Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Japan: Recognition, Execution Judgment, Service & Reciprocity

Last reviewed: 2 August 2026

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan is governed by a two-stage framework that first tests whether a foreign court’s decision qualifies for recognition and then requires the judgment creditor to obtain a separate domestic execution judgment before any assets can be seized. For in-house counsel, cross-border creditors and international recovery teams, understanding this framework is essential because Japan does not simply register or rubber-stamp foreign court orders. This guide breaks down each statutory requirement, maps the procedural workflow, addresses service-of-process pitfalls and the reciprocity question, and provides a realistic timeline so that creditors can plan an enforcement strategy with confidence.

Recognition vs Enforcement: A Quick Overview

Before filing anything in a Japanese court, creditors must grasp a fundamental distinction. Recognition means that a foreign judgment is treated as having legal effect within Japan, it establishes res judicata and can be relied upon defensively. Enforcement (or execution) goes further: it is the process of actually compelling payment or performance against assets located in Japan. Recognition alone does not allow a creditor to garnish bank accounts or seize property.

Can foreign judgments be enforced in Japan? Yes, provided the judgment satisfies four statutory conditions set out in Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and the creditor then obtains a judgment of execution from a Japanese court under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. The court hearing the execution suit does not re-examine the merits of the foreign case; it simply verifies that the recognition criteria are met. If they are, the court grants an execution judgment that can then be converted into compulsory enforcement measures such as garnishment orders, seizure of movables, or forced sale of real property.

The Recognition Test: Article 118 CCP (Japan)

Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the gateway provision for the recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. It sets out four cumulative requirements. If any one element is absent, the foreign judgment will not be recognised and, by extension, cannot be enforced. Below is an element-by-element breakdown.

Element 1, The Judgment Must Be Final and Binding

The foreign judgment must have become final and conclusive under the law of the country where it was rendered. A provisional order, interlocutory injunction or default judgment that remains subject to ordinary appeal in the originating jurisdiction will not qualify. Japanese courts will typically require the judgment creditor to submit a certificate of finality or a declaration from the foreign court confirming that no further right of appeal exists. In practice, this means that creditors should wait until appeals periods have expired, or appeals have been disposed of, before initiating enforcement proceedings in Japan.

Element 2, Jurisdiction of the Foreign Court

The foreign court must have had jurisdiction over the case as assessed by Japanese standards of international jurisdiction. Japanese courts apply their own jurisdictional principles (now largely codified under Articles 3-2 through 3-12 of the CCP for international cases) to determine whether the foreign court properly exercised jurisdiction. Common bases that Japanese courts accept include the defendant’s domicile, the location of the subject property, and the place of contractual performance. If the foreign court assumed jurisdiction on a basis that Japanese law considers exorbitant, for example, tag jurisdiction based solely on transient physical presence, recognition may be refused.

Element 3, Service and the Defendant’s Right to Be Heard

The defendant must have received service of the initial process or summons necessary to commence the proceedings, unless the defendant appeared without raising a procedural objection. This element protects due process. Japanese courts will examine whether the service was effected in compliance with applicable treaties (including the Hague Service Convention) or through a lawful alternative. A judgment rendered after service by a method that Japan does not recognise, such as direct mail in certain contexts, may fail at this hurdle. Where the defendant appeared and contested the case on the merits, the service issue is typically regarded as cured.

Element 4, Public Policy (Ordre Public)

The content of the foreign judgment and the proceedings that produced it must not be contrary to Japanese public policy or good morals. This is the most fact-specific element and the one that generates the most litigation. Japanese courts have used the public-policy defence to refuse enforcement of foreign judgments that include punitive damages. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Japan held that the punitive-damages portion of a United States judgment was contrary to Japanese public policy because Japanese law does not allow damages that go beyond compensating actual loss. Importantly, the compensatory portion of the same judgment was recognised and enforced, meaning the public-policy bar was applied surgically rather than as a blanket refusal.

Industry observers expect this approach to remain the standard: damages awards will be scrutinised component by component.

The public-policy element can also arise in family-law, antitrust and regulatory contexts. Courts examine both the substantive outcome and the procedural fairness of the foreign proceedings.

Reciprocity, The Implicit Fifth Requirement

Although sometimes discussed separately, Article 118(iv) of the CCP requires that reciprocity exists, meaning the foreign country must, in turn, recognise and enforce Japanese judgments on substantially equivalent terms. This element is addressed in more detail in a dedicated section below, but it is worth noting here that it functions as a threshold gate: if reciprocity cannot be shown, the entire recognition exercise fails regardless of how clearly the other elements are met.

Execution Judgment Under the Civil Execution Act (Article 24): Procedural Workflow

Even after satisfying the Article 118 recognition test, the enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan requires an additional procedural step. Under Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act, a creditor must file a domestic lawsuit seeking a judgment of execution (shikkō hanketsu). This is not a retrial on the merits. The Japanese court’s role is limited to confirming that the Article 118 conditions are satisfied and that the judgment is amenable to enforcement.

Filing the Suit and Identifying the Competent Court

The suit for an execution judgment is filed with the district court that has jurisdiction over the debtor. This is generally the court in whose jurisdiction the debtor is domiciled or, if the debtor is a company, where its principal office is located. If the debtor’s assets are in a different district, the creditor may need to consider strategic forum selection. The suit is commenced by filing a complaint accompanied by the documents listed below.

Evidentiary Requirements and Document Checklist

Creditors should prepare the following materials before filing:

• Certified copy of the foreign judgment. This must be an officially certified or authenticated copy, not a photocopy.
• Certificate of finality. A document from the foreign court confirming that the judgment is final and no longer subject to ordinary appeal.
• Japanese translation. All foreign-language documents must be accompanied by a full Japanese translation. Translations should be prepared by a qualified translator, and many courts require the translator’s certification or affidavit.
• Apostille or consular legalisation. If the originating country is a party to the Hague Apostille Convention, an apostille attached to the judgment suffices. If not, consular legalisation through the Japanese embassy or consulate in the originating country is required.
• Evidence of service. Proof that the defendant was properly served in the underlying proceedings, certificates of service, affidavits of service or return receipts.
• Reciprocity evidence. Where reciprocity is not self-evident (as it may be with certain well-established jurisdictions), the creditor should submit case law, statutory provisions or government correspondence from the originating jurisdiction demonstrating that Japanese judgments would be enforced there.
• Power of attorney. A power of attorney authorising Japanese counsel to act, together with its Japanese translation.

Court Proceedings and Common Defences

Once the suit is filed, the court schedules oral argument. The debtor may raise defences, but these are limited to contesting whether the Article 118 requirements are met. Common defences include arguments that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction, that service was defective, that the judgment conflicts with Japanese public policy, or that reciprocity does not exist with the originating country. The court will not re-examine the factual findings or legal reasoning of the foreign tribunal. This is a crucial advantage for creditors: the merits of the underlying dispute are off the table.

From Execution Judgment to Compulsory Enforcement Measures

If the court grants the execution judgment, the creditor receives a domestic judgment that is enforceable in the same manner as any Japanese court judgment. The creditor can then apply for specific enforcement measures under the Civil Execution Act, including:

• Garnishment of bank accounts, the most common route for money judgments.
• Seizure and sale of real property, through court-supervised auction.
• Attachment of movable assets, including equipment, inventory and receivables.
• Garnishment of salary or other periodic payments, subject to statutory exemptions for minimum living expenses.

Creditors should note that provisional remedies, such as a provisional attachment order (kari sashiosae), can be sought before or concurrently with the execution judgment suit to prevent the debtor from dissipating assets during the litigation.

Service of Process and the Hague Service Convention

One of the most frequently encountered practical obstacles in the enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan is defective service of process. Japanese courts are rigorous about due-process compliance, and a service deficiency in the underlying foreign proceedings can be fatal to recognition.

The Hague Service Convention Route

Japan is a contracting state to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Service Convention). The Convention establishes a central-authority mechanism: the party seeking service transmits the documents to the designated central authority in Japan (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), which then arranges for formal service on the recipient. This is the safest and most widely accepted route. Processing through the central authority typically takes several weeks to several months, depending on workload and whether translations are in order.

Consular and Diplomatic Channels

Where the Hague Service Convention does not apply, for example, because the originating state is not a party, service may be effected through diplomatic or consular channels. This route involves the foreign embassy or consulate in Japan arranging service, often through local judicial assistance. It is slower but is generally accepted by Japanese courts as valid service.

Service by Mail and Article 10 Considerations

Japan has declared an objection to Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service by postal channels. As a result, service by direct mail from abroad to a defendant in Japan is not considered valid service for the purposes of Article 118 recognition. Creditors and foreign counsel should be aware that serving documents by post without using the central-authority channel creates a significant risk that any resulting judgment will be unenforceable in Japan. This is one of the most common mistakes made by foreign litigants.

Substituted and Alternative Service

In some cases, courts in the originating jurisdiction may permit substituted service, for example, service by publication or through an agent. Whether Japanese courts will accept such service for the purposes of Article 118 depends on the circumstances. If the defendant actually received notice and appeared in the proceedings, the issue is moot. But if the defendant was absent and claims never to have received the documents, the creditor bears a heavier burden of proving that the method used was reasonable and compliant with applicable international obligations.

Reciprocity and Country-Specific Checks

The reciprocity requirement under Article 118 CCP is one of the most nuanced aspects of enforcing a foreign judgment in Japan. Japanese courts apply a practical reciprocity standard: they ask whether the originating country would, as a matter of law and practice, recognise and enforce a Japanese judgment under conditions that are not substantially more restrictive than those Japan applies.

Reciprocity has been confirmed by Japanese case law for a number of major jurisdictions. Courts have recognised reciprocity with the United States (at least for compensatory money judgments from most states), the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea and several other countries. However, the analysis can be state- or province-specific. For example, when asked to enforce a US judgment, a Japanese court may examine the specific state’s enforcement framework rather than relying on a blanket assumption about the entire United States.

For jurisdictions where reciprocity has not been judicially established, creditors should:

• Obtain a legal opinion from counsel in the originating jurisdiction confirming that Japanese judgments would be recognised and enforced there.
• Gather statutory and case-law materials from the originating jurisdiction’s enforcement regime, with certified translations.
• Check Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) guidance for any bilateral treaties, memoranda of understanding or published practice notes on mutual recognition.
• Consult academic commentary on the reciprocity treatment of the relevant country, scholarly analyses from institutions such as Osaka University and Singapore Management University have catalogued Japanese courts’ reciprocity findings by jurisdiction.

The likely practical effect of the reciprocity requirement is that creditors from well-established trading partners face relatively little difficulty, while those from jurisdictions with limited judicial contact with Japan will need to invest more in the evidentiary package.

Practical Enforcement Steps and Timeline

The timeframe to enforce a foreign judgment in Japan varies depending on the complexity of the case, the debtor’s response and the court’s docket. The following table provides a realistic estimate of each stage.

Stage	Typical Lead Time	Key Documents / Triggers
Prepare and authenticate judgment package (translations, apostille/legalisation)	1–3 weeks	Certified judgment copy, finality certificate, Japanese translations, apostille or consular legalisation
File suit for execution judgment	1–4 weeks (preparation) + court scheduling	Complaint, certified judgment, translations, affidavits, power of attorney
Court consideration and issuance of execution judgment	1–6 months (contested cases may take longer)	Court hearings, debtor’s response, interlocutory motions if any
Convert execution judgment into enforcement measures	2–8 weeks	Attachment orders, garnishment applications, seizure and auction processes

In straightforward, uncontested cases, the entire process from filing to asset recovery can be completed within approximately three to six months. Contested cases, especially those involving reciprocity disputes or public-policy defences, can extend to twelve months or longer.

Creditors pursuing enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan should also consider the following tactical points:

• Asset discovery. Japan does not have pre-action disclosure equivalent to US-style discovery. Creditors should conduct due diligence on the debtor’s assets, real property registries, corporate registrations and publicly available financial filings, before or alongside the execution suit.
• Provisional remedies. Apply for a provisional attachment order at the outset if there is a risk the debtor will move or hide assets. This requires showing a prima facie case and the risk of dissipation.
• Costs. Court filing fees for execution judgment suits are calculated on a sliding scale based on the value of the claim. Legal fees for Japanese counsel are typically agreed on a time or fixed-fee basis. Creditors should budget for translation costs, authentication fees and potential expert-opinion costs on reciprocity.

Common Defences and Grounds to Resist Recognition

Debtors facing enforcement of a foreign judgment in Japan will typically raise one or more of the following defences:

• Public-policy violation. The most litigated ground. As noted above, the Supreme Court of Japan has held that punitive-damages awards are contrary to Japanese public policy. Courts may also refuse recognition where the foreign proceedings involved fraud, denial of due process, or an outcome fundamentally incompatible with Japanese legal principles.
• Lack of jurisdiction. The debtor argues that the foreign court did not have jurisdiction under Japanese jurisdictional standards. This is assessed independently by the Japanese court.
• Defective service. The debtor was not properly served and did not appear in the proceedings. This defence is particularly potent where the originating party used direct mail to Japan in violation of Japan’s Article 10 objection under the Hague Service Convention.
• No reciprocity. The debtor argues that the originating jurisdiction would not recognise a comparable Japanese judgment. The burden of proof on this element is debated, but courts generally expect the creditor to produce affirmative evidence of reciprocity.
• Judgment not final. The foreign judgment is still subject to appeal or has been stayed pending appeal in the originating jurisdiction.
• Inconsistent judgments. A prior Japanese judgment between the same parties on the same cause of action already exists and reaches a different result.

From a creditor’s perspective, the most effective rebuttal strategy is thorough preparation: ensuring that service was Hague-compliant, that the judgment is unambiguously final, and that the damages awarded are compensatory in character.

Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Distinct Path

It is important to distinguish the enforcement of foreign court judgments from the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). Arbitral awards rendered in another contracting state benefit from a streamlined enforcement path that does not require the Article 118 CCP recognition test. Instead, the creditor applies directly for an execution order under the Arbitration Act (which implements the New York Convention domestically), and the court examines whether any of the Convention’s limited refusal grounds apply, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, a violation of due process, or public-policy conflict.

Early indications suggest that Japanese courts continue to adopt a pro-enforcement stance toward arbitral awards, consistent with international trends. For creditors with both a court judgment and a parallel arbitration option, the arbitral route is generally faster and faces fewer procedural hurdles. A comprehensive guide to enforcing arbitral awards in Japan is available as a separate resource.

Conclusion: Planning Your Enforcement Strategy

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan is a structured, statutory process that rewards careful preparation. Creditors who understand the Article 118 CCP recognition test, invest in Hague-compliant service, assemble a thorough judgment package with certified translations, and anticipate common defences will be well positioned to convert a foreign court victory into actual asset recovery. While the process requires a domestic execution judgment, adding a procedural layer not found in all jurisdictions, Japanese courts do not re-examine the merits, and the overall timeline is predictable for well-prepared applicants. For complex or high-value cross-border enforcement matters, engaging qualified Japanese counsel with experience in transpacific litigation is strongly recommended.

Sources

1. Japanese Law Translation, Code of Civil Procedure
2. Japanese Law Translation, Civil Execution Act
3. Supreme Court of Japan, Judgments Database
4. HCCH, Hague Service Convention
5. Ministry of Justice (Japan), Civil Affairs Bureau Guidance
6. New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards