Recovering Movable Property in Japan: What are the Essential Claims and Defenses in Delivery Disputes?

Disputes over the possession of movable property (動産 - dōsan) are common in commercial dealings. When a party believes they are the rightful owner of such property currently held by another, Japanese civil litigation offers a path to recovery. This article outlines the essential facts (要件事実 - yokenjijitsu) an owner must prove to claim delivery of movable property, as well as the typical defenses an occupant might raise. Understanding these elements is crucial for effectively asserting rights or defending against claims concerning movables in Japan.

The primary claim an owner makes to recover movable property is a vindicatory claim (所有権に基づく返還請求権 - shoyūken ni motozuku henkan seikyūken), based on their ownership right.

I. The Owner's Claim: Essential Facts for Delivery (所有権に基づく引渡請求の要件事実)

To succeed in a claim for the delivery of movable property (動産引渡請求 - dōsan hikiwatashi seikyū), the plaintiff owner must allege and prove two fundamental essential facts:

A. Proving Plaintiff's Ownership (原告の所有権の立証)

The plaintiff must establish their current ownership of the specific movable property in question at the time of the conclusion of oral arguments. The method of pleading and proving ownership can vary depending on the specifics of the case and the defendant's anticipated arguments, much like in disputes over real estate:

• If the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's past ownership but claims a subsequent loss of title by the plaintiff, the plaintiff focuses on their ownership at the relevant juncture.
• If the plaintiff acquired the movable from a previous owner ('A'), and the defendant also claims acquisition from 'A', the plaintiff must prove 'A's ownership and their own valid acquisition from 'A'.
• If the defendant admits the plaintiff's current ownership but claims a right to possess the movable (e.g., under a lease), the plaintiff's burden regarding ownership is simplified by this admission.

B. Proving Defendant's Possession (被告の占有の立証)

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant is currently in possession (占有 - senyū) of the movable property. Possession means exercising factual control over the item. This can be direct physical control or indirect control through an agent.

As with claims for real estate, the plaintiff does not initially need to prove that the defendant's possession is unlawful or that the defendant lacks a valid title to possess. The burden of proving a valid right to possess falls on the defendant as an affirmative defense.

II. Ancillary Claims by the Owner (所有者による附帯請求)

Besides the return of the property itself, an owner may have ancillary claims:

A. Damages for Unlawful Detention (不法な占有に対する損害賠償)

If the defendant's possession is unlawful, the owner can claim damages for the period they were deprived of the use of their property. This claim is typically based on tort law (Article 709 of the Civil Code) and requires proof of the infringement of the ownership right, the defendant's intent or negligence, the occurrence and amount of damage (e.g., equivalent to rental value or loss of use), and causation.

B. Claim for Monetary Compensation in Lieu of Delivery (引渡に代わる金銭賠償請求 - Daishō Seikyū)

In cases where the specific movable property cannot be returned or enforcement of a delivery order is unsuccessful, the plaintiff may seek monetary compensation equivalent to the market value of the goods (代償請求 - daishō seikyū). This is often framed as a tort claim. The plaintiff would need to prove their original claim for delivery and the market value of the goods, usually as of the time of the conclusion of oral arguments. This is a distinct claim that can be joined with the primary claim for delivery, anticipating potential difficulties in actual recovery (see Article 31(2) of the Civil Execution Act).

III. Key Defenses Raised by the Possessor (占有者の主要な抗弁)

A defendant in possession of movable property may raise several defenses against the owner's claim:

A. Challenges to Plaintiff's Ownership (所有権の喪失・不存在の主張)

The defendant might argue that the plaintiff is not (or is no longer) the true owner.

1. Sale by Plaintiff to a Third Party (第三者への売却): The defendant could assert that the plaintiff sold the movable to someone else, thereby divesting themselves of ownership. The plaintiff might then rebut this by proving the alleged sale was fictitious, was validly rescinded, or was subject to an unfulfilled retention of title clause.
2. Accord and Satisfaction (代物弁済 - Daibutsu Bensai) involving the Plaintiff: The defendant might claim that the plaintiff transferred ownership of the movable to the defendant (or a third party from whom the defendant derives their right) as an accord and satisfaction for a pre-existing debt owed by the plaintiff. To establish acquisition of ownership through daibutsu bensai, the defendant generally needs to prove the agreement to transfer the specific movable in lieu of the debt performance and the existence of the underlying debt. Unlike when daibutsu bensai is argued as extinguishing a debt (where delivery/perfection is often key), the transfer of ownership itself in a daibutsu bensai (which is a consensual contract under Article 482 of the Civil Code) is generally considered to occur upon the agreement of the parties.
3. Defendant's Immediate Acquisition (即時取得 - Sokuji Shutoku) from a Third Party (Article 192 of the Civil Code): This is a significant doctrine unique to movable property, allowing a person who, in good faith and without negligence, transacts to acquire a movable from someone who appears to be the owner but is not, to immediately acquire ownership if they take possession peacefully and openly.
   • Essential Facts for the Defendant (Acquirer):
     • A transaction aiming at the transfer of ownership or use (e.g., sale, pledge) with a third party ('B') who possessed the movable.
     • Delivery (引渡し - hikiwatashi) of the movable from 'B' to the defendant. Delivery can be actual physical transfer, simplified delivery (if the acquirer already possessed the item), or delivery by direction. However, "possessory revision" (占有改定 - sen'yū kaitei), where the transferor agrees to hold the item for the transferee henceforth, is not sufficient for immediate acquisition (Judgments of the Supreme Court, December 27, 1957, Minshu Vol. 11, No. 14, p. 2485; February 11, 1960, Minshu Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 168).
   • Presumptions Favoring the Acquirer: Peaceful and open possession, good faith (believing the transferor 'B' had the right to dispose of the movable), and absence of negligence are generally presumed in favor of the defendant (Article 186(1) and Article 188 of the Civil Code). (The Supreme Court affirmed the presumption of no negligence in a judgment dated June 9, 1966, Minshu Vol. 20, No. 5, p. 1011).
   • Plaintiff's Rebuttals: The original owner (plaintiff) can defeat a claim of immediate acquisition by proving that the defendant, at the time of acquiring possession:
     • Acted in bad faith (悪意 - akui), i.e., knew that the transferor 'B' did not have the right to dispose of the movable.
     • Was negligent (過失 - kashitsu) in believing that 'B' had such a right. This involves showing that the defendant had reason to doubt 'B's authority and failed to take reasonable steps to verify it. The standard for negligence depends on the nature of the transaction, the goods, and the parties involved.

B. Competing Claims in Cases of Double Assignment (二重譲渡)

If the original owner ('A') sells the same movable property first to the plaintiff ('X') and then to the defendant ('Y'), a dispute arises as to who has superior title.

1. The Role of Delivery as a Perfection Requirement (対抗要件としての引渡し): For movables, the transfer of ownership cannot be asserted against a third party unless the movable has been delivered (Article 178 of the Civil Code). Delivery perfects the ownership transfer.
2. Defendant Asserting Their Own Prior Perfected Acquisition (被告による対抗要件具備の主張):
   • Defense of (Plaintiff's Lack of) Perfection Requirement (Taikō Yōken no Kōben): The defendant ('Y') can argue that they acquired the movable from 'A' and that the plaintiff ('X') cannot assert their ownership against 'Y' because 'X' has not perfected their acquisition by taking delivery. 'X' can rebut this by proving they did take delivery from 'A'.
   • Defense of Loss of Plaintiff's Ownership due to Defendant's Perfection (Taikō Yōken Gubi ni yoru Shoyūken Sōshitsu no Kōben): More strongly, 'Y' can argue that they not only purchased from 'A' but also received delivery from 'A', thereby perfecting their title and extinguishing 'X's unperfected or later-perfected claim.
3. Plaintiff's Rebuttal: Proving Prior Perfection (原告による先行的対抗要件具備の主張): If 'Y' claims to have perfected their title by delivery, 'X' can rebut this by proving that they themselves received delivery from 'A' and that this delivery to 'X' occurred before 'A' delivered the movable to 'Y'. In conflicts arising from double assignments of movables by the same assignor, the order of perfection (delivery) is generally decisive.

C. Impact of Contract Rescission on Third-Party Acquirers (契約解除と第三者)

Consider a scenario: Plaintiff 'X' sells a movable to 'A', and 'A' then sells the same movable to defendant 'Y'. Subsequently, 'X' validly rescinds the contract with 'A' (e.g., due to 'A's non-payment). Can 'X' recover the movable from 'Y'?

• Article 545(1) proviso of the Civil Code states that the rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by rescission. The interpretation of this provision is complex.
• Prevailing View (Conflicting Claims Theory - 対抗関係説 Taikō Kankei-setsu): Japanese case law (e.g., Judgment of the Supreme Court, June 14, 1958, Minshu Vol. 12, No. 9, p. 1449 for rescission before third party acquired, and Judgment of the Supreme Court, November 29, 1960, Minshu Vol. 14, No. 13, p. 2869 for rescission after third party acquired) generally treats the relationship between the rescinding party ('X') and the third party ('Y') as one of conflicting claims, similar to a double assignment.
• This means that 'Y' (the third party) can generally retain the movable against 'X' if 'Y' acquired the movable from 'A' and perfected this acquisition by taking delivery, regardless of whether 'Y' acquired it before or after 'X' rescinded the contract with 'A', provided 'Y' was unaware of the grounds for rescission at the time of their perfection if that is deemed relevant. The key for 'Y' is to establish their own valid acquisition and perfection (delivery) from 'A'. 'X', to recover, would need to show that 'Y' did not validly perfect their acquisition or that 'X' has a superior perfected right.

D. Defense of a Valid Right to Possess (占有権原の抗弁 - Sen'yū Kengen no Kōben)

Similar to disputes over real estate, the defendant may acknowledge the plaintiff's ownership but claim they have a valid contractual or other legal right to possess the movable, such as:

• A lease agreement (chintaishaku keiyaku) from the plaintiff.
• A loan for use agreement (shiyō taishaku keiyaku) from the plaintiff.
• A pledge (shichiken) created by the plaintiff.
  The defendant bears the burden of proving the essential facts establishing such a right to possess.

IV. Conclusion: Navigating Disputes Over Movable Property in Japan (結論)

Recovering movable property in Japan through legal action requires the owner to clearly establish their ownership and the defendant's possession. The legal landscape then shifts to any defenses the possessor might raise. Doctrines such as immediate acquisition and the rules governing perfection by delivery in cases of competing claims are particularly important for movables and differ significantly from real property rules. A thorough understanding of these specific legal principles and the associated burdens of proof is essential for anyone involved in disputes over the possession and ownership of movable assets in Japan.