What's the Critical Difference Between an "Action" (Uttae) and a "Claim" (Seikyū) in Japanese Civil Procedure, and Why Does it Matter for Your Case?

Navigating civil litigation in Japan requires a precise understanding of its foundational legal terminology. Among the most crucial, yet often subtly confused, concepts are those of an "action" (訴え - uttae) and a "claim" (請求 - seikyū). While seemingly similar, these terms carry distinct legal meanings and procedural consequences that can significantly impact the trajectory and outcome of a case. Misunderstanding this distinction can lead to fundamental errors in legal drafting and argumentation, potentially resulting in an unfavorable judgment such as an erroneous "dismissal of the claim" (請求却下 - seikyū kyakka) when a "rejection of the action" (訴え棄却 - uttae kikyaku) might be contextually (though still incorrectly) implied, or vice-versa. This article aims to elucidate these differences, explain how Japanese courts address each, and underscore why a clear grasp of these concepts is indispensable.

The "Action" (訴え - Uttae): Initiating Judicial Intervention

In Japanese civil procedure, an "action" (uttae) is, at its core, an application to the court by a plaintiff seeking a judgment. It is the procedural vehicle through which a party formally requests the court's intervention to resolve a dispute and protect their rights. The primary method for initiating an action is by submitting a written complaint (訴状 - sōjō) to the competent court, as stipulated in Article 133, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟法 - Minji Soshō-hō). This act of filing the complaint is referred to as the "institution of an action" (訴えの提起 - uttae no teiki).

While the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure generally emphasizes oral proceedings (口頭主義 - kōtō shugi) as a central tenet for the main part of civil litigation (the oral argument phase), the commencement of a lawsuit (i.e., the institution of an action) and its termination (e.g., through judgment, settlement, or withdrawal) are critical procedural stages that exceptionally adhere to the principle of written submissions (書面主義 - shomen shugi). This requirement for written documentation for pivotal moments like filing a complaint, rendering a judgment (判決書 - hanketsusho), or recording a settlement (和解調書 - wakai chōsho) is designed to prevent disputes over what was said or not said, ensuring clarity and certainty.

It's worth noting that while the submission of a written complaint is the standard, there are limited exceptions. For instance, in summary courts (簡易裁判所 - kan'i saibansho), an action can be instituted orally (Article 271 and 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Furthermore, certain other acts can be deemed as the institution of an action under specific circumstances (e.g., Article 275, Paragraph 2, latter part; Article 395). However, these are exceptions to the general rule of written complaints for initiating most civil actions.

The substance of the plaintiff's application within the action is typically a request for a favorable judgment, often aimed at securing protection for their asserted rights. The specific nature and understanding of this "request for a judgment" can be subject to various academic theories, but generally, it's an appeal to the court to affirm the plaintiff's position and grant relief.

The Court's Initial Response to an "Action": Scrutinizing Admissibility

Once an action is instituted through the proper submission of a complaint, the court's first order of business is not to delve into the merits of the dispute itself, but rather to determine the admissibility or legality (適法性 - tekihōsei) of the action itself. This involves examining whether the action satisfies various procedural requirements or conditions for suit (訴訟要件 - soshō yōken).

These procedural requirements are benchmarks derived from procedural law (訴訟法 - soshōhō), which encompasses not only the Code of Civil Procedure but also related statutes, case law, and established legal interpretations. Some soshō yōken are explicitly stated in the Code of Civil Procedure, such as the capacity of a party to sue or be sued (当事者能力 - tōjisha nōryoku, Articles 28 and 29) or the prohibition of lis pendens (重複起訴の禁止 - jūfuku kiso no kinshi, Article 142). Others might be found in separate laws (e.g., an arbitration agreement under Article 14 of the Arbitration Act, or matters outside judicial power under Article 3 of the Court Act). Still others, like the "interest to sue" or "benefit of an action" (訴えの利益 - uttae no rieki), are largely established through judicial interpretation, with only partial codification (e.g., Articles 134 and 135).

If the court, after reviewing the action against these procedural requirements, finds it to be inadmissible or unlawful (不適法 - futekihō), it will issue a dismissal of the action (訴え却下 - uttae kakka). This type of judgment is known as a procedural judgment (訴訟判決 - soshō hanketsu). A kakka judgment essentially means the court will not proceed to examine the substance of the plaintiff's asserted rights because the action itself fails to meet the necessary legal prerequisites for judicial consideration. This is often colloquially described as being "turned away at the gate" (門前払い - monzenbarai). In this scenario, the terms "action" (uttae), "unlawful" (futekihō), and "dismissal" (kakka) are intrinsically linked; there is no room for a "rejection" (kikyaku) of a "claim" (seikyū) at this stage.

Conversely, if the action is deemed to satisfy all procedural requirements and is thus admissible or lawful (適法 - tekihō), the court will then proceed to examine the substance or merits of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

The "Claim" (請求 - Seikyū): The Substantive Assertion of Rights

The "claim" (seikyū) is the substantive assertion of a right or legal relationship (権利または法律関係 - kenri matawa hōritsu kankei) by the plaintiff against the defendant. This assertion is grounded in substantive law (実体法 - jittaihō), such as the Civil Code (民法 - Minpō) or the Commercial Code (商法 - Shōhō), which governs the creation, alteration, or extinguishment of rights and obligations. In essence, the plaintiff is alleging that, based on substantive law, they possess a certain right (e.g., a right to payment of a loan, a right to ownership of property) that the defendant is infringing upon or denying. The term "legal relationship" (hōritsu kankei) is often abbreviated to "right-relationship" (権利関係 - kenri kankei), so a claim can be concisely understood as an "assertion of the existence or non-existence of a right-relationship," or even more simply, an "assertion of a right."

This concept aligns with the continental European legal tradition (to which Japan belongs), where litigation serves as the process for realizing and enforcing rights established by codified law, as self-help remedies are generally not permitted.

The Court's Examination of a "Claim": Adjudicating the Merits

When an action is deemed admissible, the court moves on to the examination of the merits (本案の審理 - hon'an no shinri) of the plaintiff's claim. This involves determining whether the plaintiff's assertion of rights is well-founded under the applicable substantive law. The court will interpret and apply relevant substantive law provisions to the facts presented by the parties.

Based on this substantive examination, the court will arrive at one of two types of substantive judgments (本案判決 - hon'an hanketsu):

1. Upholding the Claim (請求認容 - seikyū nin'yō): If the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is justified under substantive law (i.e., the asserted right exists and the defendant is obligated accordingly), it will issue a judgment upholding the claim. The operative part (主文 - shubun) of such a judgment will not simply state "the plaintiff's claim is upheld"; rather, it will specify the relief granted, depending on the type of claim (e.g., for performance: "The defendant shall pay the plaintiff ¥X," "The defendant shall vacate the premises"; for declaration: "It is confirmed that the plaintiff has ownership of the land described in the attached schedule").
2. Rejection of the Claim (請求棄却 - seikyū kikyaku): If the court determines that the plaintiff's claim lacks merit under substantive law (i.e., the asserted right does not exist, has been extinguished, or the defendant is not obligated as alleged), it will issue a judgment rejecting the claim. The operative part typically states, "The plaintiff's claim is rejected."

Only a judgment upholding the claim (seikyū nin'yō) constitutes a victory for the plaintiff.

The Indelible Distinction: Kakka vs. Kikyaku

The distinction between an "action" and a "claim" is thus fundamental:

• An action (uttae) is an application to the court for a judgment. Its admissibility is judged based on procedural law. If found inadmissible, it is dismissed (kakka) via a procedural judgment.
• A claim (seikyū) is an assertion of a right against the opposing party, contained within the action. Its validity is judged based on substantive law. If found to be without merit, it is rejected (kikyaku) via a substantive judgment.

Therefore, phrases like "rejection of an action" (uttae kikyaku) or "dismissal of a claim" (seikyū kyakka) are terminologically incorrect in the context of first-instance judgments and reflect a misunderstanding of these core concepts. Careful reading of Japanese court judgments will reveal this precise terminology, where the reasoning clearly distinguishes between findings related to the action's admissibility and the claim's merits. This distinction is not merely semantic; it has profound implications for the effect of the judgment, including its res judicata effect and the possibility of re-litigation.

The Order of Examination: Procedural Gatekeeping Before Substantive Review

Logically, the court first determines whether the "action" itself is procedurally sound before delving into the "claim's" substantive merits. If the procedural requirements (soshō yōken) are not met, the court issues a kakka (dismissal of the action) without ruling on the substance of the claim. Only if the action is deemed procedurally valid does the court proceed to the hon'an (substantive examination) of the claim, leading to either a nin'yō (upholding the claim) or a kikyaku (rejection of the claim).

Traditionally, the prevailing view (hon'an hanketsu yōken setsu) defines procedural requirements as "necessary conditions for rendering a substantive judgment." This implies that a substantive judgment (like a kikyaku) cannot be made before the court affirms that all procedural requirements are met.

In practice, however, the examination of procedural requirements and the merits of the claim often proceed concurrently. The critical point is that procedural requirements must generally be fulfilled by the conclusion of oral arguments (口頭弁論終結時 - kōtō benron shūketsuji) for a substantive judgment to be rendered. An exception to this timing is jurisdiction, which is typically determined at the time the action is filed (Article 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure). If a court lacks jurisdiction (a type of procedural requirement), the action is usually transferred to a competent court rather than dismissed (Article 16), making jurisdiction an exception in terms of both timing and effect of non-fulfillment.

This concurrent examination can lead to situations where, for example, the "interest to sue" (a complex procedural requirement often intertwined with the substance of the claim) is still under review, but it becomes clear that the claim itself is substantively unfounded (e.g., the asserted right is clearly time-barred). In such cases, a debate arises: should the court expend further resources on the procedural issue, or can it proceed directly to a kikyaku (rejection of the claim)?

Some legal theories and a minority of scholars argue for prioritizing the rejection of a clearly unfounded claim, even if procedural requirements are not fully confirmed. These approaches include re-defining procedural requirements (e.g., as "requirements only for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff" - shōso hanketsu yōken setsu) or viewing their absence as merely an "impediment to a substantive judgment" (hon'an hanketsu sogai jiyū setsu), allowing substantive judgment as long as the absence isn't definitively established. Another approach considers the purpose of each procedural requirement individually, arguing that for those aimed at preventing wasteful litigation or protecting the defendant, continuing to examine them when the claim is clearly meritless would be counterproductive. While this latter view has gained some traction, particularly concerning the "interest to sue" (supported by an old Supreme Court precedent, Great Court of Cassation, December 17, 1935, Minshu Vol. 14, p. 2053), the majority view and prevailing practice still generally require procedural admissibility before a substantive judgment, including a rejection of the claim. One practical reason for this is that if a first-instance court rejects a claim without fully addressing procedural requirements, and an appellate court later finds a procedural defect, the first-instance judgment will be overturned and the action dismissed, leading to no actual time savings.

Deeper Dive: Commencement of Examination of Procedural Requirements and Collection of Adjudicatory Materials

A related, more advanced point concerns how the court begins its examination of procedural requirements and what materials it can use. Most procedural requirements are considered matters to be investigated by the court ex officio (職権調査事項 - shokken chōsa jikō). This means the court should examine them proactively, even if not explicitly raised by the parties, due to their public interest nature (e.g., ensuring the proper functioning of the judicial system).

This contrasts with matters constituting a defense (抗弁事項 - kōben jikō), which the court typically only investigates if raised by a party (usually the defendant). Examples of procedural requirements treated as kōben jikō include the existence of an arbitration agreement (Arbitration Act, Article 14), an agreement not to sue, or the plaintiff's failure to provide security for litigation costs (Code of Civil Procedure, Article 75, Paragraph 4; Article 78). These are generally seen as protecting the defendant from having to engage in unnecessary litigation, so the onus is on the defendant to invoke them.

Furthermore, a distinction is made regarding the collection of materials for judging these requirements:

• Principle of ex officio inquiry (職権探知主義 - shokken tanchi shugi): The court itself can and should actively collect necessary information and evidence, not being limited to what the parties present.
• Principle of party presentation (弁論主義 - benron shugi): The court's decision must be based solely on the facts and evidence presented by the parties.

For most procedural requirements that are shokken chōsa jikō (e.g., judicial power, exclusive jurisdiction, existence of parties, party capacity, capacity to sue or be sued), the shokken tanchi shugi also applies because of their strong public interest component; the court should not be bound by, for instance, an admission by a party regarding these matters.

However, for some shokken chōsa jikō where the public interest is considered somewhat lower or where the determination is closely linked to the merits of the case (which are governed by benron shugi), such as the interest to sue, non-exclusive jurisdiction, or standing (当事者適格 - tōjisha tekikaku), the collection of materials follows the benron shugi. In these "Category B" situations, to prevent parties from inappropriately influencing the outcome through admissions on these procedural points, a concept of "ex officio examination" (職権審査 - shokken shinsa) is sometimes advocated. This would allow the court to investigate freely while still generally relying on party-presented materials, effectively excluding the binding effect of admissions (the second thesis of benron shugi) for these specific procedural requirements.

Conclusion

The distinction between an "action" (uttae) and a "claim" (seikyū), and the corresponding judicial responses of "dismissal" (kakka) and "rejection" (kikyaku), are not mere legal formalities in Japanese civil procedure. They represent a fundamental structure for how disputes are brought before and processed by the courts. Understanding that an action's procedural viability is assessed before its substantive merits are considered, and knowing the correct terminology and its implications, is crucial for anyone involved in or advising on litigation in Japan. It ensures that legal arguments are properly framed, that expectations regarding court proceedings are realistic, and that the ultimate judgment of the court is correctly interpreted in terms of its scope and effect.