Japan

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

Japan is not currently a party to any international treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, including the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

Japanese domestic law mainly governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan. In particular:

• Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996, as amended) sets out the requirements for the recognition of foreign judgments in Japan; and
• Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act (Act No. 4 of 1979, as amended) provides the legal basis to obtain an execution judgment from a Japanese court, which is necessary to enforce a recognized foreign judgment in Japan.

In addition, although it does not directly govern recognition or enforcement, the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”) is often relevant in practice because proper service of process is a key requirement for enforcement in Japan. In December 2018, Japan formally declared its objection to Article 10(a) of that convention, which permits service by postal mail. As a result, documents served in Japan from another contracting state must generally proceed through Japan’s Central Authority (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) instead of by direct postal service, unless another treaty applies.

Japan recognizes foreign judgments that satisfy the following requirements:

• Finality. The judgment must be final and binding in the country of origin.
• Jurisdiction. The foreign court must have had jurisdiction on grounds acceptable under Japanese principles of international jurisdiction set forth under Articles 3-2 to 3-12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (such as jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile/habitual residence, the place where the defendant performed a contract, or the defendant’s consent to the foreign court’s jurisdiction).
• Proper service or voluntary appearance. The defendant must have received proper service of the complaint and summons or appeared in court and mounted a defense without such service. Japanese courts will often refuse to recognize a judgment when the plaintiff effectuates service by:
  • directly hand-delivering the required documents outside the methods set forth in the Hague Service Convention; or
  • directly mailing the documents through the postal service.
• Public policy. The judgment and the underlying proceedings must not violate Japanese public policy. Under relevant Japanese case law, for example:
  • A decision ordering the losing party to bear all of the prevailing party’s actual litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) does not violate public policy.
  • Because Japan does not recognize punitive damages, the punitive damages portion of a judgment violates Japanese public policy and is therefore unenforceable. However, the court may disregard the punitive damages portion and enforce the remainder of the judgment.
  • If the foreign proceedings effectively deprived a party of a meaningful opportunity to review the judgment and file an appeal, Japanese courts may treat the foreign proceedings as contrary to public policy and refuse to enforce the judgment.
  • If a final and binding Japanese judgment already exists between the same parties based on the same set of facts, Japanese courts may refuse to recognize the foreign judgment if it conflicts with the Japanese judgment, as this would undermine the Japanese judicial order.
• Reciprocity. The originating jurisdiction must provide recognition and enforcement of judgments substantially equivalent to that provided by Japanese courts. A party wishing to enforce a foreign judgment in Japan must obtain a judgment from a Japanese court to execute that foreign judgment. As a practical matter, a party should commence the procedure no later than 10 years from the date the foreign judgment becomes final and conclusive. The Japanese Civil Code provides a 10-year limitation period for enforcing domestic court judgments, and Japanese courts are likely to apply the same limitation period to foreign judgments. A party may oppose enforcement by establishing that the other party failed to satisfy any of the above requirements (for example, lack of jurisdiction, defective service, a public policy issue, or lack of reciprocity). In exceptional cases, the opposing party may also argue that the other party obtained the judgment fraudulently, though such fraud-based challenges typically fail. Japanese courts evaluate only these requirements and do not re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment.

Japan is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). Japan’s Arbitration Act (Act No. 138 of 2003, as amended) (JAA), which is broadly based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (in particular, Articles 45–46), governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and largely follows the New York Convention standards.

A Japanese court will recognize a foreign arbitral award without the need for a separate recognition procedure as long as the foreign award meets the requirements under the JAA and no grounds for refusal apply. To enforce an award, a party must obtain an enforcement decision from a district court under the JAA. The party may then proceed with compulsory execution under the Civil Execution Act.

Key defenses/grounds for refusal

A Japanese court may refuse enforcement only on the limited grounds set out in the JAA (mirroring Article V of the New York Convention), including:

• Invalid arbitration agreement/incapacity. No valid arbitration agreement exists under applicable law, or a party lacked the requisite capacity to enter into a valid agreement.
• Lack of proper notice/inability to present the case. A party did not receive proper notice of the appointment of arbitrators or the proceedings and was therefore unable to present their case.
• Beyond the scope of the arbitration. The award deals with matters beyond the scope of:
  • the arbitration agreement; or
  • the claims submitted in the arbitration.
• Improper composition or procedure. The tribunal composition or procedure violated either the parties’ agreement or applicable law.
• Non-arbitrability or public policy. The dispute is not arbitrable under Japanese law, or enforcement would violate public policy in Japan.
• Award set aside or suspended. A competent court at the seat of arbitration set aside the award or suspended it from taking effect.

As a practical matter, a party should commence the enforcement procedure within the applicable limitation period under Japanese law. The Japanese Civil Code provides a 10-year limitation period to enforce a final court judgment, and Japanese courts will likely apply the same 10-year period to foreign arbitral awards (see Question 2, above).

Japanese courts perform only a limited review of the formal requirements and do not re-examine the merits of the dispute.

A party wishing to enforce a foreign court judgment in Japan must file a lawsuit to obtain a Japanese judgment to execute that foreign judgment. The party will typically bring this suit in the district court with jurisdiction over the other party’s domicile/habitual residence/principal office. If the other party has no such place in Japan, they may file suit with the district court where the subject matter of the claim or the other party’s assets are located. To file suit, a party will need to submit a certified copy of the foreign judgment, proof of finality, evidence of service and jurisdiction, and Japanese translations of all these documents.

The court filing fees will depend on the amount the party is seeking to recover. The following are some examples of filing fees as of January 2026:

• JPY 50,000 for a JPY 20 million foreign judgment.
• JPY 320,000 for a JPY 200 million foreign judgment.
• JPY 3,020,000 for a JPY 2 billion foreign judgment.

If the claim is in a currency other than JPY, the court will convert it at the prevailing exchange rate on the day before filing. Uncontested cases often conclude within several months, while contested cases may take over a year.

Foreign arbitral awards

To enforce a foreign arbitral award in Japan, the JAA requires a party to file a petition to enforce the award. The appropriate venue is the district court with jurisdiction over the other party’s domicile/habitual residence/principal office, or a court where the other party’s assets are located. The party seeking to enforce the award may also file the petition with the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court if the seat of arbitration, the other party’s domicile, the subject matter of the claim, or the other party’s assets are in Japan (Japan has designated these two courts to specially handle arbitration-related cases).

Importantly, Japan amended the JAA in 2024 to allow courts to waive the requirement to submit a full Japanese translation of the arbitral award. Arbitral awards are often dozens or even hundreds of pages long, and the cost and time required to produce a full translation had been significant barriers to enforcement in Japan. This amendment effectively addresses that issue, making enforcement more practical.

As of January 2026, the fee to file an enforcement petition is JPY 4,000 regardless of the claim amount.

Uncontested cases often conclude within a few months, while contested cases can take over a year.

Foreign court judgments

A party wishing to challenge enforcement may appeal to the High Court within two weeks after service of the judgment, but must petition separately for a stay of enforcement.

If a party’s High Court appeal fails, they may still seek review by the Supreme Court, which accepts appeals only on very limited grounds.

Foreign arbitral awards

After the district court issues an order to enforce a foreign arbitral award, a party may challenge the order by filing a notice of appeal with the same court no later than one week after service of the order. The appeal stays enforcement while the appeal is pending before the High Court.

If the High Court upholds the district court’s enforcement order, the losing party may seek Supreme Court review. As with foreign court judgments, the Supreme Court will accept an appeal only in exceptional cases.

In Japan, a party can use two main court-based tools to identify another party’s assets:

• an asset disclosure procedure, and
• orders directed at third parties (such as banks, public registries, and employers) to disclose information.

These tools are available only for monetary claims and only after a party obtains an enforceable instrument (i.e., a court judgment to execute a foreign court judgment or a court order to enforce a foreign arbitral award).

Asset disclosure

In the context of enforcing a foreign judgment or arbitral award, a party seeking to identify another party’s assets may request a court hearing to have the other party disclose their assets under oath. These assets can include bank accounts, accounts receivable, real property, and a claim for wages/salary. In order to take advantage of this procedure, a party must show that they could not recover the full amount of the judgment or arbitral award using only the other party’s known assets. The court does not require strict proof of this requirement.

If a party that needs to disclose their assets fails to appear, refuses to respond, or gives clearly false statements without good reason, the court may sentence them to up to six months’ imprisonment or fine them up to JPY 500,000 (though in practice courts almost never resort to imprisonment as part of this procedure).

In practice, the success of this asset disclosure procedure depends on the party’s cooperation and may have limited effectiveness against a party that insists on concealing their assets, as the consequences of failing to comply are relatively mild.

Orders to third parties to disclose information

A party may also request that the court issue an order requiring a third party to provide information about the other party’s assets. The rules concerning this request depend on the type of asset.

• Bank accounts (deposits). A party may request that the court issue an order to a bank without first using the debtor asset disclosure procedure. The order will cover whether the other party has any deposit accounts with the bank. If so, the bank must disclose the branch for all accounts, the account type, the account number, and the account balance.
• Real property. Before a party can request an order concerning the other party’s real property, they must first try using the asset disclosure procedure, which may allow them to obtain the information through the government’s real estate registry. The order will cover whether the other party is the registered owner of any real property. If so, the registry should provide enough detail to identify the property.
• Salary. A party may obtain an order from the court requiring a municipality, the Japan Pension Service, or a mutual aid association to disclose whether the other party is receiving a salary. If so, the order can also cover the name and address of the individual or entity that pays the other party’s salary. Before seeking this order, the party must first try using the asset disclosure procedure.
• Sanctions (third parties). Japanese law does not impose criminal penalties on banks, public registries, or employers for failing to respond, although they are legally obliged to cooperate.

Additionally, a party can use the bar association’s inquiry procedure under the Attorney Act. Through a local bar association, a Japanese attorney may request certain third parties (such as banks and public registries) to provide information relevant to identifying the other party’s assets. This mechanism supplements the tools available through the court, and parties commonly use it to identify assets.

Japanese courts provide two main types of interim measures to preserve assets pending enforcement: (i) provisional attachment (for monetary claims); and (ii) provisional disposition (for non-monetary rights or to prevent the disposal of specific assets).

To obtain a provisional order, a party must:

• identify the underlying claim (e.g., the award set forth in a foreign court judgment or foreign arbitral award); and
• show the necessity of obtaining interim relief (e.g., a risk that enforcement will become difficult or impossible due to the other party concealing or disposing of assets).

The court usually also requires the party seeking the order to provide security based on the value of the asset.

Provisional attachment (monetary claims)

A party may seek a provisional order freezing assets for a monetary claim. The provisional order can cover, for example, real estate, bank deposits, accounts receivable, and movables.

Provisional disposition

A provisional disposition mainly serves two purposes:

• Protecting assets. To prevent a party from transferring or encumbering a specific asset (commonly used for real estate, typically through registration).
• Protecting legal rights. To preserve a party’s temporary legal position pending a final decision, for example, an interim order to preserve a person’s status as an employee or a tenant.

A party must execute a provisional order within two weeks after service. Once this two-week period expires, the party can no longer execute the order.

Japanese courts may issue provisional measures only:

• if they have jurisdiction over the merits of a case; or
• if the property to be provisionally attached (or the subject matter of the dispute) is located in Japan.

 As a result, Japanese court-ordered provisional measures are effectively territorial. They can preserve only assets located in Japan and bind parties solely within Japan’s jurisdiction. If a party holds assets abroad, the other party will also need to seek interim relief in the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

A party may ask an arbitral tribunal to order interim measures under the JAA. If the tribunal receives such a request, they may issue an order:

1. preserving an asset for monetary claims (prohibiting a party from disposing of assets needed to satisfy the claim);
2. preserving specific property that is the subject of a non-monetary claim;
3. requiring measures to prevent serious damage (or the imminent risk of damage) to the disputed property or to the disputed legal relationship (including restoring the property/legal relationship to its prior state if it has changed);
4. prohibiting actions that would obstruct the arbitration proceedings; and/or
5. prohibiting the destruction, deletion, or alteration of evidence.

A tribunal order becomes enforceable in Japan only after a party obtains a court decision that authorizes the following:

• For (3) above, the court may authorize civil execution based on the tribunal order.
• For (1), (2), (4), and (5) above, the court may authorize the issuance of an order containing a monetary penalty if a party violates (or is likely to violate) the tribunal order. The court may order payment of a specified amount.

Grounds to refuse authorization

The court may refuse to authorize the above only on limited grounds. Most of these grounds are the same as those for recognition/enforcement of arbitral awards, such as:

• an invalid arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice;
• a party’s inability to present their case;
• the order is beyond the scope of the arbitration;
• the dispute is not arbitrable under Japanese law; or
• enforcement would violate public policy.

 In addition, the court may refuse to order interim measures because:

• a party failed to provide the security ordered by the tribunal; and/or
• the tribunal or a competent court has set aside, modified or suspended the order.

The appropriate court for this procedure is the same as the court that enforces foreign arbitral awards (i.e., the court with jurisdiction over the respondent, the court where seizable assets are located, or, in certain cases, the Tokyo or Osaka District Court).

For clarity, an arbitral tribunal’s interim measures bind only the parties to the arbitration and not third parties. Also, even if the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement, they may still seek provisional measures from a Japanese court.

Following the 2024 amendments to the JAA, Japan now provides a mechanism to make arbitral tribunal interim measures enforceable through a court authorization decision, clarifying that those measures are enforceable in Japan.

Once a foreign judgment or arbitral award becomes enforceable in Japan (whether through an execution judgment or an enforcement decision), a party may use the same enforcement process as for a Japanese judgment.

For bank accounts and other assets involving third parties, a party seeking to enforce a foreign judgment/arbitral award may take advantage of the following under Japanese law:

Bank accounts

A party files a petition to attach the other party’s bank accounts or receivables, usually with the court that has jurisdiction over the accounts in question or the relevant third party. The court then issues an attachment order, typically within two weeks of filing, and serves it on the bank or the third party. The account is effectively frozen upon service. After the expiration of the statutory waiting period (in most cases, one week after service of the order or four weeks for salary-related claims), the party seeking enforcement may proceed with collection, which usually requires the bank to transfer the funds in the attached account to the enforcing party.

Shares

In response to a party’s petition, the court will first issue an order to attach the other party’s shares of stock. The next step in the process will depend on whether the shares are listed or unlisted. For unlisted shares, it will also depend on whether the company issues share certificates.

Listed shares

Listed shares do not have share certificates. Shareholders’ rights are recorded through the book-entry system operated by the Japan Securities Depository Center (JASDEC) and the relevant account management institution (a bank or securities firm). The court will first serve the attachment order:

• on the party who owns the shares; and
• on the institution where that party has their securities account.

The party seeking attachment will then ask the court to issue an order to either:

• have the shares transferred to them; or
• sell the shares to a third party and distribute the proceeds.

Shares with share certificates

The party seeking to attach shares with share certificates must follow the same steps that apply to movable property (i.e., an officer of the court seizes and sells the certificates, either immediately or through an auction).

Unlisted shares without share certificates

After the court serves the attachment order on the issuing company, the party seeking attachment will ask the court to issue an order to either have the shares transferred to them or to have the shares sold. Before doing so, the court will generally have the shares appraised, a process that often requires a review of the company’s financials as well as assistance from an expert. The appraisal will often cost a minimum of several hundred thousand yen.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

A party files a petition against a third party to attach the other party’s receivables, usually with the court that has jurisdiction over that third party. The court then issues an attachment order, typically within two weeks following the filing of the petition, and serves it on the third party. After the expiration of the statutory waiting period (in most cases, one week after service of the order, or four weeks for salary-related claims), the party seeking enforcement may proceed with collection, which usually requires the third party to transfer the funds to the enforcing party.

Real estate

In response to a party’s petition for a forced sale of the other party’s real property, the court will issue an order placing a lien on that property and will then register the lien. This process typically takes one to two weeks from the filing of the petition. The court then has the property appraised/inspected and sets the sale conditions. The property is sold through a court auction, and the court thereafter distributes the proceeds. Depending on the case, the entire process often takes six to 12 months.

Movable property

In response to a party’s petition for a forced sale of the other party’s movables, an officer of the court will seize the movables, often within around one week after the filing of the petition. The officer will sell the items (immediately or through an auction) and the court will thereafter distribute the proceeds. In practice, a forced sale of movable property often results in limited recovery because Japanese law exempts many everyday items from seizure to avoid disrupting the owner’s basic living needs.

Generally, no. In Japanese enforcement proceedings, the court normally targets only those assets that a party legally owns or that are registered in the party’s name.

In exceptional cases, however, Japanese courts may allow enforcement against assets held in another person’s name if a party can prove that, in substance, the assets belong to the other party and form part of their property.

Japanese courts typically approach this issue with caution. The party seeking enforcement has a heavy burden of proof, and case law stresses that the court should carefully examine the evidence.

Yes. A Japanese court may allow enforcement against jointly owned assets, for example, real estate. However, the enforcement will apply only to the other party’s share of the assets in question.

If a party seeks to recover as much as possible from the value of a jointly owned asset, they should understand that all co-owners must usually consent to the sale of the asset. In practice, the party seeking enforcement should consider negotiating with the co-owner(s) to obtain their consent for a sale.