Monetary vs. Non-Monetary Claims in Japan: Valuation and Fee Implications

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read

In the realm of Japanese civil litigation, the initial determination of "Sogaku" (the value of the subject matter of an action) is a critical step that influences both court jurisdiction and the calculation of filing fees. A fundamental aspect of this determination lies in distinguishing between claims that concern property rights (zaisanken-jō no seikyū) and those that do not (hi-zaisanken-jō no seikyū). This classification dictates the methodology for calculating the "Sogaku" and, consequently, has significant financial implications for litigants. This article will explore this crucial distinction, detailing how "Sogaku" is assessed for each category and the resulting impact on court costs.

Understanding the Fundamental Distinction

Japanese civil procedure categorizes claims based on their primary objective and its relationship to economic interests.

  • Claims Concerning Property Rights (Zaisanken-jō no Seikyū): These are actions where the direct subject matter is an economic interest or a right that can be objectively assessed in monetary terms. Examples include claims for payment of money, delivery of goods, confirmation of ownership of property, or damages for breach of contract. The core of these claims revolves around quantifiable economic value.
  • Claims Not Concerning Property Rights (Hi-Zaisanken-jō no Seikyū): These are actions where the primary legal interest asserted is not directly economic, even if a successful outcome might have indirect economic consequences. Such claims often pertain to personal status (e.g., divorce, parentage), reputation, the exercise of certain personal rights, or specific types of injunctive relief not directly aimed at protecting a quantifiable monetary asset. For these claims, an objective economic valuation of the "interest asserted by the action" is inherently difficult or impossible.

The importance of this classification cannot be overstated, as it triggers entirely different pathways for "Sogaku" determination and, by extension, the calculation of court filing fees.

Valuation of Claims Concerning Property Rights (Zaisanken-jō no Seikyū)

For claims directly concerning property rights, the general principle is that the "Sogaku" is the objective economic value of the right or interest being asserted by the plaintiff. However, the specific method of valuation can vary depending on the nature of the claim and applicable legal provisions.

1. Specific Statutory Provisions

Certain Japanese statutes provide explicit rules for calculating "Sogaku" in particular types of property-related claims. This ensures uniformity and addresses the unique nature of these actions. Examples include:

  • Shareholder Derivative Suits: Under the Companies Act, shareholder derivative suits, although often seeking recovery of monetary damages for the company, have historically been treated, for the purpose of "Sogaku" calculation for court fees, as if they were claims not concerning property rights. This leads to the application of a deemed value (currently 950,000 yen) for calculating filing fees, rather than the potentially enormous sums being claimed on behalf of the company. This approach acknowledges the public interest aspect of such litigation and aims to avoid prohibitive upfront costs for shareholders acting in the company's interest.
  • Actions for Confirmation of Bankruptcy Claims: Article 252 of the Bankruptcy Act stipulates that the "Sogaku" for an action to confirm a bankruptcy claim shall be determined by the court of first instance, based on the estimated amount of distribution (dividend) that the claim is likely to receive from the bankruptcy estate. This reflects the reality that the actual recovery in bankruptcy is often a fraction of the nominal claim amount.
  • Actions for Confirmation of Rehabilitation Claims or Secured Rehabilitation Claims: Similarly, Article 156 of the Corporate Reorganization Act provides that the "Sogaku" for actions confirming such claims is determined by the reorganization court, based on the estimated amount of benefit the claimant is expected to receive under the reorganization plan.

These statutory directives take precedence over general valuation rules and highlight a pragmatic approach to valuing claims where the nominal amount might not reflect the actual economic stake or where policy considerations warrant a modified valuation method.

2. The "Sogaku Notification" as a Practical Guideline

When specific statutory rules are absent, the "Sogaku Notification" (Civil Affairs Bureau Director's Notice of December 12, 1956, No. Minji-Kō 412) serves as a crucial practical guideline for court clerks and practitioners in valuing various common types of property claims. This notice, while not legally binding, aims to ensure consistency and efficiency, particularly in the early stages of litigation when comprehensive evidence of value might be limited. It provides standardized approaches for claims involving real estate, possessory rights, leasehold rights, security interests, monetary payments, and the delivery of property.

3. Determining the "Value of the Object" (Mono no Kakaku)

A common element in valuing property claims is the assessment of the "value of the object" involved. The "Sogaku Notification" and general practice dictate the following primary methods:

  • Fixed Asset Taxable Value (Kotei Shisanzei no Kazei Hyōjun to Naru Kakaku): For real estate and other assets that have a registered taxable value for fixed asset tax purposes, this official valuation is the standard basis for "Sogaku". Parties typically submit a Certificate of Fixed Asset Valuation (kotei shisan hyōka shōmeisho) issued by the relevant municipal government to substantiate this value.
  • Transaction Price (Torihiki Kakaku): For assets that do not have a fixed asset taxable value, or where such a value is inappropriate (e.g., certain movables, intellectual property rights when being transacted), the actual transaction price or fair market value is used. This requires prima facie evidence of such value, which could include contracts, invoices, or market appraisals.

4. Cases Where Calculation is Extremely Difficult (Santei ga Kiwamete Konnan na Baai)

Even for claims that are, in principle, related to property rights, there are situations where an objective monetary valuation of the plaintiff's asserted interest is exceptionally challenging. Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses this by stating: "If it is extremely difficult to calculate the value of the object of the suit, such value shall be deemed to exceed 900,000 yen."

For the purpose of calculating court fees, this provision is read in conjunction with Article 4, Paragraph 2 (latter part) of the Costs Act. The practical effect is that such claims are assigned a deemed "Sogaku" of 950,000 yen for fee calculation purposes. This rule provides a pragmatic solution, preventing litigation from stalling due to intractable valuation disputes at the outset, while still assigning a significant, albeit standardized, value.

Examples of claims concerning property rights where valuation might be deemed "extremely difficult" and this rule applied include:

  • Certain types of residents' actions brought under the Local Autonomy Act (e.g., claims for damages pursued on behalf of a local government where the actual benefit to the individual plaintiff is diffuse and hard to quantify). A Supreme Court judgment of March 30, 1978 (Minshu Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 485) dealt with such a scenario, although under a previous version of the Costs Act with a lower deemed value.
  • Actions seeking injunctive relief based on the infringement of personality rights, where the primary harm is non-pecuniary but the claim is still classified as affecting property interests broadly defined (e.g., if it prevents economic activity).
  • Lawsuits for the nullification of an employee's dismissal or for the confirmation of employee status, where the future stream of benefits and the non-economic aspects of employment are complex to value precisely.

5. Other Considerations for Property Claims

  • Future Payments: Claims for future periodic payments (e.g., future installments of a debt, ongoing royalties) must be discounted to their present value at the time of filing the action. This involves deducting an amount equivalent to interim interest.
  • Creditor Subrogation Suits (Saikensha Dai Soshō): When a creditor exercises a right belonging to their debtor against a third party (a subrogation suit), the "Sogaku" is based on the value of the debtor's right being asserted. However, this is capped by the amount of the creditor's own underlying claim that they are seeking to protect through the subrogation action.

Valuation of Claims Not Concerning Property Rights (Hi-Zaisanken-jō no Seikyū)

This category encompasses claims where the direct legal interest or right asserted by the plaintiff is not primarily economic in nature, making a direct monetary valuation impossible or inappropriate.

1. Definition and Nature

Claims not concerning property rights are those where the lawsuit's core objective is unrelated to a quantifiable economic benefit, even if a favorable judgment might have some indirect financial consequences for the plaintiff. The focus is on rights or statuses that are inherently non-pecuniary.

2. The Deemed Value Rule for "Sogaku"

Given the impossibility of objectively calculating an economic value for such claims, Japanese law provides a standardized approach for determining their "Sogaku" for procedural purposes, particularly for fee calculation. Article 4, Paragraph 2 (first part) of the Costs Act establishes a deemed "Sogaku" for all claims not concerning property rights.

Currently, this deemed "Sogaku" is fixed at 950,000 yen. This means that, for the purpose of calculating court filing fees, every claim that falls into this "non-property right" category is treated as if its value is 950,000 yen. This ensures uniformity and predictability in fee assessment for a diverse range of non-economic claims.

3. Examples of Claims Not Concerning Property Rights

The following are common examples of actions that are typically classified as claims not concerning property rights, and thus subject to the 950,000 yen deemed "Sogaku":

  • Personal Status Litigation: This is a broad category including:
    • Actions for divorce or annulment of marriage.
    • Actions concerning parent-child relationships, such as acknowledgment of paternity or declaration of non-paternity.
    • Actions for the nullification of company incorporation.
  • Corporate Governance and Status Claims:
    • Actions seeking the rescission or nullification of shareholder meeting resolutions (where the resolution itself does not directly award a quantifiable sum to the plaintiff).
    • (Note: As mentioned earlier, shareholder derivative suits are also treated this way for "Sogaku" purposes, despite the ultimate aim often being monetary recovery for the company).
  • Protection of Non-Economic Personal Rights:
    • Claims focusing purely on the protection of name rights or portrait rights, where no specific economic loss is being claimed.
    • Actions for the delivery of an infant.
  • Certain Administrative Litigation:
    • Lawsuits challenging administrative dispositions that do not directly involve economic loss or gain for the plaintiff, such as disputes over election results or confirmation of nationality.

Implications for Court Fees: A Comparative View

The distinction between these two types of claims directly impacts the court fees payable:

  • Claims Concerning Property Rights (Calculable "Sogaku"): Fees are calculated based on the actual (or statutorily defined) economic value, using the tiered schedule. This can result in a wide range of fee amounts, from relatively low for small monetary claims to very substantial for high-value commercial disputes.
  • Claims Concerning Property Rights (Valuation Extremely Difficult): These are treated as having a "Sogaku" of 950,000 yen for fee calculation, leading to a standardized fee corresponding to that value. This fee is identical to that for non-property claims.
  • Claims Not Concerning Property Rights: These are uniformly assigned a "Sogaku" of 950,000 yen, resulting in a fixed, predictable filing fee (based on the historical fee for 950,000 yen, this would be 8,200 yen, but current schedules must be checked).

This system means that a complex, high-stakes divorce case (a non-property claim) and a commercial claim where the property value is exceptionally difficult to ascertain (a property claim treated as non-property for valuation) could attract the same initial filing fee if both are assigned the 950,000 yen deemed value. This contrasts sharply with a straightforward debt collection case for, say, 50 million yen, which would incur a significantly higher fee based on its actual "Sogaku."

A Brief Note on Administrative Litigation

The principles discussed generally extend to administrative litigation in Japan. Article 7 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act provides that the Act on Costs of Civil Procedure applies to administrative cases. Thus, claims in administrative litigation are also distinguished as either concerning property rights or not, and their "Sogaku" is calculated following civil litigation precedents. For instance:

  • Challenges to tax assessments or land expropriation orders are typically claims concerning property rights, valued based on the tax amount in dispute or the value of the property rights affected.
  • Disputes over election validity or nationality status are claims not concerning property rights and would generally take the deemed value.

Conclusion: A Critical First Step in Japanese Litigation

Correctly classifying a claim as either "concerning property rights" or "not concerning property rights" is a critical initial step in Japanese civil litigation. This determination is not merely a theoretical exercise; it fundamentally shapes the approach to "Sogaku" valuation, which in turn has direct and significant consequences for establishing court jurisdiction and, crucially, for calculating the initial court filing fees.

For businesses and legal practitioners, whether domestic or international, navigating this distinction accurately is vital for strategic case planning, effective cost management, and ensuring procedural compliance. While the general principles provide a roadmap, the nuances of specific claim types, the evolving nature of legal interpretations, and potential legislative amendments to fee structures mean that consultation with experienced Japanese legal counsel is always advisable, particularly in complex or high-value matters, or where the classification or valuation of a claim is ambiguous. This ensures that the "Sogaku" is appropriately determined, paving the way for a smoother progression through the Japanese judicial process.