Interrupting the Clock: Tolling and Resetting Statutes of Limitations (Jikō) in Japanese Civil Code

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

30 May 2025 • 9 min read

As discussed previously, the Japanese legal doctrine of Shōmetsu Jikō (消滅時効), or extinctive prescription (akin to statutes of limitations), dictates that claims can be extinguished if not exercised within statutory timeframes. However, the mere passage of time is not always an unstoppable march towards the loss of rights. The Japanese Civil Code provides several important mechanisms that can "interrupt the clock," effectively pausing its progression or resetting it entirely. Significant reforms to the Civil Code, effective April 1, 2020, have reorganized and clarified these concepts, moving away from the older terminology of "interruption" (chūdan - 中断) and "suspension" (teishi - 停止) to the more precise terms of "Renewal of Prescription" (Jikō no Kōshin - 時効の更新) and "Postponement of Completion of Prescription" (Jikō no Kansei Yūyo - 時効の完成猶予). Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for both creditors seeking to preserve their claims and debtors assessing their potential liabilities.

The Core Concepts: Renewal vs. Postponement of Completion

Before delving into specific grounds, it's essential to grasp the distinction between these two primary ways prescription can be affected:

Renewal of Prescription (Jikō no Kōshin):
When an event leading to "renewal" occurs, the entire prescription period that has elapsed up to that point becomes legally meaningless. A brand new prescription period begins to run from a specified subsequent point, typically from the time the ground for renewal ceases to exist or from the finalization of a related legal process. This is functionally similar to the effect of "interruption" under the pre-2020 law.
Postponement of Completion of Prescription (Jikō no Kansei Yūyo):
When a ground for "postponement of completion" exists, the prescription period does not complete (i.e., the claim is not extinguished) as long as that ground persists, and usually for a certain additional period after the ground ceases. The key difference from renewal is that the time that had already elapsed before the postponement event began is still counted towards the overall prescription period. The clock is effectively paused, not reset. This is similar to the concept of "suspension" under the old law.

The rationale behind these systems is to ensure fairness. If circumstances arise that make it difficult, impossible, or unreasonable to expect a rights-holder to exercise their right (e.g., they are actively pursuing it through legal channels, or the debtor has acknowledged the debt, or external factors impede action), it would be unjust to allow the prescription period to simply run out and extinguish the right.

Grounds for Renewal and/or Postponement of Completion of Prescription

The Japanese Civil Code (Articles 147 through 161) details various events and circumstances that can lead to the renewal or postponement of the completion of prescription.

1. Judicial Claims and Other Formal Legal Proceedings (Article 147)

Actively pursuing a right through formal legal channels is a primary way to prevent prescription from completing. Article 147 covers a range of such actions:

Actions Covered:
- Filing a lawsuit (uttae - 訴え) for performance of an obligation, for confirmation of a right, or for the formation of a legal relationship.
- A demand for payment through summary court proceedings (shiharai tokusoku - 支払督促).
- A summons for conciliation or participation in civil conciliation proceedings (chōtei - 調停).
- An application for the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, rehabilitation proceedings, or reorganization proceedings against the debtor.
Effect on Prescription:
- Postponement of Completion: The initiation of any of these formal legal proceedings causes the postponement of the completion of prescription for the claim being asserted. This postponement continues until the respective legal procedure concludes.
- Renewal: If the legal proceeding results in a final and binding judgment (kakutei hanketsu - 確定判決) or an equivalent outcome (such as a successful court-mediated settlement, a confirmed claim in bankruptcy, or a finalized conciliation) that confirms the existence of the right, then prescription is renewed. The new prescription period (typically 10 years for rights confirmed by a final judgment, as per Article 169, Paragraph 1) starts to run anew from the time the judgment or equivalent outcome becomes final and binding.
- If Action is Dismissed Without Prejudice or Withdrawn: If the legal action is dismissed by the court without a judgment on the merits (kyakka - 却下, e.g., for procedural flaws not precluding a new suit) or is withdrawn by the claimant, the postponement effect provided by Article 147 ceases. In such cases, prescription will complete six months after the date of dismissal or withdrawal, unless the claimant takes further action that leads to renewal (such as refiling the suit properly) within that six-month window.

The effect of these actions is generally limited to the specific right asserted in the proceedings and as between the parties to those proceedings.

2. Demand (Saikoku) (Article 150)

A "demand" (saikoku - 催告) is a notice from the creditor to the debtor requesting performance of the obligation. It serves as a less formal, preliminary step to assert a right.

Nature of Demand: It must be a clear assertion of the right and a demand for performance. While it can be made judicially (e.g., a formal notice served via a court process), it can also be extra-judicial (e.g., a registered letter, a clear email clearly demanding payment).
Effect on Prescription: A demand causes the postponement of the completion of prescription for a period of six months from the time the demand is made.
Limitation and Purpose: This six-month postponement is a temporary measure. Its primary purpose is to give the creditor a window of opportunity to take more definitive legal action (such as filing a lawsuit as covered by Article 147) if the demand does not result in performance or acknowledgment from the debtor. If such definitive action (which would itself lead to postponement and potential renewal) is taken within this six-month period, the effects of that definitive action will supersede the effect of the mere demand.
No Repeated Postponement by Demands Alone: Crucially, a creditor cannot indefinitely postpone prescription by repeatedly issuing demands. Article 150, Paragraph 2 clarifies that a subsequent demand made during the six-month postponement period initiated by a prior demand does not grant any further postponement.

3. Acknowledgment (Shōnin) (Article 152)

An "acknowledgment" (shōnin - 承認) of a right by the person against whom it is asserted (typically the debtor acknowledging a debt) is a powerful event affecting prescription.

Nature of Acknowledgment: It is an act by the debtor or other obligor that admits or recognizes the existence of the creditor's right. No specific form is required. Acknowledgment can be:
- Explicit: A clear statement, written or oral (e.g., "I acknowledge that I owe you the sum of ¥X").
- Implicit: Inferred from conduct that unequivocally indicates recognition of the debt. Common examples of implicit acknowledgment recognized by courts include making a partial payment towards the principal of the debt, paying interest due on the debt, requesting a deferral of payment, or providing security for the debt. (See, e.g., Supreme Court, February 23, 2006, Minshu Vol. 60, No. 2, p. 507, regarding payment of interest as acknowledgment).
Effect on Prescription: Acknowledgment causes a renewal of prescription. A new prescription period (e.g., the standard 5 or 10 years for a claim under Article 166(1)) begins to run from the time of the acknowledgment.
Who Can Acknowledge: The acknowledgment must be made by the debtor or their duly authorized agent. An acknowledgment made by a person with limited legal capacity (e.g., a minor) may be subject to cancellation unless made with the consent of their legal representative or if it's an act they can validly perform alone.
To Whom: The acknowledgment should typically be made to the rights-holder (creditor) or their agent.
No Need for Awareness of Right or Dispositive Authority by Acknowledger (Article 152, Paragraph 2 - Revised): For an acknowledgment to effect a renewal of prescription, the person making the acknowledgment (e.g., the debtor) does not need to be specifically aware of the legal existence of the right they are acknowledging, nor do they need to have the authority to dispose of that right. This distinguishes acknowledgment for prescription purposes from, for example, the ratification of an unauthorized agent's act, which often requires knowledge.
Acknowledgment After Prescription Has Already Completed: If a prescription period has already run its full course and the benefit of prescription has been (or could be) invoked by the debtor, a subsequent acknowledgment by the debtor generally cannot revive the extinguished right. However, if a debtor makes an acknowledgment after prescription has completed but before they invoke it, and then later tries to invoke prescription, courts may view such invocation as an act contrary to good faith or as an implicit waiver of the benefit of the completed prescription, potentially precluding them from relying on it (Supreme Court, March 24, 2000, Minshu Vol. 54, No. 3, p. 1060).

4. Agreement to Negotiate (Kyōgi o Okonau Mune no Gōi) (Article 151 – New Provision)

A significant addition in the 2020 Civil Code reforms is the formal recognition of an "agreement to negotiate" as a ground for postponing the completion of prescription.

Concept: This applies when the parties to a potential dispute concerning a right agree in writing to engage in negotiations regarding that right.
Effect on Prescription: Such a written agreement causes the postponement of the completion of prescription. The postponement lasts for the earliest of the following periods:
- One year from the date of the agreement.
- The period (up to a maximum of one year from the agreement) that the parties have specifically agreed upon in writing for their negotiations.
- Six months from the date one party gives a written notice to the other party formally terminating the negotiations.
Overall Cap: The total postponement achievable through one or more such agreements concerning the same right cannot extend the original prescription completion date by more than five years in aggregate.
Requirements: The agreement must be in writing and must clearly identify the right that is the subject of the negotiations.
Rationale: This provision is designed to encourage and facilitate out-of-court dispute resolution. It allows parties to negotiate a settlement without the immediate pressure of an impending prescription deadline forcing one side to file a lawsuit merely to preserve their claim.

Effects of Renewal or Postponement on Third Parties

As a general rule, the effects of the renewal or postponement of the completion of prescription are relative (sōtaikō - 相対効). This means they primarily affect only the direct parties involved in the ground for renewal/postponement (e.g., the creditor and the principal debtor who acknowledged the debt, or the parties to the judicial claim).

An important statutory exception concerns guarantors. Article 457, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code provides that an interruption of prescription (now renewal) effected against the principal debtor is also effective against a guarantor. This is due to the accessory nature (fujūsei - 付従性) of the guarantee obligation; the guarantor's liability is dependent on the existence of the principal debt. However, the converse is not true: a renewal effected against a guarantor does not typically affect the prescription period running for the principal debtor. The effects on other related parties, such as joint and several obligors or third-party acquirers of mortgaged property, involve more detailed rules beyond the scope of this general overview.

Conclusion: Proactive Management of Prescription Periods is Key

The Japanese Civil Code provides a comprehensive set of rules governing how the running of statutes of limitations (shōmetsu jikō) can be "interrupted" – now more precisely termed "renewed" (kōshin) or "postponed in its completion" (kansei yūyo). These mechanisms, which include formal judicial claims, extra-judicial demands, acknowledgments by the debtor, and the newly introduced written agreement to negotiate, are vital tools for preserving legal rights. Understanding these grounds, their specific effects (resetting the clock vs. pausing it), their duration, and their limitations is crucial for both creditors seeking to safeguard their claims and for debtors assessing their ongoing liabilities and potential defenses. The 2020 Civil Code reforms have aimed to clarify, modernize, and in some areas, provide more practical solutions (like the agreement to negotiate) for managing these critical time limits. Proactive legal counsel and diligent monitoring of claim statuses remain essential for navigating these provisions effectively and avoiding the unintended and often irreversible loss of rights due to the mere passage of time.