The "Shoko Setsumeisho": Understanding Japan's Unique Explanatory Document for Evidence

In the intricate process of Japanese civil litigation, the effective presentation of documentary evidence (書証 - shoshō) is paramount. A key, and somewhat unique, component of this process is the "Shoko Setsumeisho" (証拠説明書), or Explanatory Document of Evidence. This document, submitted alongside the actual evidentiary documents, serves as a crucial roadmap for the court, guiding its understanding and assessment of each piece of evidence. While its preparation might sometimes seem like a routine task, a well-crafted Shoko Setsumeisho can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of one's case and demonstrate a high level of diligence to the court.

I. The Significance and Purpose of the Shoko Setsumeisho

The Shoko Setsumeisho is not merely an administrative inventory; it plays a substantive role in how evidence is received and evaluated by Japanese courts.

A. Legal Mandate and Core Function:
The submission of a Shoko Setsumeisho is mandatory when introducing documents as evidence. Article 137 of the Regulations for Civil Procedure (民事訴訟規則 - Minji Soshō Kisoku) stipulates that this document must accompany the documentary evidence and must, at a minimum, state for each piece of evidence:

1. Its title or a description (標目 - hyōmoku).
2. Its creator (作成者 - sakuseisha).
3. The proposition(s) it is intended to prove (立証趣旨 - risshō shushi).

Its fundamental purpose is to provide the court and the opposing party with a clear, concise summary of each piece of documentary evidence being submitted, allowing for efficient management and understanding of the evidentiary record.

B. The Judicial Perspective: A Tool for Fact-Finding and Impression Formation:
While attorneys meticulously prepare them, the true weight of the Shoko Setsumeisho becomes apparent when considering how judges utilize it. Judges often find this document exceptionally helpful in several ways:

• Fact-Finding Aid: It allows them to quickly grasp what facts a party intends to establish with a particular document. This is crucial for mapping out the evidentiary support for various factual allegations.
• Chronological Understanding: By reviewing the listed creation dates (even if technically an optional item, it's a standard inclusion), judges can better understand the timeline of events as supported by documentary evidence.
• Narrative Coherence: The Shoko Setsumeisho, particularly through the "proposition to be proven" and "creator" information, helps judges assess how individual pieces of evidence fit into a party's overall case narrative and whether they are consistent with it.
• Drafting Judgments: When preparing a judgment, judges may refer back to the Shoko Setsumeisho to ensure they haven't overlooked any submitted evidence relevant to their findings.
  The creator, creation date, and proposition to be proven are points of particular focus for the judiciary.

II. Essential Components of the Shoko Setsumeisho

Adherence to the formal requirements is the starting point for an effective Shoko Setsumeisho.

A. Document Title/Description (文書の標目 - Bunsho no Hyōmoku):
This entry must clearly and uniquely identify each piece of documentary evidence.

• For documents with formal titles (e.g., "Sales Agreement," "Loan Contract"), the title itself is used.
• For untitled documents, a descriptive identifier is necessary, such as "Letter dated March 15, 2023, from X to Y," "Internal Memorandum titled 'Project Alpha Update'," or "Handwritten Note re: Meeting on [Date]."
• For less conventional evidence, descriptive clarity is key: "Email exchange between A and B dated [Date Range]," "Series of LINE messages between C and D from [Start Date] to [End Date]," or even "Photograph of the damaged vehicle at the scene." The goal is unambiguous identification.

B. Creator (作成者 - Sakuseisha):
Identifying the "creator" is a fundamental and often nuanced aspect. A document, in a legal evidentiary sense, is a physical object embodying the thoughts, intentions, awareness, reports, or emotions of a specific identified person (or entity), expressed through readable symbols.

• The Mind Behind the Content: The "creator" is not necessarily the individual who physically typed or wrote the document but rather the person or entity whose thoughts or will it represents. For instance, a letter dictated by a company president but typed by an assistant has the president (or the company through the president) as its creator.
• Importance: Correctly identifying the creator is crucial for assessing the document's admissibility, weight, and relevance to the propositions it seeks to prove. This requires careful consideration, especially for documents like internal corporate reports, minutes of meetings, or electronically generated records.

C. Proposition to be Proven (立証趣旨 - Risshō Shushi):
This is arguably the most substantively important part of the Shoko Setsumeisho. It explains, for each piece of evidence, the specific fact or facts that the submitting party intends to establish through that document.

• Scope: The "facts" can be either "principal facts" (主要事実 - shuyō jijitsu – facts that directly constitute the elements of a cause of action or defense) or "indirect facts" (間接事実 - kansetsu jijitsu – facts from which principal facts can be inferred).
• Judicial Focus: Judges pay close attention to the risshō shushi. A well-drafted entry here provides a clear window into the proponent's evidentiary strategy.
  • Conciseness and Specificity: The description should be brief yet precise. Instead of a vague theme like "Regarding the history of transactions between Plaintiff and Defendant," a more effective risshō shushi would be, for example, "To prove that Defendant acknowledged receipt of the goods on March 10, 2023," or "To establish Plaintiff's mitigation of damages by seeking alternative suppliers."
  • Optimal Length: While there's no strict rule, aiming for a description that fits within approximately 5-6 lines in the standard Shoko Setsumeisho format is a good guideline. Overly lengthy or argumentative descriptions are counterproductive; they can be hard to read in the typically narrow columns of the form and may detract from the document's overall scannability as a quick reference tool.
  • Focus on the "What," Not the "Why": The risshō shushi should state the factual conclusion the evidence is intended to support. The detailed reasoning or argument as to how or why the evidence proves that fact belongs in the main preparatory briefs, not in the Shoko Setsumeisho.
  • Background vs. Core Evidence: For documents submitted primarily to provide general background or context, rather than to prove a specific disputed fact, a more thematic risshō shushi (e.g., "To show the general business relationship between the parties") may suffice. The key is balance and relevance to the overall evidentiary purpose.

III. Customary (Optional) Information and Best Practices

While the rules mandate the above three items, standard court templates and established practice include other important details.

A. Original vs. Copy (原本と写し - Genpon to Utsushi):

• The Rule: Article 143, Paragraph 1 of the Regulations for Civil Procedure states that documents should generally be submitted in their original form, as a certified copy (正本 - seihon), or as an authenticated copy (認証のある謄本 - ninshō no aru tōhon).
• Practical Application: This doesn't mean the court retains originals of all submitted evidence. Typically, the original document is presented to the court for examination during a hearing. Counsel then provides photocopies for the court's record and for the opposing party. The court clerk or judge will often compare the submitted copies against the original at the hearing to verify their conformity.
• When Copies Alone Suffice: Submitting only a copy instead of presenting the original for examination is permissible if the opposing party raises no objection and there is no dispute regarding the authenticity or existence of the original document. This was affirmed in a Great Court of Cassation judgment (大判昭和5・6・18民集9巻609頁 - June 18, 1930). It's important to distinguish this from situations where a photocopy is the operative original document (e.g., a contract executed via faxed signatures where the faxed copy is intended by the parties to be the original).
• Judicial View on Original Examination: Judges are increasingly pragmatic. With modern high-quality copying technology, photocopies are often deemed sufficient for many types of documents. The primary exceptions include foundational documents like key contracts, original affidavits or declarations (陳述書 - chinjutsusho), or any document whose authenticity or physical integrity is specifically challenged (e.g., suspected forgery or alteration). Insisting on presenting originals for every minor document can consume valuable hearing time, and judges may defer such examination if not deemed critical. For items like books or lengthy reports, submitting clear photocopies of relevant sections is often preferred over bringing bulky originals to court.
  • A Note on Ex Parte Cases: In cases proceeding via service by publication (公示送達事案 - kōji sōtatsu jian), where the defendant is absent and makes no admissions, it is advisable to submit originals of all key evidence where possible, as the judge must make a decision based solely on the plaintiff's submissions.
  • Caution: Be very careful not to inadvertently submit the actual unique original of an important document to the court for retention if it's intended to be returned, as retrieval can be problematic. (Conversely, chinjutsusho with original signatures and seals are often submitted for the court's file.)

B. Creation Date (作成日付 - Sakusei Hizuke):
Although technically an optional item under the rules, the creation date of the document is almost universally included in practice. It is a critical piece of information for evaluating the evidence's context, relevance, and potential weight. Judges pay close attention to creation dates, and its omission for significant evidence would likely prompt a request for clarification from the court. If, after diligent investigation, the exact creation date remains unknown, this should be noted (e.g., "Creation date unknown").

C. Remarks Column (備考 - Bikō):
This optional column offers flexibility for providing brief, supplementary information that doesn't fit neatly elsewhere. Attorneys use it creatively for various purposes, such as:

• Noting if a submitted copy of a diagram has been enlarged or reduced.
• Indicating if a document is being submitted as an alleged forgery.
• Stating that the exhibit is an excerpt from a larger document.
• Explaining the circumstances of how the evidence was obtained or its physical relationship to other exhibits (e.g., "This letter was delivered to the defendant simultaneously with Exhibit Ko-5," or "The original of this document is stapled together with the originals of Exhibits Ko-8 and Ko-9 at the top left corner").
• Providing reasons for submitting a copy instead of the original, if applicable.
• In some instances, counsel might even use this space to briefly quote or highlight a particularly crucial phrase from the exhibit, though this should be done sparingly.

IV. Exhibit Numbering and Specific Drafting Techniques

A. Assigning Exhibit Numbers (証拠番号の付け方 - Shōko Bangō no Tsukekata):

• General Principle: Each distinct document should be assigned a unique exhibit number. Plaintiff's exhibits are typically designated with "甲" (Kō) followed by a number (e.g., 甲第1号証 - Kō Dai-ichi-gō Shō), while defendant's exhibits use "乙" (Otsu) (e.g., 乙第1号証 - Otsu Dai-ichi-gō Shō).
• Sub-Numbering (枝番 - Edaban): For voluminous but related sets of documents (e.g., a series of correspondence, extensive medical records, or a large criminal investigation file), sub-numbering can be used (e.g., 甲第5号証の1, 甲第5号証の2 - Kō Dai-go-gō Shō no Ichi, Kō Dai-go-gō Shō no Ni). This keeps related items grouped while allowing individual identification.
  • Judicial View on Exhibit Numbering: While sub-numbering is useful, it should be kept reasonably simple. Sub-sub-numbering (e.g., 甲第5号証の1の(ア)) can become confusing. Sometimes, for very large categories of evidence, like all medical records for a plaintiff, a separate lettered series might be used (e.g., Plaintiff's main exhibits as 甲A第1号証, etc., and medical records as 甲B第1号証, etc.). This kind of categorization should be reserved for cases with a truly substantial volume of evidence where it genuinely aids clarity.
• Multiple Parties: If there are multiple defendants represented by different counsel, they will typically use different series designations (e.g., Defendant 1 uses 乙号証, Defendant 2 uses 丙号証 - Hei-gō Shō, Defendant 3 uses 丁号証 - Tei-gō Shō, and so on).

B. Techniques for Specific Evidence Types:

1. Attorney's Reports for Voluminous or Complex Items:
   When dealing with numerous small items (like a collection of photographs or a stack of receipts) or evidence requiring explanation (like video stills), creating an "Attorney's Report" (弁護士の報告書 - bengoshi no hōkokusho) can be highly effective. Instead of submitting each item as a separate exhibit with its own Shoko Setsumeisho entry, the attorney can compile the items into a single report. For photographs, this report can list each photo (which should be clearly numbered or indexed within the report itself) along with the required details (photographer, subject, location, date/time – as per Article 148 of the Regulations for Civil Procedure). The report itself is then submitted as a single exhibit. This approach can also be used to present excerpts from lengthy video evidence with accompanying explanations, or to provide annotated diagrams.
2. Submitting Allegedly Forged Documents:
   If a party is submitting a document and alleging that it is a forgery, the "creator" for the Shoko Setsumeisho should be identified as the alleged forger, if known. If the purpose is simply to prove the existence of the (allegedly forged) document and the identity of the forger is unknown or irrelevant to that specific point, "creator unknown" may be appropriate.
3. Long Email Chains or Chat Transcripts (e.g., LINE):
   • Marking Relevant Sections: It is crucial to highlight or otherwise clearly mark the specific portions of a long email thread or chat log that are relevant to the proposition being proven. This helps the court focus on the key exchanges.
   • Identifying the "Creator" of Specific Messages: For the Shoko Setsumeisho, the "creator" can then be identified as the sender of that particular relevant message within the chain.
   • Date: If the entire chain is submitted as one exhibit to show an ongoing interaction, the date range can be specified (e.g., "Email exchange from YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD"). If a specific message within the chain is particularly critical, it can be excerpted and submitted as a separate exhibit with its own precise date.
   • Speaker Identification: In chat logs where speakers are identified by icons or usernames, the Shoko Setsumeisho (often in the "Remarks" or risshō shushi field) should clarify who these identifiers represent. If ambiguity persists, preparing a separate, clean transcript that explicitly attributes each message to the correct speaker can be very helpful.
   • Attachments: Any files attached to emails or messages should generally be treated and submitted as separate exhibits, clearly linked to the communication they accompanied.
4. Documents with Multiple "Creators" (e.g., Group Petitions, Jointly Signed Letters):
   A document signed or authored by many individuals technically embodies the thoughts of multiple creators. If the entire document and all contributions are relevant, one might list several representative creators followed by "and others" (外 - hoka or 他〇名 - ta X mei). If specific portions attributable to particular individuals are key, the strategy is similar to handling email chains: focus on and identify the creators of those critical parts.
5. Documents with Handwritten Annotations:
   If handwritten annotations on a document are themselves evidentially important, they should be specifically addressed. One might circle the annotation on the copy, assign it a sub-exhibit number, and describe it separately in the Shoko Setsumeisho. Alternatively, if the annotation is less central, its existence and authorship (if known, e.g., "Handwritten annotation by Mr. Tanaka") can be noted in the "Remarks" column or by adding a clarifier in the "Creator" field of the main document's entry.

V. The Challenge of Internet-Sourced Evidence

A common pitfall, highlighted in practitioner discussions, is the improper handling of evidence sourced from the internet. While the internet is an invaluable research tool, information obtained online requires careful vetting before being presented as court evidence.

• Identifying the "Creator": Simply listing "Internet" or even "Wikipedia" as the creator of a printout from a website is inadequate and professionally questionable. Websites, especially collaborative ones like Wikipedia, often lack a single, identifiable "creator" in the traditional legal sense who takes responsibility for the content.
• Reliability and Verifiability: Much online information is unverified, easily editable, or lacks clear authorship. Relying on such sources as primary evidence without attempting to trace the information back to more authoritative or original sources (e.g., academic journals, official reports, original case law) is a risky practice.
• Best Practice: Internet-derived information should generally serve as a starting point for further investigation. For evidentiary purposes, every effort should be made to locate and submit information from primary, reliable, and verifiable sources.

VI. Conclusion

The Shoko Setsumeisho is more than just a list; it is a vital interface between a party's evidentiary submissions and the court's understanding of the case. A meticulously prepared Explanatory Document of Evidence—clear in its descriptions, precise in its identification of creators and propositions to be proven, and thoughtful in its handling of originals, copies, and complex evidence types—not only fulfills procedural requirements but also significantly contributes to the overall persuasiveness of a party's presentation. Paying due attention to its preparation is a hallmark of diligent and effective advocacy in the Japanese legal system.