Civil Procedure in Japan

Introduction

Japanese civil procedure is governed primarily by the Code of Civil Procedure (Minji Soshō Hō, Act No. 109 of 1996, effective 1 January 1998), which replaced the 1890 Code. The 1996 Code was the product of a comprehensive reform effort aimed at expediting litigation, strengthening early case management, and improving access to justice. It was further amended in 2003 and 2022 to introduce information-technology measures and to expand the scope of summary procedures.

The constitutional foundation is Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees the right of access to the courts. Civil procedure in Japan operates within a three-tier hierarchical framework: the District Court (Chihō Saibansho) at first instance for most cases, the High Court (Kōtō Saibansho) on intermediate appeal, and the Supreme Court (Saikō Saibansho) on final appeal.

The Three‑Tier Court System

First Instance. The District Court is the court of general jurisdiction for civil claims exceeding ¥1.4 million. Smaller claims are heard by the Summary Court (Kani Saibansho), which applies simplified rules. The Family Court (Katei Saibansho) has exclusive jurisdiction over domestic relations and conciliation proceedings. In the District Court, a case is heard by a single judge or, in more complex matters, by a three-judge panel (gōgōtei).

Appeals. The first appeal, kōso, lies to the High Court. The kōso appeal may raise both questions of fact and questions of law, and the High Court reviews the District Court’s findings with some capacity for de novo review of factual determinations. The second appeal, jōkoku, lies to the Supreme Court and is limited to questions of law, including constitutional interpretation and conformity with Supreme Court precedent.

Commencement of Proceedings

A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint (soshō jō) with the court. The complaint must identify the parties, state the factual basis of the claim, and specify the relief sought (Article 133 CCP). The court serves the complaint on the defendant. Service of process (sōtatsu) is performed by the court, not by the plaintiff. If the defendant’s address is unknown, the court may order service by publication (kōji sōtatsu).

The defendant files an answer (tōben sho) within a period fixed by the court, usually four to six weeks. The answer must admit or deny each factual allegation and may raise affirmative defences. The court then schedules a preparatory proceeding (junbi tetsuzuki) or a date for oral argument (kōtō benron).

Pleading and Case Management

Japanese procedure employs a system of written preparations (junbi shomen) that serve as the primary vehicle for exchanging factual and legal contentions before the oral hearing. The parties file successive written preparations narrowing the issues. The judge plays an active role in this process, exercising a duty to clarify (shakumei-ken) by asking questions, requesting explanations, and suggesting amendments to the pleadings.

The 1996 Code introduced a planning procedure (kōtō benron no keikaku) in which the court and the parties agree on a schedule for the exchange of written preparations, the disclosure of evidence, and the oral hearing. This was intended to reduce the length of civil proceedings, which had attracted criticism for their duration.

The Concentrated Evidence Principle

Japanese civil procedure abandoned the piecemeal presentation of evidence that characterised the old Code in favour of a concentrated hearing model. Under Article 182 CCP, the court “shall hear the evidence as concentrated as possible.” In practice, most evidence is presented at a single oral argument session or a small number of consecutive sessions.

Oral argument (kōtō benron) is the hearing at which the parties present their contentions and evidence. The hearing is conducted by the presiding judge, who may question the parties and the witnesses. The public is admitted unless the court orders a closed hearing for reasons of public order or morals (Article 82 of the Constitution).

The Role of the Judge

The Japanese judge exercises a more inquisitorial function than a common‑law judge. The judge may examine the parties, call witnesses on the court’s own motion, and order expert evidence. The judge also actively encourages settlement (wakai). Indeed, a large proportion of civil cases in Japan are resolved by settlement rather than by judgment.

The judge’s duty to clarify the case includes the power to indicate the legal theories on which the court may rely, thereby enabling the parties to tailor their arguments. This duty is rooted in the principle of procedural fairness and is codified in Article 149 CCP.

Evidence

The Code of Civil Procedure adopts the principle of free evaluation of evidence (jiyū shinshō shugi): Article 247 provides that “the court shall determine the truth of factual allegations based on the entire import of the oral argument and the evidence examined.” There are no formal rules of exclusion corresponding to the common‑law hearsay rule, though the Code sets out requirements for the authenticity of documentary evidence.

The principal forms of evidence are documentary evidence (shōshō), witness testimony (shōnin jinsō), expert evidence (kantei), inspection (kenshō), and party examination (tōjinsha jinsō). The burden of proof (kyoshō sekinin) rests on the party who asserts the existence of a fact favourable to its legal position. The standard of proof in civil cases is described as “high probability” (kōdo no kakushin), which the Supreme Court has equated to the judge’s conviction of the truth based on the evidence.

Judgment

At the conclusion of the oral argument, the court proceeds to judgment. The judgment (hanketsu) must state the reasons (riyū) on which it is based (Article 253 CCP). A judgment may be by default (kesseki hanketsu) if the defendant fails to appear without justification. The judgment is binding on the parties and may be enforced if not satisfied voluntarily.

Appeal

Kōso (appeal to the High Court) must be filed within two weeks of service of the judgment (Article 285 CCP). The appellant may challenge findings of fact as well as conclusions of law. The High Court may affirm, modify, or reverse the District Court’s judgment.

Jōkoku (appeal to the Supreme Court) is limited to questions of law. The Supreme Court exercises discretionary review, granting jōkoku only in cases that involve a constitutional issue or that conflict with Supreme Court precedent. In practice, the Court accepts fewer than 5% of jōkoku petitions.

Summary Procedures

The Summary Court follows a simplified procedure for claims not exceeding ¥1.4 million. The parties may present their cases orally, and the court may give judgment without a written statement of reasons. The “small claims” procedure (shotō soshō) for claims up to ¥600,000 is even more streamlined: a single hearing, no appeal on questions of fact, and judgment given immediately.

Efficiency and Speed

One of the principal objectives of the 1996 Code was to accelerate civil litigation. The average duration of first‑instance cases in the District Court has fallen from approximately 20 months in the 1990s to approximately 12 months in the 2020s. The 2022 amendments introduced IT measures, including electronic filing and remote hearings, which are expected to improve efficiency further.