令 - toritate meirei), empowering them to collect the attached claim, or in some cases, a "transfer order" (転付命令 - tenpu meirei), by which the claim itself is transferred to the creditor.

B. Execution of Non-Monetary Claims (非金銭債権の執行 - hi-kinsen saiken no shikkō)

This category deals with enforcing judgments that order something other than the payment of money.

  1. Claims for Delivery or Surrender of Specific Property (物の引渡・明渡請求権の執行):
    • Direct Compulsion (直接強制 - chokusetsu kyōsei): For specific movable property or the surrender of real property (e.g., eviction), a court execution officer can physically take possession from the debtor and deliver it to the creditor.
    • Indirect Compulsion (間接強制 - kansetsu kyōsei): If direct compulsion is inappropriate or difficult, the court may order the debtor to perform the obligation by a certain deadline and concurrently order that if the debtor fails to comply, they must pay a certain amount of money to the creditor for each day (or other period) of delay. This creates financial pressure to comply.
  2. Claims for Performance of an Act (作為請求権の執行 - sakui seikyūken no shikkō):
    • Substituted Performance (代替執行 - daitai shikkō): If the act ordered by the judgment can be performed by someone other than the debtor (e.g., demolition of an illegal structure, repair of a defect), the court can authorize the creditor to have the act performed by a third party at the debtor's expense. The creditor can seek advance payment of these costs from the debtor.
    • Indirect Compulsion: For acts that only the debtor can perform (e.g., an obligation to issue a specific document, perform a unique service – though specific performance of highly personal artistic or service obligations is often limited), indirect compulsion (imposing penalty payments for non-compliance) is the typical method.
  3. Claims for Forbearance (Non-Performance of an Act) (不作為請求権の執行 - fusakui seikyūken no shikkō):
    • If a judgment orders a debtor to refrain from doing a certain act (e.g., cease infringing a patent, stop polluting), and the debtor violates this, the creditor can petition the court for an order requiring the debtor to remove the results of the prohibited act (at the debtor's expense) or for an order of indirect compulsion (penalty payments) to deter future violations.
  4. Claims Requiring a Declaration of Intent (意思表示を求める請求権の執行 - ishi-hyōji o motomeru seikyūken no shikkō):
    • If a judgment orders the debtor to make a specific declaration of intent (e.g., to consent to the registration of a property transfer, to exercise a stock option in a certain way), the judgment itself is often deemed to constitute that declaration of intent once it becomes final and binding (This was explicitly stated in former CCP Art. 174; current substantive law or specific procedural provisions often achieve similar direct results). No further coercive execution against the debtor to make the declaration is usually needed; the judgment itself fulfills the legal requirement.

III. The Execution Process: Initiating and Navigating

  1. Application to the Execution Court: The creditor, armed with their title of obligation and (usually) a certificate of execution, files a formal petition for compulsory execution with the competent "execution court." This is typically a District Court, often the one in the debtor's domicile or where the assets to be executed against are located.
  2. Identification of Assets: A crucial step for the creditor is to identify specific assets of the debtor that can be targeted for execution. The petition must generally specify these assets.
  3. Court Orders and Actions by Execution Officers: Based on the petition, the execution court will issue the necessary orders (e.g., attachment orders to banks, auction orders for real estate). Court execution officers (shikkōkan) are responsible for carrying out the physical acts of execution, such as seizing movable property, posting notices on real estate, or conducting auctions.

IV. Challenges in Enforcing Judgments in Japan

While the legal framework for execution exists, creditors can face significant practical challenges:

A. Locating Debtor's Assets

This is often the single biggest hurdle in enforcing a monetary judgment in Japan, especially if the debtor is uncooperative or has attempted to conceal assets. Unlike the U.S. system with its robust post-judgment discovery tools (like debtor's examinations and third-party subpoenas for financial records), Japan's traditional mechanisms for asset discovery by creditors were more limited. However, recent reforms have aimed to improve this:

  1. Property Disclosure Procedure (Zaisan Kaiji Tetsuzuki - 財産開示手続) (Civil Execution Act Arts. 196-203):
    • A judgment creditor can petition the court to order the judgment debtor to appear in court (or a designated place) and disclose information about their assets under oath.
    • Historically, this procedure was often criticized for its lack of effectiveness due to weak penalties for non-appearance, refusal to disclose, or false disclosure.
    • Amendments to the Civil Execution Act (effective from April 2020) have sought to strengthen this procedure by, for example, increasing penalties for non-compliance and false statements, and broadening the scope of inquiry. However, its practical efficacy in uncovering well-hidden assets can still be a challenge.
  2. Procedure for Obtaining Information from Third Parties (第三者からの情報取得手続 - daisansha kara no jōhō shutoku tetsuzuki) (Civil Execution Act Arts. 204-211):
    • Also strengthened by recent reforms, this procedure allows a judgment creditor, through a court order, to obtain specific information about a debtor's assets directly from certain third parties. This includes:
      • Financial Institutions (Art. 205): Information about bank accounts (existence, branch, balance) and securities.
      • Public Registries (Art. 206): Information about real estate owned by the debtor from land registries.
      • Employers (Art. 207, if salary garnishment is sought): Information about salary payments.
    • This has proven to be a more effective tool than the old property disclosure system for identifying certain types of assets, particularly bank accounts.

B. Debtor's Obstruction or Insolvency

  • Asset Concealment: Determined debtors may still attempt to hide assets, transfer them to third parties, or move them offshore, making execution difficult.
  • Insolvency/Bankruptcy: If the debtor becomes insolvent or formally enters bankruptcy proceedings (破産手続 - hasan tetsuzuki), individual compulsory execution by a single creditor is generally stayed or prohibited. All claims must then be pursued through the collective bankruptcy process, where creditors usually receive only a pro-rata distribution.

C. Competing Creditors

If the debtor has multiple creditors all seeking to execute against limited assets, complex priority rules under the Civil Execution Act will determine the order and extent of distribution.

D. Cost and Time of Execution

Compulsory execution is not free. The creditor must bear further costs, including:

  • Court filing fees for execution petitions.
  • Fees for the services of court execution officers.
  • Costs associated with property appraisals and public auctions (e.g., registration license tax for attachment, auction deposits).
  • Legal fees for counsel assisting with the execution process.
    These costs can be substantial, and the process, especially for real estate auctions, can take considerable time.

V. Debtor's Defenses and Objections in Execution Proceedings

A judgment debtor is not without potential recourse during the execution phase:

  1. Action of Objection to Claim (Seikyū Igi no Uttae - 請求異議の訴え) (Civil Execution Act Art. 35):
    • This allows a debtor to file a new lawsuit to object to the enforcement of a title of obligation based on grounds that arose after the title of obligation became final and unappealable (or, for judgments, after the conclusion of oral arguments in the original suit).
    • Common grounds include: full or partial payment of the judgment debt after it was rendered, a subsequent release or waiver by the creditor, or the emergence of a set-off right based on a claim acquired post-judgment.
  2. Action of Objection to Grant of Certificate of Execution (執行文付与に対する異議の訴え - shikkōbun fuyo ni taisuru igi no uttae) (Civil Execution Act Art. 33): Allows the debtor to challenge the lawfulness of the issuance of the certificate of execution itself (e.g., if conditions for its issuance were not met).
  3. Action of Objection by a Third Party (Daisansha Igi no Uttae - 第三者異議の訴え) (Civil Execution Act Art. 38): If property that has been attached in execution proceedings against the debtor actually belongs to a third party (not the debtor), that third party can file this action to prevent its sale and assert their ownership rights.

VI. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan

As discussed in a prior article, enforcing a foreign judgment (e.g., from the U.S.) in Japan is a two-step process:

  1. Recognition of the Foreign Judgment: The foreign judgment must first satisfy the conditions for recognition under CCP Article 118 (finality, jurisdiction of the foreign court under Japanese standards, proper service/due process for the defendant, compatibility with Japanese public policy, and reciprocity).
  2. Obtaining an Execution Judgment (Shikkō Hanketsu): If recognized, the creditor must then file an action in a Japanese District Court to obtain an "execution judgment" under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. This Japanese execution judgment then serves as the domestic title of obligation for initiating compulsory execution against the debtor's assets in Japan.

VII. Conclusion

Obtaining a favorable civil judgment in Japan is a significant legal victory, but it often marks the beginning of a new phase: ensuring that the terms of the judgment are actually satisfied. The Japanese Civil Execution Act provides a comprehensive framework of procedures for the compulsory enforcement of various types of judgments against a non-compliant debtor, covering monetary claims through attachment of real property, movables, and third-party claims (garnishment), as well as non-monetary obligations.

However, the path to successful execution is not always smooth. Locating a debtor's assets can be a primary challenge, although recent legislative reforms have aimed to strengthen asset discovery tools like the property disclosure procedure and mechanisms for obtaining information from third parties. Debtors also have avenues to raise objections to the execution based on specific grounds.

For both domestic and international judgment creditors, a clear understanding of Japanese execution procedures, the available tools for asset discovery and seizure, potential obstacles, and the debtor's rights to object is crucial for effectively transforming a hard-won legal victory into tangible recovery. Strategic planning and, often, persistent effort are key to navigating this final stage of the dispute resolution process.