In Japanese civil litigation, it is common for a plaintiff to assert multiple claims against a defendant in a single lawsuit. This "objective joinder of claims" (訴えの客観的併合 - uttae no kakkan-teki heigō) can take various forms, such as simple joinder, alternative joinder, or preliminary joinder. When a first-instance court renders a judgment addressing these multiple claims, and a party decides to appeal (控訴 - kōso), the critical question becomes: which of these joined claims are transferred to the appellate court (移審 - ishin) and become the subject of appellate review? The answer hinges on the nature of the joinder, the appellant's specific statement of dissatisfaction (不服申立て - fufuku mōshitate), and the underlying principles of Japanese appellate procedure.

The General Principle: Divisibility and the Scope of Transfer

As a starting point, if the multiple claims decided by the first-instance court are legally and factually divisible, an appeal against the judgment on one claim does not automatically bring the judgment on the other, unappealed claims before the appellate court. The scope of the appellate review is primarily determined by the extent of the appellant's dissatisfaction as expressed in their appeal petition and statement of reasons.

For example, if a plaintiff sues for ¥5 million based on a breach of contract (Claim A) and, in the same lawsuit, for ¥3 million based on an unrelated tort (Claim B), and the court awards ¥5 million for Claim A but dismisses Claim B:

• If the plaintiff appeals only the dismissal of Claim B, the judgment on Claim A (if not appealed by the defendant) can become final and binding independently. Only Claim B is transferred to the appellate court.
• This reflects the principle that where claims are severable, the effects of an appeal (suspensive effect on finality and devolutive effect of transferring jurisdiction) are generally limited to the specific part of the judgment challenged.

However, the situation becomes more complex depending on the type of joinder used for the claims.

Appeals in Cases of Simple Joinder (単純併合 - Tanjun Heigō)

Simple joinder involves combining two or more independent claims in one lawsuit for convenience (e.g., multiple contractual claims arising from different agreements, or a monetary claim and a claim for specific performance of an unrelated obligation).

• Independent Appealability: Because the claims are distinct, an appeal against the judgment on one simply joined claim usually has no direct bearing on the judgment concerning other simply joined claims.
• Finality of Unappealed Claims: If the first-instance court rules on Claim X and Claim Y, and the appellant only expresses dissatisfaction with and appeals the ruling on Claim X, the ruling on Claim Y (if not appealed by the opposing party within the statutory period) will become final and binding. The appellate court will only adjudicate Claim X.
• Need for Specificity: The appellant must clearly specify which of the simply joined claims they are appealing. If the appeal is ambiguous, the court may need to seek clarification.

Appeals in Cases of Alternative Joinder (選択的併合 - Sentakuteki Heigō)

Alternative joinder occurs when a plaintiff asserts two or more claims that are legally alternative, meaning that if one is valid, the others cannot be, or that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under only one of them. The plaintiff asks the court to grant one of the claims. For example, a claim for performance of a contract or, if the contract is found invalid, a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment concerning the same transaction.

The appellate treatment of alternatively joined claims can be intricate:

1. First-Instance Court Grants One Claim, Dismisses Others (or does not rule on them):
   • If Defendant Appeals the Granted Claim: Suppose the court grants Claim A and dismisses (or does not rule on) alternative Claim B. If the defendant appeals the judgment on Claim A, and the appellate court finds merit in the defendant's appeal and is inclined to overturn the grant of Claim A, it must then proceed to examine Claim B. This is because the alternative claim was presented as a fallback, and its condition for consideration (failure of Claim A) has now potentially arisen at the appellate level. The appellate court cannot simply reverse on Claim A and leave Claim B unadjudicated if it was properly part of the alternative joinder.
   • If Plaintiff Appeals (e.g., seeking the alternative claim instead): If the plaintiff won on Claim A but would have preferred to win on Claim B (perhaps for reasons related to the legal basis or enforceability), appealing this can be problematic. If the economic outcome or essential relief is the same, the plaintiff might be deemed to lack a sufficient "grievance" (上訴の利益 - jōso no rieki) to appeal a judgment that is substantively in their favor. However, if there are distinct legal advantages to prevailing on Claim B, an appeal might be entertained.
2. First-Instance Court Dismisses All Alternative Claims:
   If the court dismisses all alternatively joined claims, and the plaintiff appeals, they can appeal the dismissal of all claims, or they may strategically choose to focus their appeal on what they perceive as their strongest alternative claim. The appellate court would then review the appealed claims.

It is noted by legal commentators that true alternative joinder, where claims are mutually exclusive in a strict legal sense, is less common than situations where claims are presented in a ranked order of preference, which often shades into preliminary joinder. The proper identification of the nature of the joinder by the first-instance court is crucial for determining the scope of appellate review.

Appeals in Cases of Preliminary Joinder (予備的併合 - Yobiteki Heigō): The "If-Then" Scenarios

Preliminary joinder is where the plaintiff asserts a primary claim and one or more secondary (or "preliminary") claims. The secondary claim(s) are to be adjudicated by the court only if the primary claim (or a preceding claim in the sequence) is dismissed or found to be without merit. This "if-then" structure has specific consequences for appeals.

A. Proper Preliminary Joinder (本来の予備的併合 - Honrai no Yobiteki Heigō)
This is the classic form: the secondary claim is adjudicated only if the primary claim fails.

1. Scenario: Primary Claim Granted (Secondary Claim Not Judged by First Instance)
   • Defendant Appeals and Primary Claim is Overturned by Appellate Court: If the defendant appeals the judgment granting the primary claim, and the appellate court agrees with the defendant and sets aside the judgment on the primary claim, the appellate court must then proceed to adjudicate the plaintiff's secondary claim. The condition for the secondary claim's examination (i.e., the failure of the primary claim) has now been met at the appellate level. The case does not automatically revert to the first instance for this purpose; the appellate court, as a court of continuation, handles it.
   • Plaintiff Appeals (e.g., on the amount awarded for the primary claim, or if seeking an even more favorable primary outcome): If the plaintiff appeals some aspect of the granted primary claim, and this appeal somehow leads to the primary claim being ultimately found invalid by the appellate court, then the secondary claim would similarly come up for review.
2. Scenario: Primary Claim Dismissed, Secondary Claim Granted by First Instance
   • Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Primary Claim: If the plaintiff appeals, seeking to have their primary claim granted, and the appellate court agrees, reversing the dismissal of the primary claim and granting it, then the basis for the first-instance court's judgment on the secondary claim (which was conditional on the primary failing) effectively disappears. In such a case, the appellate court would typically also set aside the first-instance judgment regarding the secondary claim.
   • Defendant Appeals Grant of Secondary Claim: If the defendant appeals the judgment that granted the plaintiff's secondary claim (while the primary claim remained dismissed), the appellate court reviews the merits of the secondary claim. Its review may also implicitly or explicitly affirm the dismissal of the primary claim as a predicate to assessing the secondary claim. If the appellate court finds the secondary claim was also wrongly granted, it will modify the judgment accordingly.

B. "Improper" Preliminary Joinder (いわゆる予備的併合 / 不真正予備的併合 - Iwayuru Yobiteki Heigō / Fuseishin Yobiteki Heigō)
Sometimes parties rank claims for convenience, even if they aren't strictly conditional in a legal sense (e.g., a plaintiff primarily seeks specific performance of a contract, and secondarily seeks damages for breach if specific performance is not granted, even if both could theoretically be awarded or parts of both). In such cases, the first-instance court might actually rule on both the primary and secondary "ranked" claims. If so, an appeal against one part would be treated more like an appeal in a simple joinder concerning that specific ruling, but the logical relationship between the claims would still be relevant for the appellate court's overall disposition if the appealed part is modified.

The Role of "Appellant's Interest/Grievance" (上訴の利益)

A fundamental prerequisite for any appeal is that the appellant must have a legitimate "interest" or "grievance" (jōso no rieki) against the first-instance judgment. A party who received everything they asked for regarding a specific claim generally cannot appeal that part of the judgment, even if they are unhappy with the court's reasoning. This principle applies to each joined claim individually if they are divisible. If an appeal is lodged concerning a claim where no grievance exists, that part of the appeal may be dismissed as inadmissible.

Interaction with Prohibition of Disadvantageous Modification and Cross-Appeals

When dealing with appeals involving joined claims, the "prohibition of disadvantageous modification" (furieki henkō kinshi no gensoku) remains vital. If only one party appeals concerning one of several divisible claims (e.g., plaintiff appeals the amount of damages on Claim A but not the dismissal of Claim B), the appellate court cannot worsen the appellant's position on Claim A or on the unappealed Claim B to their detriment, unless the appellee files a cross-appeal (附帯控訴 - futai kōso) challenging those parts.

A cross-appeal by the appellee allows them to bring other parts of the judgment, or their own grievances concerning the appealed claims, before the appellate court, thereby expanding the scope of review.

Strategic Drafting of the Appeal Petition

When multiple claims have been adjudicated, it is crucial for the appellant to clearly and precisely state in their appeal petition (控訴状 - kōsojō) and particularly in their Statement of Reasons for Appeal (控訴理由書 - kōso riyūsho):

• Which specific claims decided by the first-instance court they are appealing.
• The extent of their dissatisfaction with the judgment on those claims.
• The specific relief they are seeking from the appellate court for each appealed claim.

Ambiguity can lead to confusion about the scope of the appeal, potentially affecting court fee calculations, the matters reviewed by the appellate court, and the finality of unappealed portions of the judgment.

Conclusion

Navigating appeals in Japanese civil cases involving objectively joined claims requires a careful understanding of the type of joinder employed at first instance and a precise articulation of the scope of dissatisfaction in the appeal. While the "continuation system" allows the appellate court to re-examine claims, the extent of this re-examination for joined claims is largely dictated by the appellant's initiative (and any cross-appeal by the appellee). For divisible claims in a simple joinder, unappealed portions can become final. For alternatively or preliminarily joined claims, the appellate court must respect the logical and conditional relationships between the claims, often meaning that overturning a decision on one claim necessitates the adjudication of other joined claims that were dependent on that outcome. This complex interplay underscores the need for strategic clarity when bringing multi-claim judgments before an appellate court.