Japan Compliance

When businesses interact with public entities in Japan—be it through regulatory filings, government contracts, or collaborative projects—the exchange and handling of personal information are often involved. Japan has a comprehensive legal framework, primarily the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (個人情報の保護に関する法律 - Kojin Jōhō no Hogo ni

In an increasingly globalized business environment, access to information held by government bodies can be critical for transparency, accountability, strategic decision-making, and ensuring fair regulatory treatment. Japan, like many other developed nations, has a legal framework for such access: the Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs (行政機関の保有する情報の公開に関する法律

Businesses operating in Japan, like anywhere else, may encounter administrative decisions from government agencies that adversely affect their interests. These could range from the denial of a crucial license to the imposition of a burdensome order or a tax assessment perceived as incorrect. When such situations arise, understanding the available

One of the most distinctive, and often perplexing, features of the Japanese administrative landscape for international businesses is the practice of "administrative guidance" (行政指導 - gyōsei shidō). Unlike formal laws or legally binding administrative acts, administrative guidance operates in a more nuanced space. This article explores the nature

Navigating the legal landscape in Japan can present unique challenges and concepts for foreign businesses. One such fundamental concept in Japanese administrative law is the "administrative act" (行政行為 - gyosei koi). While it might sound abstract, understanding administrative acts is crucial as they directly impact how government agencies

In Japanese civil litigation, a court's judgment does not necessarily mark the absolute end of a dispute. The legal system provides mechanisms for parties who believe a judgment is erroneous or unjust to seek further review or, in extraordinary circumstances, to challenge a judgment that has already become

Many legal disputes extend beyond a simple one-on-one confrontation, involving multiple claimants, numerous defendants, or third parties whose interests are intrinsically linked to the outcome. Japanese civil procedure, like other modern legal systems, provides a range of mechanisms to manage these complex "multi-party lawsuits" (tasū tōjisha soshō -

Settlement is a common and often preferred method for resolving civil disputes, allowing parties to reach a mutually agreeable outcome without the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial and judgment. In Japan, as in many other jurisdictions, parties can settle their disputes either privately, outside the formal court

The doctrine of res judicata (既判力 - kihanryoku) is fundamental to ensuring the finality of court judgments in Japan. As a general rule, it prevents the parties from re-litigating the same legal claim (soshōbutsu - 訴訟物, or subject matter of litigation) that has already been definitively decided by a final

The principle of res judicata (既判力 - kihanryoku) is a cornerstone of civil justice, signifying that a final judgment from a court is conclusive and binding, preventing the re-litigation of the same matter between the same parties. While the "objective scope" of res judicata defines what specific determinations

A fundamental principle in any well-ordered legal system is that of res judicata (既判力 - kihanryoku), the doctrine ensuring the finality and binding effect of a court judgment. Once a judgment becomes final and unappealable, it generally prevents the same parties (or those in privity with them) from re-litigating the

A cornerstone of any mature legal system is the principle of res judicata (既判力 - kihanryoku), which accords finality to court judgments. Once a judgment becomes final and binding, it generally prevents the parties from re-litigating the same claims or issues that were, or could have been, decided. In Japan,

In any civil litigation, documentary evidence often plays a pivotal role in establishing facts and determining the outcome of a dispute. But what happens when crucial documents are in the hands of the opposing party or even a third party who is unwilling to voluntarily disclose them? Japanese civil procedure

The resolution of many civil lawsuits ultimately turns on the determination of disputed facts. How judges in Japan approach this critical task of fact-finding is governed by two intertwined core principles: Jiyū Shinshō Shugi (自由心証主義), the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, and Shōmei-do (証明度), the Standard of Proof. These

Successfully navigating civil litigation in Japan, as in any jurisdiction, requires more than simply asserting a desired outcome. It demands a systematic approach to identifying, pleading, and ultimately proving the specific factual circumstances that, under substantive law, give rise to the legal rights or defenses being claimed. The framework governing

Japanese civil procedure is fundamentally rooted in the Benron Shugi (Principle of Party Presentation), which places the primary responsibility on the litigating parties to present the factual allegations and supporting evidence that form the basis of their case. However, this party-driven system is not one where the judge remains entirely

In the course of Japanese civil litigation, statements made by parties can have profound consequences. One of the most significant is the saiban-jō no jihaku, or "judicial admission." This occurs when a party formally acknowledges the truth of an unfavorable factual allegation made by their opponent. Such an

A fundamental characteristic of civil litigation in Japan is the principle known as Benron Shugi. Often translated as the "Principle of Party Presentation" or sometimes reflecting aspects of the adversarial system, it dictates that the primary responsibility for introducing the factual allegations and supporting evidence necessary to decide

The principle of Nijū Kiso Kinshi, or the Prohibition of Double Litigation, enshrined in Article 142 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), is a fundamental tenet of civil procedure. In its most straightforward application, it prevents a party from initiating a new lawsuit based on a claim that

For a civil lawsuit to proceed to a judgment on its merits in Japan, the claimant must demonstrate more than just a grievance; they must establish what is known as uttae no rieki. This term, often translated as "interest to sue," "standing to sue," or "

Corporations, as distinct legal entities, participate in civil litigation through individuals who act on their behalf—their legal representatives. This raises fundamental questions within Japanese civil procedure: How is the authority of such a representative established and verified? And, more critically, what are the legal consequences if a person purports

In Japanese civil procedure, the general rule is that a lawsuit is pursued by the person who holds the rights or obligations at the heart of the dispute. However, there are exceptions where a third party—someone other than the direct rights-holder—is permitted to conduct litigation. This capacity is

In the landscape of Japanese civil litigation, there are circumstances where a party may sue not to enforce their own direct right, but to exercise a right belonging to another. This is a form of third-party litigation authorized by statute. A prime example of this is the creditor's