Enforcement of Judgments in Japan

Introduction

The enforcement of civil judgments in Japan is governed by the Civil Execution Act (Minji Shikkō Hō, Act No. 4 of 1979, effective 1 October 1980). The Act replaced the execution provisions of the former Code of Civil Procedure (1890) and consolidated the law of enforcement into a single, comprehensive statute. The enforcement system distinguishes between execution for monetary claims, execution for non-monetary claims, and provisional remedies. The underlying principle is that a successful litigant should be able to realise the benefit of the judgment without encountering undue obstacles, while the debtor retains the protections afforded by due process.

The Civil Execution Act is divided into four chapters: Chapter 1 (General Provisions), Chapter 2 (Execution for the Satisfaction of Monetary Claims), Chapter 3 (Execution for the Satisfaction of Non-Monetary Claims), and Chapter 4 (Provisional Remedies). Subsidiary legislation includes the Act on Compulsory Auction (Kyōsei Kyōbaku Hō, 1913) and the Civil Execution Rules (Minji Shikkō Kisoku).

The Enforcement Authorities

Enforcement Court (Shikkō Saibansho). The District Court is the enforcement court for most proceedings. The enforcement court issues orders for seizure, conducts the distribution of proceeds, and resolves disputes arising during the execution process (such as third‑party claims and objections to the method of enforcement).

Enforcement Officer (Shikkō Kan). The enforcement officer is a court official who carries out physical acts of enforcement: seizing movable property, evicting debtors from premises, and conducting auctions of movable assets. Enforcement officers are independent of the judges and are assigned to each District Court.

Enforcement of Monetary Claims

The enforcement of a monetary judgment proceeds through three stages: seizure, conversion, and distribution.

Seizure

The creditor applies to the enforcement court for a seizure order. The application must identify the judgment (keishi tatemae — the enforceable instrument) and the assets to be seized. The court issues a seizure order (sashiosae) without hearing the debtor in most cases.

Seizure of Real Property. The enforcement court issues an order prohibiting the debtor from disposing of the real property. The order is registered in the Real Property Registry. An appraiser is appointed to value the property, and a date for the compulsory auction is set.

Seizure of Movables. The enforcement officer physically seizes the debtor’s movable assets. Certain movables are exempt from seizure: basic household goods, tools of trade, and assets necessary for the debtor’s livelihood (Article 131 CEA). The debtor may apply to vary or discharge the seizure on grounds of hardship.

Seizure of Claims (Garnishment). Where the debtor has a claim against a third party (such as a bank account or wages), the enforcement court issues a garnishment order (sashiosae). The garnishee (e.g., the bank or employer) is prohibited from paying the debtor. The debtor may retain a minimum subsistence portion of wages (the garnishment of wages is limited in amount under Article 153 CEA; the 2012 amendments raised the protected minimum).

Conversion

Compulsory Auction. Real property is sold by compulsory auction (kyōsei kyōbaku). The auction is conducted by the enforcement court. Bidders must post a deposit. The highest bidder is declared the successful purchaser and acquires the property free of encumbrances (with limited exceptions).

Private Sale. For certain assets, the court may authorise a private sale (tokubetsu uriwatashi) in lieu of auction, particularly where the market is limited and a private sale is likely to realise a higher price.

Conversion of Movables. The enforcement officer sells seized movable assets at a public auction or by private sale. The sale proceeds are deposited with the court.

Distribution

If multiple creditors have claims against the same debtor, the enforcement court conducts a distribution proceeding (haibun tetsuzuki). The proceeds of the sale are distributed in order of priority. The priority order is determined by the substantive law: secured creditors (such as mortgagees and pledgees) take priority over unsecured creditors (Articles 87–90 CEA). Among unsecured creditors, the proceeds are distributed pari passu unless a creditor has obtained a prior attachment order.

The “competing claims” system (shōreikō kyōsō) allows a creditor who has obtained a provisional attachment or a judgment lien to take priority over general unsecured creditors if the attachment or the judgment is prior in time.

Enforcement of Non-Monetary Claims

Indirect Enforcement (Astreinte). For obligations that cannot be satisfied by the payment of money, the CEA provides for indirect enforcement (Article 172 CEA). The court may order the debtor to pay a monetary sum for each day, week, or month of non-performance. The amount is fixed by the court and is intended to coerce the debtor to perform. This system is functionally equivalent to the French astreinte.

Direct Compulsion. For certain obligations, the enforcement officer may directly compel the debtor to perform. The most important example is eviction: the enforcement officer may enter the debtor’s residence, remove the debtor and the debtor’s belongings, and deliver possession to the creditor (Articles 168–171 CEA).

Specific Performance of Acts. If the obligation is to perform a specific act (such as the delivery of a specific item or the execution of a document), the court may authorise the creditor to have the act performed at the debtor’s expense (Article 171 CEA). If the act is personal to the debtor (such as an obligation to paint a picture), indirect enforcement is the only remedy.

Provisional Remedies

Provisional Disposition (Kari Shobun). A provisional disposition is a temporary order preserving a disputed right or maintaining the status quo pending final judgment. It may be used to restrain the debtor from disposing of specific property, to order the provisional registration of a claim, or to appoint a provisional administrator.

Provisional Attachment (Kari Sashiosae). A provisional attachment is a freeze on the debtor’s assets to prevent their dissipation before judgment. The creditor must show a prima facie case and the necessity of the attachment. The attachment is effected by the same methods as a final execution (seizure of real property, movables, or claims).

Both provisional remedies are governed by Articles 20–25 CEA and the Civil Provisional Remedies Act (Minji Hozen Hō, 1989). The applicant must post security to compensate the debtor if the order proves unjustified.

The Relationship with Insolvency Law

The Civil Execution Act operates alongside Japan’s insolvency framework. If the debtor becomes bankrupt, enforcement proceedings are stayed (Article 68 CEA). The debtor may also obtain a stay by filing for civil rehabilitation (minji saisei) under the Civil Rehabilitation Act (Minji Saisei Hō, 2004) or for corporate reorganisation (kaisha kōsei) under the Corporate Reorganisation Act (Kaisha Kōsei Hō, 2002).

Reform and Modernisation

The 2003 reform of the CEA and the 2004 reform of the Bankruptcy Act modernised the enforcement system. Key changes included the introduction of the indirect enforcement system (astreinte), the improvement of the compulsory auction process, and the strengthening of debtor protections in wage garnishment. The 2012 reform raised the protected minimum in wage garnishment and introduced measures to facilitate the enforcement of the return of children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Japan’s enforcement system is generally regarded as efficient and reliable. The time from application to sale in a real-property enforcement is typically six to twelve months, and the distribution of proceeds is conducted expeditiously. The system balances the creditor’s interest in prompt enforcement with the debtor’s right to procedural protection and a minimum standard of living.