What Constitutes an "Admission" (Jihaku) in Japanese Civil Litigation, and What Is Its Binding Effect?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read

In the landscape of civil litigation, an "admission" by a party regarding a fact asserted by their opponent can dramatically alter the course of a dispute. It can streamline proceedings by narrowing the issues that require proof, saving time and resources for both the parties and the court. In Japan, a formal "judicial admission" (裁判上の自白 - saibanjō no jihaku) carries particularly significant weight, binding not only the party who made it but also the court itself.

This article delves into what constitutes a judicial admission under Japanese civil procedure, its powerful binding effects, the strict conditions for its withdrawal, and how it compares to related concepts like deemed admissions and admissions in common law systems.

I. Defining Judicial Admissions (Saibanjō no Jihaku) in Japanese Civil Procedure

A. Core Concept: A Binding Acknowledgement

A saibanjō no jihaku is a clear statement made by a party (or their duly authorized legal representative, such as their attorney) directly to the court during formal court proceedings—specifically, during oral arguments (口頭弁論 - kōtō benron) or official preparatory proceedings (準備手続 - junbi tetsuzuki)—in which that party acknowledges the truth of a principal fact alleged by the opposing party, where that fact is disadvantageous to the admitting party.

B. Legal Basis: CCP Article 179

The foundational provision is Article 179 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) (民事訴訟法 - Minji Soshō Hō), which states:
"Admissions made by a party in oral argument and obvious facts need not be proven."
This succinct article underscores two key effects: it makes the admitted fact conclusive and obviates the need for evidence on that point.

C. Types of Admissions

While the core concept is straightforward, admissions can manifest in different ways:

  1. Simple Admission (単純自白 - tanjun jihaku): An unconditional and straightforward acknowledgement of the opponent's factual allegation.
  2. Qualified Admission (制限付自白 - seigen-tsuki jihaku):
    • Riyūtsuki Jihaku (理由付自白 - Reasoned Admission): A party admits the truth of the opponent's primary factual allegation but simultaneously asserts an additional, separate fact that constitutes a defense or explanation (e.g., "I admit I borrowed the money as you claim [the admission], but I subsequently repaid it in full [the added defensive fact]"). In such cases, the admitted portion (borrowing the money) is binding and needs no proof. The added portion (repayment) must be proven by the party who asserted it.
  3. Anticipatory Admission (先行自白 - senkō jihaku): A party, in their own pleadings or statements, admits to a fact unfavorable to themselves even before the opposing party has formally alleged it. Once the opposing party adopts this fact as part of their case, it can become a binding judicial admission.

II. What Can Be Admitted? The Subject Matter of Judicial Admissions

The subject matter of a binding judicial admission is specific:

  • Principal Facts (主要事実 - shuyō jijitsu): Only "principal facts" can be the subject of a saibanjō no jihaku. Principal facts are those facts that directly constitute the essential elements of a legal claim or defense under the substantive law (e.g., the fact of entering into a contract, the fact of a negligent act, the fact of payment). These are the facts that a party would typically bear the burden of proving.
  • Not Indirect or Auxiliary Facts: Statements admitting "indirect facts" (間接事実 - kansetsu jijitsu – facts from which principal facts can be inferred) or "auxiliary facts" (補助事実 - hojo jijitsu – facts relevant to the credibility of a witness or the probative value of evidence) are not considered binding judicial admissions. While such statements can certainly influence the judge's overall assessment of the evidence under the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, the court is not bound by them and can make contrary findings.
  • Facts, Not Legal Conclusions: A judicial admission must concern concrete, empirical facts. Statements purporting to admit legal conclusions (e.g., "I admit I am liable," "I admit the contract is invalid") or the existence/non-existence of a legal right itself (kenri jihaku - 権利自白) are generally not binding on the court. The determination of legal issues is the exclusive province of the court. However, an admission of the underlying facts that might lead to a particular legal conclusion (e.g., admitting to all the factual elements that constitute negligence) can be binding.

III. Requirements for a Valid Judicial Admission

For a statement to qualify as a binding saibanjō no jihaku, several conditions must be met:

  1. It must be a statement made by a party to the litigation or their authorized representative (e.g., counsel of record).
  2. It must be made to the court during formal proceedings (oral arguments or official preparatory proceedings like preparatory oral arguments or preparatory proceedings by document). Statements made out of court, even if between parties, do not constitute saibanjō no jihaku.
  3. It must concern a principal fact that is disadvantageous to the party making the admission.
  4. It must acknowledge the truth of a fact alleged (explicitly or implicitly) by the opposing party. The admission must, in essence, align with an opponent's assertion, thereby removing that fact from contention.

IV. The Powerful Binding Effects of a Judicial Admission

Once a valid judicial admission is made, its effects are significant:

A. Binding on the Court

  • Conclusive Proof: The court must accept the admitted fact as true in its judgment.
  • No Contrary Findings: The court cannot make factual findings that contradict the admitted fact.
  • No Proof Required: The opposing party is relieved of the burden of proving the admitted fact (CCP Art. 179). No evidence needs to be adduced on that point.
    This binding effect on the court is a major exception to the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence (jiyū-shinshō-shugi), under which judges normally have broad discretion in assessing facts.

B. Binding on the Admitting Party

The party who made the judicial admission is also bound by it. They cannot simply change their mind and unilaterally retract or contradict the admission at a later stage of the proceedings without meeting strict criteria.

V. Withdrawal of a Judicial Admission (Jihaku no Tekkai): Strict Limitations

Withdrawing a saibanjō no jihaku is exceptionally difficult. Japanese law and jurisprudence impose stringent limitations, reflecting the importance of finality and reliance on such admissions. Withdrawal is generally permitted only under the following narrowly construed circumstances:

  1. Consent of the Opposing Party (相手方の同意 - aitekata no dōi): If the party who benefits from the admission consents to its withdrawal, the court will typically allow it.
  2. Admission Contrary to Truth and Based on Mistake (真実に反し錯誤に基づく場合 - shinjitsu ni hanshi sakugo ni motozuku baai): This is the most frequently argued ground but is very challenging to satisfy. The party seeking to withdraw must prove both of the following:
    • That the admitted fact is objectively contrary to the truth.
    • That the admission was made due to a mistake (錯誤 - sakugo) on their part (or their counsel's part). This mistake must be one of fact or a misunderstanding of the circumstances, not merely a poor tactical decision, a subsequent change in legal strategy, or a belated realization of the admission's adverse consequences. The burden of proving both untruth and mistake is high. The Supreme Court, in a judgment on March 26, 1970 (Minshū Vol. 24, No. 3, Page 463), for example, underscored the difficulty, indicating that the mistake must not be due to gross negligence.
  3. Admission Made Due to a Criminally Punishable Act of Another (他人の刑事上罰すべき行為による場合 - tanin no keijijō bassubeki kōi ni yoru baai): If the admission was induced by coercion, fraud, or other criminally punishable acts committed by another person (e.g., the opposing party, a witness), it may be withdrawn. This is analogous to one of the grounds for seeking a retrial of a final judgment (CCP Art. 338(1)(v)).

Mere inconvenience or a desire to contest the fact anew is insufficient for withdrawal.

VI. Deemed Admissions (Gisei Jihaku)

Distinct from explicit judicial admissions are "deemed admissions" (擬制自白 - gisei jihaku), primarily governed by CCP Article 159:

  • Paragraph 1: If a party, during oral arguments, does not clearly dispute a fact alleged by the opposing party in their pleadings or oral arguments, that fact is deemed to have been admitted by the non-contesting party. This requires an explicit denial; silence or evasion can lead to a deemed admission.
  • Paragraph 3: If a party fails to appear at an oral argument session without justifiable reason (or appears but does not present arguments on the merits), they may be deemed to have admitted the facts alleged by the appearing party as the basis for their claim or defense.

Effect and Withdrawal:
Deemed admissions generally have the same binding effect on the court as explicit judicial admissions (i.e., the fact is taken as true and requires no proof). However, they can typically be "undone" or withdrawn more easily than an explicit saibanjō no jihaku. For instance, if a party who failed to appear later attends a subsequent hearing and properly contests the fact, the deemed admission may lose its effect, provided this is not unduly delayed or prejudicial. Similarly, if the overall tenor of a party's arguments indicates a clear dispute of a fact, a deemed admission under Paragraph 1 might not be upheld.

VII. Comparing with Admissions in Common Law Systems

For US legal professionals, it's useful to note some comparative points:

  • Variety in Common Law: U.S. law recognizes various types of admissions:
    • Admissions in pleadings (e.g., in an answer to a complaint) are generally binding judicial admissions.
    • Responses to Requests for Admission (under procedural rules like FRCP 36) are binding for the purpose of the pending action.
    • Testimonial admissions by a party during deposition or trial.
    • Out-of-court statements by a party opponent are admissible as non-hearsay (or an exception to hearsay) and can be powerful evidence, though not usually "binding" on the court in the same conclusive way as an in-court judicial admission.
  • Focus of Saibanjō no Jihaku: The Japanese saibanjō no jihaku is specifically focused on formal, explicit acknowledgements of principal facts made directly to the court in designated formal proceedings. While out-of-court statements by a party can certainly be introduced as evidence in Japan (e.g., in a document or through witness testimony about the statement), they are evaluated under the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence and do not carry the immediate, preclusive binding effect of a saibanjō no jihaku.

VIII. Strategic Considerations for Litigants

The potent nature of judicial admissions necessitates careful strategic handling:

  1. Meticulous Care in All Court Submissions: Given the severe difficulty in withdrawing a judicial admission, every statement made in pleadings (which must be stated in oral argument to become an admission), briefs, and during oral presentations to the court must be drafted and vetted with extreme care. Accidental or ill-considered admissions can have devastating consequences.
  2. Clear and Unequivocal Responses: When responding to an opponent's factual allegations, it is crucial to clearly and unequivocally deny any unfavorable facts that are untrue. Ambiguity or failure to clearly dispute can lead to a deemed admission under CCP Article 159.
  3. Proactive Use of Admissions: Strategically, one might try to elicit admissions from the opposing party on key factual elements through precise and targeted allegations in pleadings or during the examination of the opposing party.
  4. Understanding the Irrevocability: Never make a factual concession with the assumption that it can be easily retracted if strategies change. The bar for withdrawal is exceptionally high.
  5. Distinguish Factual Admissions from Legal Arguments: Be precise in distinguishing between admitting a concrete fact and conceding a legal argument or interpretation. Admitting that a contract was signed on a certain date is a factual admission; stating "the contract is valid" is a legal conclusion generally not binding on the court.

IX. Conclusion

Judicial admissions (saibanjō no jihaku) serve as a powerful mechanism in Japanese civil procedure to streamline litigation by definitively settling undisputed principal facts. Their binding effect on both the court—removing the need for proof and preventing contrary findings—and on the admitting party highlights the critical importance of precision, truthfulness, and careful consideration in all formal statements made during court proceedings.

While promoting efficiency in the pursuit of justice, the stringent limitations on the withdrawal of these admissions underscore the Japanese legal system's emphasis on the reliability of party representations made before the court. For any party involved in Japanese civil litigation, a clear understanding of what constitutes a judicial admission and its profound consequences is indispensable.