When a Japanese High Court or District Court (acting as an appellate court) renders its decision in a civil appeal (控訴 - kōso), that decision is embodied in a formal written document known as the appeal judgment (控訴審判決の判決書 - kōsoshinhanketsu no hanketsusho). This document is not merely a statement of the outcome; it is a comprehensive record of the appellate court's review, its reasoning, and its final orders. For litigants and their legal representatives, understanding the structure and content of this document is vital for comprehending the court's decision, its legal ramifications, and the potential grounds for any further appeal to the Supreme Court.

General Requirements: The Foundation of an Appeal Judgment

The rules governing the content and form of judgments from courts of first instance, primarily found in Article 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), are generally applied mutatis mutandis to appeal judgments by virtue of Article 297 CCP[cite: 167]. Consequently, every Japanese civil appeal judgment must, at a minimum, include the following essential components (必要的記載事項 - hitsuyōteki kisai jikō):

1. The Operative Part (主文 - Shubun): This is the court's definitive order and the most critical part of the judgment for immediate practical purposes. It states the concrete outcome of the appeal – for example, whether the appeal is dismissed (affirming the first-instance judgment), whether the first-instance judgment is set aside and modified, or if the case is remanded.
2. The Facts (事実 - Jijitsu): This section outlines the factual context of the case as understood and processed by the appellate court. It should clarify the claims being made and delineate the assertions by the parties that are necessary to demonstrate the justification for the operative part of the judgment (Article 253(2) CCP)[cite: 204].
3. The Reasons (理由 - Riyū): Here, the court explains the legal and factual basis for its decision. This section details the judges' reasoning process, including their evaluation of the evidence (if re-examined), their interpretation of applicable laws, and how they arrived at the conclusions stated in the operative part[cite: 208].
4. The Date of Conclusion of Oral Arguments (口頭弁論の終結日 - Kōtō Benron no Shūketsubi): This date is crucial as it generally serves as the standard time for determining the res judicata effect of the judgment.
5. Identification of the Parties and Their Statutory Agents (当事者及び法定代理人の表示): Clear identification of the appellant, appellee, and any legal representatives such as guardians or corporate directors.
6. Designation of the Court (裁判所の表示): The name of the appellate court rendering the judgment.

Beyond these, other formalities include the unique case number and name[cite: 171], the signatures and seals of the presiding and other judges on the panel (or an explanation if a judge cannot sign)[cite: 167], and the court clerk's attestation regarding the date of pronouncement and delivery of the original judgment document[cite: 167].

The "Facts" (事実) Section in an Appeal Judgment

The "Facts" section of an appeal judgment serves to frame the dispute as it stands before the appellate court. Its content will typically include:

• A summary of the first-instance proceedings, including the claims made by the original plaintiff, the defenses raised, and the core of the first-instance judgment (particularly its operative part).
• A statement of the appellant's appeal, outlining which parts of the first-instance judgment are being challenged and the general nature of the relief sought in the appeal (e.g., reversal, modification).
• A summary of the appellee's response to the appeal (e.g., seeking dismissal of the appeal, or raising a cross-appeal).
• An outline of any new arguments, claims (e.g., through amendment of claim if permitted), or significant new evidence presented or examined during the appellate proceedings[cite: 204].

The goal is to provide a self-contained factual narrative that allows a reader to understand what the appeal is about and what issues the appellate court needed to address.

The "Reasons" (理由) Section: The Heart of the Appellate Decision

The "Reasons" section is where the appellate court articulates its justification for the outcome set forth in the operative part. This involves:

• Addressing the Grounds of Appeal: The court will typically address the main arguments raised by the appellant as to why the first-instance judgment was erroneous.
• Factual Evaluation (if applicable): If the appeal involves challenges to the first-instance court's factual findings, and if the appellate court has re-examined evidence or considered new evidence, it will explain its own assessment of the facts[cite: 208]. This includes its view on witness credibility if re-examination occurred, and its application of "rules of experience" (経験則 - keiken-soku) and logic (論理則 - ronri-soku) to the evidence.
• Legal Analysis: The court will set out its interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and precedents, and explain how these apply to the facts as it has determined them[cite: 208].
• Justification for the Outcome: Ultimately, this section connects the court's factual and legal analysis to the specific order made in the operative part—be it dismissing the appeal, modifying the original judgment, or remanding the case. If the appellate court dismisses the appeal but for reasons different from those of the first-instance court (as permitted by Article 302(2) CCP), these new or alternative reasons will be detailed here[cite: 208].

The Practice of "Citation Judgments" (引用判決) and Its Controversies

A significant feature of Japanese appellate judgment drafting, particularly for the "Facts" and "Reasons" sections, is the practice explicitly permitted by Rule 184 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟規則184条). This rule allows the appellate court to cite or quote (引用 - in'yō) portions of the first-instance judgment document (or the record in lieu of judgment) in its own judgment[cite: 167, 204]. This means that instead of fully re-stating all background facts or reiterating legal reasoning that it agrees with, the appellate court can simply refer back to the relevant parts of the lower court's decision, often with specific page and line references, and then add its own analysis, corrections, or new points.

Intended Benefits:
The primary rationale for allowing citation judgments is judicial efficiency. It can reduce the drafting burden on appellate judges and potentially expedite the delivery of judgments, especially in cases where the appellate court largely agrees with the first-instance decision or only needs to address a few specific points.

Criticisms and Pitfalls of Citation Judgments:
Despite the aim of efficiency, the practice of issuing "citation judgments" has drawn considerable criticism from legal commentators and even from within the judiciary itself:

1. Difficulty in Comprehension: A heavily citation-based appellate judgment can be very difficult to understand in isolation[cite: 204, 208]. To grasp the full context and reasoning, parties, their lawyers, and any subsequent reviewing court (like the Supreme Court) must constantly cross-reference the appellate judgment with the first-instance judgment document. This "patchwork" (継ぎはぎ的引用 - tsugihagiteki in'yō) approach is burdensome and can obscure the precise flow of the appellate court's independent reasoning[cite: 204, 208].
2. Risk of Internal Inconsistencies and Errors: When appellate judgments incorporate parts of a lower court decision by citation but then add deletions, modifications, or new sections, there is a heightened risk of creating internal contradictions, logical gaps, or omissions[cite: 208]. For example, if a timeline of events is modified through piecemeal citations and additions, crucial periods might be inadvertently left out or described inconsistently. Justice Tokuji Izumi of the Supreme Court, in a supplementary opinion to a judgment on January 19, 2006, pointed out that such "patchwork citations" carry the risk of leading to contradictory findings or missing essential elements in the logical structure[cite: 208].
3. Obscuring the Appellate Court's Unique Contribution: Citation judgments can make it difficult for the wider legal community to discern the appellate court's independent analysis and its specific contributions to the development of case law on particular issues[cite: 204]. If the core reasoning is buried in references to another document, the precedential value or learning from the appellate decision is diminished.
4. Technological Obsolescence Argument: Critics also argue that while citation might have been a practical necessity in the era of typewriters, modern word processing tools make it significantly easier for courts to produce comprehensive, self-contained judgments by incorporating and editing relevant text from first-instance electronic records without resorting to confusing external citations[cite: 204, 208]. The continued reliance on a method prone to confusion and error is therefore questioned.

Interaction with "New Style Judgments" (新様式判決) from the First Instance

Many first-instance judgments in Japan are now drafted in a "new style" (新様式判決 - shin yōshiki hanketsu). This format typically structures the "Facts and Reasons" section into distinct parts: (1) the Claim (請求), (2) an Outline of the Case (事案の概要), which describes the type of case and central disputed points, and (3) Judgment on Disputed Points (争点に対する判断)[cite: 205]. Article 253(2) CCP, which requires the "Facts" section to clarify the claim and the assertions necessary to justify the operative part, is seen as aligning with this streamlined approach focused on disputed issues[cite: 205].

When an appellate court cites a "new style" first-instance judgment, it might, for example, state in its "Facts" section: "The outline of this case, except for [specific amendments, e.g., changing 'X' on page Y, line Z of the original judgment to 'Y'], is as stated in 'Section 2: Outline of the Case' in the 'Facts and Reasons' of the original judgment, which is therefore cited." [cite: 205]

However, even with this "new style," problems can arise if the first-instance "Outline of the Case" omitted facts that become crucial for the appeal, or if it included factual assertions that were not actually made by the parties. In such situations, if the appellate judgment merely cites the first-instance summary, the true factual basis might remain obscured or misrepresented, potentially requiring parties to proactively seek to supplement or correct the record in the appeal[cite: 500].

Other Formalities: Party Designations and Official Endorsements

• Party Designations (当事者の表示): The judgment must clearly identify the parties. In appellate judgments, parties are often designated by their role in both instances, for example, "Appellant (First-instance Plaintiff): [Name]" and "Appellee (First-instance Defendant): [Name]"[cite: 168, 169]. If both parties have appealed, they would each be designated as "Appellant and Appellee (First-instance Plaintiff/Defendant)." [cite: 168]
• Judicial Signatures and Seals: The original judgment document must be signed and sealed by the judges who constituted the court that rendered the decision[cite: 167]. If a judge is unable to do so (e.g., due to illness or transfer), another judge on the panel must append a note explaining the reason and then sign and seal[cite: 167].
• Delivery and Attestation: After being pronounced, the original judgment document is delivered to the court clerk without delay. The clerk then records the date of pronouncement and the date of delivery of the original document and affixes their seal[cite: 167].

Conclusion: The Imperative of Clarity and Completeness

The appeal judgment document is the definitive pronouncement of the appellate court's decision and the reasoning behind it. While practices like "citation judgments" are permitted under procedural rules with the aim of efficiency, they carry inherent risks of reducing clarity, introducing errors, and obscuring the court's independent analysis. For the sake of legal certainty, the comprehensibility of judgments for the parties involved, and the broader development of case law, a move towards more self-contained and clearly reasoned appellate judgments, leveraging modern technology, would be a welcome development. Litigants and their counsel must carefully scrutinize these documents, especially those heavily reliant on citations, to fully understand the court's disposition of their appeal.