When a civil case is appealed (控訴 - kōso) in Japan, the appellate court (控訴裁判所 - kōso saibansho) is tasked with reviewing the first-instance judgment. This review can culminate in a variety of outcomes, each with distinct legal consequences for the parties. Broadly, the appellate court can dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds, reject it on the merits, modify or set aside the original judgment and substitute its own, or, in certain circumstances, remand the case back to the first-instance court. Understanding these potential judgments is crucial for any party involved in appellate litigation.

1. Preliminary Dismissals: When an Appeal Doesn't Reach a Merits Review

Before the appellate court delves into the substantive arguments, the appeal itself must pass procedural muster.

A. Dismissal by the First-Instance Court (原裁判所による控訴却下決定 - Gen Saibansho ni yoru Kōso Kyakka Kettei)
Under the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the journey of an appeal begins with filing the appeal petition (控訴状 - kōsojō) with the court that rendered the initial judgment. This first-instance court has a preliminary gatekeeping role. According to Article 287(1) CCP, if the first-instance court finds that the appeal is clearly unlawful and the defect cannot be corrected (e.g., the appeal is filed well past the immutable two-week deadline, or it's against a type of decision for which no appeal is permitted), it must issue a ruling (決定 - kettei) dismissing the appeal[cite: 63]. This early dismissal prevents clearly unfounded appeals from burdening the appellate system. Such a dismissal ruling by the first-instance court can itself be challenged by an immediate appeal against a court ruling (即時抗告 - sokuji kōkoku) to the appellate court (Article 287(2) CCP)[cite: 63].

B. Dismissal by the Appellate Court for Inadmissibility (控訴却下判決 - Kōso Kyakka Hanketsu)
If the appeal navigates the initial check by the first-instance court (or if that court erroneously fails to dismiss a patently flawed appeal), the case record is forwarded to the appellate court. The appellate court then conducts its own, more thorough examination of the appeal's admissibility (適法性 - tekihōsei)[cite: 64].

If the appellate court determines that the appeal fails to meet one or more of the necessary procedural requirements for a valid appeal—such as lack of a legitimate "grievance" or appeal interest (不服の利益 - fufuku no rieki), failure to rectify formal defects in the appeal petition after being ordered to do so, or appealing against a non-appealable order—it will issue a judgment dismissing the appeal (控訴却下判決 - kōso kyakka hanketsu) under Article 290 CCP[cite: 64].

Significantly, if the ground for inadmissibility is clear and the defect is irremediable, the appellate court can issue this dismissal judgment without holding oral arguments[cite: 64]. This underscores the importance of ensuring from the outset that all procedural conditions for an appeal are met.

Once a kōso kyakka hanketsu becomes final and binding, the suspensive effect of the appeal (which had prevented the first-instance judgment from becoming final) is retroactively nullified[cite: 64]. Consequently, the first-instance judgment becomes final, typically as of the date its original appeal period would have expired[cite: 64]. Furthermore, if a dependent cross-appeal (非独立的附帯控訴) had been filed by the appellee, it loses its legal basis and is also terminated when the main appeal is dismissed as inadmissible[cite: 64].

2. Judgment on the Merits: Rejection of the Appeal (控訴棄却判決 - Kōso Kikyaku Hanketsu)

If the appeal is deemed procedurally admissible, the appellate court proceeds to examine its substantive merits (理由具備性 - riyū gubisei).

A. When the Appeal is Unfounded (Article 302(1) CCP):
If, after a full review of the arguments, evidence, and applicable law, the appellate court concludes that the first-instance judgment was ultimately correct and the appellant's grounds for appeal are unfounded, it will issue a judgment rejecting the appeal (控訴棄却判決 - kōso kikyaku hanketsu)[cite: 65]. This judgment affirms the outcome reached by the lower court.

B. Affirming the Outcome for Different Reasons (Article 302(2) CCP):
An important nuance is that the appellate court can reject an appeal even if it disagrees with the reasoning of the first-instance court, provided it finds that the outcome or conclusion of the first-instance judgment is correct based on other legal or factual grounds[cite: 65]. The rationale is that, generally, only the operative part (主文 - shubun) of a judgment has res judicata effect, not the detailed reasoning leading to it. So, if the result stands, albeit for different reasons, the appeal is still considered unfounded.

C. Critical Exceptions Regarding Res Judicata Scope:
However, this power to substitute reasons under Article 302(2) CCP is not absolute. It cannot be used if changing the reasoning would materially alter the scope or nature of the res judicata flowing from the judgment in a way that prejudices a party.

• Set-Off Example: If a first-instance court dismissed a plaintiff's claim because it upheld the defendant's set-off defense (implying the plaintiff's claim existed but was extinguished by the set-off, and the defendant's set-off claim is also extinguished up to the corresponding amount under Article 114(2) CCP), the appellate court cannot simply reject the plaintiff's appeal by finding that the plaintiff's main claim was invalid from the outset (independent of the set-off)[cite: 65]. Doing so would mean the defendant's set-off claim was never actually adjudicated as extinguished, altering the res judicata landscape. In such a case, the appellate court must set aside the original judgment and issue a new one explicitly dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground of its initial invalidity[cite: 65].
• Procedural Dismissal Grounds: Similarly, if a first-instance court dismissed a suit based on one procedural ground (e.g., lack of a party's capacity to sue), and the appellate court finds that ground was incorrect but another procedural ground for dismissal exists (e.g., lack of standing), it should not merely substitute reasons for the dismissal under Article 302(2)[cite: 65]. It should set aside the original dismissal and issue a new judgment dismissing the suit on the correct procedural ground. This is because the res judicata effect of a procedural dismissal is specific to the particular defect identified, and a dismissal on a different ground has different implications for potential future litigation[cite: 65].

D. Nature of a Kōso Kikyaku Hanketsu:
Legal scholars often debate whether a kōso kikyaku hanketsu is merely an affirmation of the first-instance judgment's finality or if it constitutes a new, substantive judgment by the appellate court on the original claim. The view that it is a substantive appellate decision, with its own res judicata effect based on the state of facts and law at the conclusion of the appellate oral arguments, is considered more consistent with the "continuation system" (zokushinsei) of Japanese appeals[cite: 66, 67].

3. Judgment on the Merits: Modifying or Setting Aside the First-Instance Judgment (原判決の変更・取消し - Genhanketsu no Henkō / Torikeshi)

If the appellate court finds the appeal to be well-founded (理由あり - riyū ari), meaning the first-instance judgment is incorrect in whole or in part, Articles 305 and 306 CCP come into play.

• The Principle of Appellate Self-Judgment (自判 - Jihan): As a court of full factual and legal review, the appellate court, upon finding the lower judgment erroneous, will generally set aside (取り消す - torikesu) the first-instance judgment to the extent of the error and substitute its own judgment on the merits[cite: 75, 77]. This is known as jihan or "self-judgment."
• Article 305 CCP (Substantive Incorrectness): If the first-instance judgment is deemed substantively incorrect (e.g., in its fact-finding or application of law), Article 305 requires it to be set aside and a new judgment rendered by the appellate court. Some legal theory questions the absolute necessity of a formal "setting aside" as a separate conceptual step if the appellate court is simply "modifying" (変更 - henkō) the outcome, arguing that a modifying judgment inherently replaces and thus invalidates the incorrect parts of the original[cite: 76, 79]. In practice, the appellate judgment will explicitly state the setting aside or modification.
• Article 306 CCP (Flaw in Judgment Procedure): If the error lies in the "procedure of the first-instance judgment" itself—meaning flaws in the deliberation process, the drafting of the judgment document, or its pronouncement—Article 306 mandates that the first-instance judgment be set aside[cite: 75]. After this, the appellate court may either decide the case itself or remand it (see below).

4. Remand to the First-Instance Court (差戻し - Sashimodoshi): Exceptions to Self-Judgment

While appellate self-judgment (jihan) is the default when a first-instance judgment is found incorrect, there are situations where the case is sent back to the first-instance court for further proceedings. This is known as remand (差戻し - sashimodoshi).

• Mandatory Remand (必要的差戻し - Hitsuyōteki Sashimodoshi) – Article 307 CCP:
  This applies when the appellate court sets aside a first-instance judgment that had incorrectly dismissed the entire suit as procedurally inadmissible (e.g., wrongly finding no jurisdiction or no standing)[cite: 88]. In such cases, because the first-instance court never conducted a trial on the merits, the appellate court must, in principle, remand the case to the first-instance court. This is crucial to protect the parties' "benefit of instance" (審級の利益 - shinkyū no rieki), ensuring they have a full hearing on the merits at two factual instances[cite: 88].
  • Exception to Mandatory Remand (Article 307 proviso): Remand is not required under Article 307 if the appellate court deems that further oral argument on the merits is unnecessary[cite: 89]. This might occur if the claim is clearly unfounded on its face even if procedurally admissible, if the essential facts are undisputed, or if the first-instance court, despite dismissing the suit procedurally, had already substantially (albeit perhaps hypothetically) examined the merits[cite: 89]. The scope and application of this exception have evolved through case law and scholarly debate.
• Discretionary Remand (任意的差戻し - Nin'iteki Sashimodoshi) – Article 308(1) CCP:
  If the appellate court sets aside the first-instance judgment for reasons other than an incorrect procedural dismissal of the entire suit (e.g., for significant procedural errors during the first-instance trial that were not related to the judgment's formation under Art. 306, or because the first-instance court's examination of crucial issues was so insufficient that its fact-finding is unreliable), and the appellate court believes further oral argument is necessary, it may remand the case to the first-instance court[cite: 90]. This is a discretionary power. It is often used when the flaws in the first-instance proceedings were so substantial that simply correcting them at the appellate level would effectively deprive the parties of a proper first-instance hearing on key aspects of the case[cite: 90].
  If the judgment is set aside due to a flaw in its formation process under Article 306 CCP, the appellate court also has the discretion under Article 308(1) to either remand or decide the case itself[cite: 87].

5. Transfer to a Competent Court (移送 - Isō) – Article 309 CCP

If the first-instance judgment is set aside specifically because the first-instance court lacked exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, the appellate court must then transfer (移送 - isō) the case to the court that does have such exclusive jurisdiction to hear it as a court of first instance[cite: 90].

Navigating the Outcomes

The type of judgment rendered by the appellate court has significant implications:

• A dismissal (kyakka) means the appeal itself failed procedurally; the first-instance judgment stands and becomes final.
• A rejection (kikyaku) means the appeal failed on its merits; the first-instance judgment's outcome is upheld by the appellate court.
• A modification (henkō) or setting aside (torikeshi) followed by self-judgment (jihan) means the appellate court has issued a new definitive judgment on the claims.
• A remand (sashimodoshi) means the litigation continues at the first-instance level, guided by the appellate court's reasons for remand.

Conclusion

The Japanese appellate court possesses a range of powers in deciding an appeal, reflecting its role as a continuation of the first instance with full fact-finding capabilities. From preliminary dismissals for procedural defects to substantive judgments that may reject the appeal, modify the original decision, or remand the case for further proceedings, each outcome is governed by specific articles of the Code of Civil Procedure and underlying legal principles. Understanding this spectrum of potential appellate judgments is essential for litigants to realistically assess their positions and anticipate the further course of their civil dispute.