SAKURA Law Office | Legal Update by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita

September 25, 2026 (fully revised October 5, 2026)

SAKURA Law Office | Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

SAKURA Law Office has fully revised Legal Update No. 18 by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita: “Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan — Article 118, Enforcement Judgments, Indirect Jurisdiction, International Service, Public Policy, Reciprocity and Asset Recovery (2026).”

A final judgment obtained outside Japan does not by itself permit a creditor to attach a Japanese bank account, receivable or real estate. A final and binding foreign judgment must satisfy the recognition requirements in Article 118 of Japan’s Code of Civil Procedure. To use Japan’s compulsory execution machinery, the creditor must then obtain an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. The Japanese court does not sit as an appellate court over the foreign litigation; the central question is whether Japanese law is prepared to give the judgment effect and enforceability in Japan.

That analysis should begin before the foreign litigation ends. Where Japan is a likely enforcement forum, foreign counsel should consider the Japanese indirect-jurisdiction test, service into Japan, the handling of defaults, notice of the judgment and appeal rights, the structure of damages, proof of finality, reciprocity and preservation of Japanese assets at the outset of the case. Service deserves particular attention: Japan has declared opposition to Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention as well as to the direct-service channels in Article 10(b) and (c), so a service method that appears commercially convenient may create downstream recognition risk.

Japan’s 2026 civil-procedure digitalization also affects the operational side of enforcement. An action seeking an enforcement judgment is itself civil litigation and, for newly filed cases after May 21, 2026, is handled within the digitalized litigation framework, including mandatory use of mints by litigation counsel. Asset-specific civil enforcement, however, follows a separate digitalization timetable; current court materials state that the fully amended Civil Execution Act is to enter into force no later than June 2028. Cross-border enforcement therefore requires both recognition doctrine and up-to-date procedural execution planning.

This Legal Update explains, as of October 5, 2026, how foreign companies, General Counsel, private equity sponsors, investors, creditors and foreign law firms should approach foreign-judgment recognition and enforcement in Japan as a single strategy extending from the design of the foreign case through Japanese asset recovery.

Executive Summary

Article 118 imposes four cumulative gatekeeping requirements: the foreign court’s jurisdiction must be recognized from the Japanese perspective; the unsuccessful defendant must have received the process required to commence the action or have appeared; the judgment and the proceedings must not offend Japanese public policy; and reciprocity must exist. These requirements call for substantive analysis of jurisdiction, service, procedural history, damages, foreign law and post-judgment events rather than a mechanical filing checklist.

Recognition and enforcement are different concepts. A foreign judgment satisfying Article 118 may be recognized when its effect becomes relevant in Japan without a freestanding recognition action in every case. Compulsory execution is different: an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act is generally required before Japanese assets can be attached. The enforcement court does not re-litigate the merits, but finality, Article 118 and post-judgment matters such as payment can directly affect what may be enforced.

Default judgments make service and procedural public policy especially important. Japan has objected to postal service under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention and to the Article 10(b) and (c) channels. The Supreme Court’s January 18, 2019 decision also shows that procedural public policy can be implicated where a party lacked a meaningful opportunity to learn of the judgment and appeal before it became final. A creditor should preserve not only the originating service record, but also the judgment-entry, notice and appellate record.

Public policy is not a general merits-review device, but the legal nature of damages can be decisive. The Supreme Court held in 1997 that a punitive-damages component serving punishment and general deterrence is contrary to Japanese public policy. In 2021, the Court further held that a payment collected abroad cannot be allocated to the non-recognizable punitive component so as to increase the balance enforceable in Japan. The face amount of a foreign judgment is therefore not necessarily the Japanese enforceable amount.

Reciprocity does not turn solely on the existence of a judgments treaty. Under the Supreme Court’s 1983 approach, the question is whether comparable Japanese judgments would be recognized in the rendering jurisdiction under conditions not materially different from Japan’s requirements. In federal systems, the analysis may be state-specific and require evidence of local statutes, cases and practice.

SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita approach foreign-judgment enforcement as an upstream cross-border disputes issue. Foreign forum selection, service, damages architecture, judgment notice, finality, asset preservation and multi-jurisdictional recovery should be coordinated before those choices become fixed in the foreign record.

1. Recognition and Compulsory Enforcement Are Different Legal Stages

Japanese law separates the legal effect of a foreign judgment from the use of Japanese state enforcement machinery. Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses when a final and binding judgment rendered by a foreign court is effective in Japan. Japanese law does not require a separate declaratory recognition action in every case before a qualifying foreign judgment can have legal effect; recognition may arise as an incidental issue in later Japanese proceedings.

Compulsory execution is different. To reach a bank account, receivable, real estate or other Japanese asset, the creditor generally needs an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. A foreign judgment with a final enforcement judgment then functions as an enforcement title under Article 22. Obtaining the foreign judgment is therefore not the end of the recovery process, but the beginning of the Japanese recognition-and-execution stage where Japanese assets matter.

The expression “final and binding judgment rendered by a foreign court” is also functional rather than merely formal. The Supreme Court’s April 28, 1998 jurisprudence treats substance as important: the issue is whether the foreign judicial decision finally determines a private-law relationship with appropriate procedural safeguards, not simply whether the originating system labels the instrument a “judgment.” Finality itself is determined by the law of the rendering jurisdiction and may require certificates, docket records or foreign-law evidence showing that ordinary appellate review is no longer available.

The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention is now in force internationally, but Japan is not listed as a Contracting Party in the HCCH status materials currently available. For ordinary civil and commercial judgments, the Japanese framework therefore continues to depend principally on Article 118 and Article 24. That makes the interaction between Japanese domestic law and the law of the rendering jurisdiction central to enforcement planning.

2. Indirect Jurisdiction Is a Japanese Recognition Question, Not Merely a Foreign-Court Question

Article 118(i) requires jurisdiction of the foreign court to be recognized from the Japanese perspective. This is commonly described as indirect jurisdiction. It is not enough that the rendering court validly exercised jurisdiction under its own procedural law. A creditor seeking Japanese enforcement must also show that the jurisdictional connection is one that Japanese law is prepared to recognize for purposes of giving the resulting judgment effect in Japan.

In its April 24, 2014 decision, the Supreme Court held, outside the personal-status context, that indirect jurisdiction should in principle be assessed by reference to Japan’s own statutory rules on international jurisdiction, while considering the concrete circumstances and whether recognition of the foreign judgment is appropriate. Relevant connections may include the defendant’s domicile or principal office, contractual place of performance, tort location, business activity, property, related claims and jurisdiction agreements.

Forum-selection clauses can therefore be important but should not be treated mechanically. Counsel should examine validity, exclusivity, scope and whether the clause reaches non-contract claims. In complex transactions, master agreements, guarantees, side letters and shareholder arrangements may contain inconsistent dispute clauses. A judgment obtained in a forum selected by only one part of the contractual architecture can create recognition issues that were invisible during the foreign merits case.

For a creditor, this means that a foreign court’s willingness to hear the case is not the only forum question. If significant assets are in Japan, Japanese indirect jurisdiction should be tested before filing abroad. For a Japanese defendant, the choice between ignoring the foreign case, challenging jurisdiction only or defending on the merits should likewise be made with the possible Japanese enforcement proceeding in view.

3. Service, Appearance and Default Judgments Require Japan-Focused Planning

Article 118(ii) requires the unsuccessful defendant to have received service of the summons or other order necessary to commence the action, other than service by publication or a similar method, or to have appeared without such service. In default-judgment enforcement, the originating service record is often one of the most important pieces of evidence. A creditor should preserve the documents served, date and place, identity of the recipient, translations and the legal basis for the service method.

Service into Japan must be designed around applicable judicial-assistance rules. Japan is a party to the 1965 Hague Service Convention and has opposed the methods in Article 10(b) and (c). In 2018, Japan also gave notice of opposition to Article 10(a), the postal-channel provision. Foreign counsel should therefore not assume that sending the complaint directly by international mail is sufficient merely because the defendant physically receives it. The originating court’s law, the Convention, Japan’s declarations and the method actually used all require review.

The Supreme Court’s April 28, 1998 decision is important in this respect. Where an applicable judicial-assistance framework prescribes how service is to occur, actual receipt does not necessarily cure a departure from that framework for Article 118(ii) purposes. The safer strategy is to construct a service record that can later be defended in Japan rather than attempting to repair the record after a default judgment has already been entered.

Article 118(ii) also expressly addresses appearance. A defendant that appears can materially change the later recognition analysis even if service is disputed. The strategic implications differ among a jurisdiction-only objection, a merits defense and complete non-participation. A Japanese company should not default simply because it has no obvious assets in the foreign forum; Japanese asset exposure may make the foreign judgment economically significant later.

Procedural public policy adds a further layer. In its January 18, 2019 decision, the Supreme Court held that a foreign proceeding can offend Japanese public policy where a party was not informed of the judgment, or given a meaningful opportunity to learn of it, and the judgment became final without a real opportunity to appeal. For default judgments, the enforcement file should therefore include the post-judgment notice and appeal record, not only evidence of initial service.

4. Public Policy Is Narrow, but the Nature of Damages and Procedural Fairness Can Change the Enforceable Amount

Article 118(iii) asks whether the contents of the foreign judgment and the proceedings are compatible with Japanese public policy. It is not a general license to refuse recognition because foreign law, damages practice or procedure differs from Japan. The inquiry concerns whether recognition would conflict with fundamental principles of the Japanese legal order after taking the international character of the dispute into account.

Punitive damages are the leading commercial example. In its July 11, 1997 decision, the Supreme Court held that the portion of a California judgment awarding punitive damages for punishment and general deterrence was contrary to Japanese public policy. When a U.S. or other foreign judgment contains multiple components, counsel should separate compensatory damages, punitive or exemplary damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and analyze the legal character of each component rather than simply convert the total face amount into yen.

A non-recognizable component does not necessarily destroy the entire judgment. Where permissible components are independently identifiable and the other Article 118 requirements are satisfied, recognition and enforcement may remain possible to that extent. This gives foreign counsel a practical reason to structure prayers for relief, findings and judgment forms so that distinct damages components can be traced later in Japan.

The Supreme Court’s May 25, 2021 decision also demonstrates that prior collections abroad matter. Where a foreign judgment included a punitive-damages component that has no effect in Japan, the Court did not permit an overseas payment to be treated as if it had first satisfied that non-recognizable component so as to enlarge the balance enforceable in Japan. Multi-jurisdictional payments, settlements, set-offs and execution proceeds should therefore be centrally tracked and the Japanese enforceable balance independently recalculated.

Public policy also has a procedural dimension. The 2019 Supreme Court decision shows that effective notice of the judgment and a meaningful opportunity to appeal can matter independently of initial service. Preserving the procedural record is therefore not administrative housekeeping; it is evidence supporting Article 118(iii).

5. Reciprocity Is a Foreign-Law Issue, Not a Treaty Checklist

Article 118(iv) requires reciprocity, but Japanese law does not make a bilateral or multilateral judgments treaty an absolute prerequisite. In its June 7, 1983 decision, the Supreme Court adopted the basic approach that reciprocity can exist where Japanese judgments of the same type would be recognized in the rendering jurisdiction under conditions not materially different from Japan’s recognition requirements.

The task is therefore comparative. Counsel may need to prove the rendering jurisdiction’s rules on finality, jurisdiction, notice or due process, public policy and any other recognition conditions through statutes, cases and practice. The foreign system does not need to reproduce Article 118 word for word. The question is whether the conditions are materially different in a way that prevents reciprocal treatment of comparable Japanese judgments.

Federal systems can require jurisdiction-specific research. A judgment rendered in a particular U.S. state may call for analysis of that state’s foreign-judgment recognition statute or common law rather than a generic statement about “U.S. law.” Foreign-law evidence can therefore become a core part of the Japanese enforcement-judgment action, not merely background material supplied to the client.

The international landscape is evolving. The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention is in force for a growing number of jurisdictions, but Japan is not presently listed as a Contracting Party in the HCCH status materials. For Japanese enforcement today, reciprocity under Article 118(iv) remains a live domestic-law question that should be verified for the relevant rendering jurisdiction at the time enforcement is sought.

6. The Enforcement-Judgment Action and Asset Preservation Should Run as One Recovery Project

Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act provides the jurisdictional and substantive framework for an action seeking an enforcement judgment. In ordinary commercial matters, the action is generally filed in the district court having jurisdiction over the debtor’s general venue; if the debtor has no general venue in Japan, jurisdiction may be based on the subject matter of the claim or attachable property. Because the action is civil litigation, cases newly filed after May 21, 2026 operate within Japan’s digitalized litigation framework, including mandatory electronic procedures for litigation counsel through mints.

The Japanese court does not re-try the foreign merits. Article 24 expressly requires the enforcement judgment to be rendered without investigating whether the foreign judicial decision was correct. That does not make the proceeding automatic. Finality, Article 118 and post-judgment matters affecting the existence or amount of the obligation remain central. A judgment debtor should distinguish genuine Japanese enforcement defenses from an attempt to reargue the foreign merits.

For a creditor, asset preservation may be more urgent than the enforcement judgment itself. If there is a material risk that Japanese assets will be dissipated before the enforcement judgment becomes final, provisional attachment or other relief under the Civil Provisional Remedies Act should be considered. The foreign judgment can be important evidence of the underlying right, but Japanese requirements for the protected claim, need for preservation and security must still be satisfied independently.

Once the enforcement judgment is final, the creditor moves to asset-specific execution against deposits, receivables, real property or other assets. Recovery depends on identification of the correct debtor, third-party obligors, secured interests, statutory priorities, competing creditors and timing. Japan also provides, subject to statutory conditions, debtor-asset disclosure and specified third-party information procedures. These mechanisms are useful, but they are not a substitute for asset intelligence developed while the foreign case is still pending.

The procedural digitalization timetable should also be understood correctly. The enforcement-judgment action itself falls within ordinary civil litigation, but Japan’s asset-specific civil enforcement procedures are being digitized on a separate schedule. Current court materials state that the fully amended Civil Execution Act is to enter into force no later than June 2028. Until then, filing and documentation requirements should be confirmed for each enforcement or provisional-remedy procedure rather than assumed to mirror ordinary litigation.

7. Japanese Enforceability Should Be Designed Upstream by Both Creditors and Debtors

If a debtor’s principal assets are in Japan, a judgment creditor should not postpone Japanese advice until after judgment. Before the foreign case begins, counsel should test indirect jurisdiction, select a service route that will survive Article 118(ii), plan any default procedure, separate damages that may raise public-policy issues, establish how judgment notice and finality will be proven, identify reciprocity evidence and evaluate Japanese provisional remedies. The objective is to align the way the foreign case is won with the way the judgment must later be enforced.

A Japanese company receiving foreign process should use the same two-forum perspective. Ignoring the action does not guarantee that a resulting default judgment will be unenforceable in Japan. Decisions on jurisdictional objections, merits participation, settlement and appeals should be made with Article 118 in view, including the effect of appearance and the procedural-public-policy record.

Foreign court judgments should also be distinguished from foreign arbitral awards. Foreign judgments are governed principally by Article 118 and Article 24; foreign arbitral awards are governed by Japan’s Arbitration Act and the New York Convention. At the contracting stage, parties should choose litigation or arbitration by looking beyond confidentiality and language to asset location, interim measures, appeal rights and the international circulation of the resulting judgment or award.

SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita treat foreign-judgment enforcement as an integrated international disputes matter spanning foreign litigation, international service, damages architecture, Japanese private international law, asset preservation and civil execution. Working with foreign counsel before the foreign record becomes fixed can reduce recognition risk; once a judgment exists, the Japanese strategy should combine the enforcement judgment, provisional remedies and asset-specific execution in one recovery plan.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. If I have won a foreign judgment, can I immediately attach a Japanese bank account?

No. The judgment must satisfy Article 118, and compulsory execution in Japan generally requires an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act.

Q2. Is a separate recognition action always required?

No. A qualifying foreign judgment can be recognized when its effect becomes relevant in another Japanese proceeding without a freestanding recognition action in every case. Compulsory execution, however, requires an enforcement judgment.

Q3. Will the Japanese court re-try the foreign facts and contract interpretation?

Generally no. Article 24 bars re-examination of whether the foreign judicial decision was correct on the merits. Finality, Article 118 and post-judgment matters such as payment remain subject to review.

Q4. Can a foreign default judgment be enforced in Japan?

Potentially yes. Indirect jurisdiction, valid service or appearance, post-judgment notice, the opportunity to appeal, public policy and reciprocity all require careful analysis.

Q5. Is mailing a foreign complaint directly to a defendant in Japan sufficient service?

It should not be assumed to be sufficient. Japan has opposed Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention as well as the Article 10(b) and (c) channels. The applicable treaty, foreign procedural law and actual service method must be reviewed.

Q6. Can punitive damages awarded by a U.S. court be enforced in Japan?

The Supreme Court has held that a punitive-damages component serving punishment and general deterrence can be contrary to Japanese public policy. Compensatory and other components should be analyzed separately.

Q7. Does a punitive-damages component make the entire judgment unenforceable?

Not necessarily. If the non-recognizable component can be separated and the remaining components satisfy Article 118, recognition and enforcement may still be possible to that extent.

Q8. Is a judgments treaty required to establish reciprocity?

No. Reciprocity can be shown where comparable Japanese judgments would be recognized in the rendering jurisdiction under conditions not materially different from Japan’s. Local statutes, cases and practice may need to be proven.

Q9. Part of the judgment has already been collected elsewhere. Can the entire remaining face amount be enforced in Japan?

Not automatically. The Japanese enforceable balance depends on the judgment’s components, prior payments and settlements, allocation issues and whether any part of the foreign judgment is not recognized in Japan.

Q10. We have not yet filed the foreign lawsuit. Should Japanese enforcement counsel be involved now?

Often yes if substantial assets are in Japan. Early Japanese input can shape jurisdiction, service, damages structure, judgment notice, finality evidence, reciprocity and asset-preservation strategy before those matters become fixed in the foreign record.

About the Legal Update Series by Kenshiro Michishita

SAKURA Law Office publishes the Legal Update series through the profile of Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita, addressing major legal issues affecting cross-border business in M&A, corporate law, international transactions, international disputes, financial regulation, AI and technology, data protection, intellectual property and crisis management.

No. 18 follows No. 17 on litigating against a Japanese company in Japan and focuses on the next stage of cross-border disputes: giving effect to a judgment obtained outside Japan and converting it into recoveries from Japanese assets. Together with No. 19 on international arbitration, the series distinguishes the international enforcement architecture for court judgments from that for arbitral awards.

SAKURA Law Office — Official Website

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — Profile

How SAKURA Law Office Can Assist

SAKURA Law Office advises foreign companies, General Counsel, private equity sponsors, investors, financial institutions, creditors and foreign law firms on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan, Article 118 analysis, enforcement-judgment actions under Article 24, international service, foreign-law evidence on reciprocity, Japanese asset investigations, provisional attachment and post-judgment compulsory execution.

Where foreign litigation has not yet commenced, we can coordinate in English with overseas counsel to assess Japanese indirect jurisdiction, service into Japan, default-judgment strategy, damages structure, judgment notice and finality, reciprocity and Japanese asset preservation before the foreign procedural record is fixed. We also represent Japanese companies and other judgment debtors resisting enforcement based on jurisdiction, service, public policy, reciprocity, payment, settlement and other available defenses.

Contact

For advice concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan, enforcement judgments, Article 118, international service, cross-border litigation, provisional remedies or Japanese asset recovery, please contact SAKURA Law Office.

SAKURA Law Office

4F Ark Hills South Tower, 4-5 Roppongi 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0032, Japan

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

Web: https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

Principal References

1. Code of Civil Procedure — Japanese Law Translation (including Article 118) — https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4421

2. Civil Execution Act — Japanese Law Translation (including Articles 22 and 24) — https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/70

3. Code of Civil Procedure — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/408AC0000000109

4. Civil Execution Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/354AC0000000004

5. Civil Provisional Remedies Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/401AC0000000091

6. Courts of Japan — Digitalization of Civil Court Proceedings — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/minjidejitaruka/index.html

7. Courts of Japan — Reference Materials for the Amended Civil Procedure Rules and phased digitalization of civil enforcement — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/minjidejitaruka/minso_shiryou/index.html

8. Supreme Court of Japan, June 7, 1983, 1982(O)826 — reciprocity — https://www.courts.go.jp/english/Judgments/search/70/index.html

9. Supreme Court of Japan, July 11, 1997, 1993(O)1762 — punitive damages and public policy — https://www.courts.go.jp/english/Judgments/search/316/index.html

10. Supreme Court of Japan, April 28, 1998, 1994(O)1838 — foreign judgment, jurisdiction, service, public policy and reciprocity (official case-search portal) — https://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/search2/index.html?lang=ja

11. Supreme Court of Japan, April 24, 2014, 2011(Ju)1781 — indirect jurisdiction — https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/147/084147_hanrei.pdf

12. Supreme Court of Japan, January 18, 2019, 2017(Ju)2177 — procedural public policy — https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-88253.pdf

13. Supreme Court of Japan, May 25, 2021, 2020(Ju)170 / 2020(O)135 — punitive damages and partial satisfaction — https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/323/090323_hanrei.pdf

14. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan — Methods for a Court of a Foreign State to Request Japan to Serve Judicial Documents and Take Evidence — https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/cp/page25e_000251.html

15. HCCH — 1965 Service Convention — https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=17

16. HCCH — 1965 Service Convention Status Table — https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17

17. HCCH — Japan’s declarations under the 1965 Service Convention, including opposition to Article 10(a) — https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/print/?cid=17

18. HCCH — 2019 Judgments Convention Status Table — https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137

19. SAKURA Law Office — Official Website — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

20. SAKURA Law Office — Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/lawyer/michishita-kenshiro/

Disclaimer

This article provides general information based on Japanese statutes, published court decisions and official materials available as of October 5, 2026. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion concerning any particular foreign judgment, lawsuit, service method, damages award or asset. Recognition and enforcement depend on the rendering jurisdiction, nature and finality of the judgment, indirect jurisdiction, service or appearance, substantive and procedural public policy, reciprocity, payments, settlements, set-offs and other facts. Foreign law, treaty status, treaty declarations and court practice may change. Japan’s May 21, 2026 digitalization of ordinary civil litigation does not mean that every provisional-remedy or asset-specific enforcement procedure follows the same electronic filing regime. Specific matters should be assessed under the Japanese law, foreign law, treaties, court practice and asset circumstances in force when enforcement or provisional relief is sought.