Introduction to Japanese Arbitration Act with Court Cases (ver.2, 2022)
Kazushige Ogawa
Associate Professor
Rikkyo University
Note:000: A case which appears at the first time.
000: A case which had already appeared somewhere in this article.
Overview
The purpose of this report is to provide an overall explanation of the court cases related to the
Arbitration Act of Japan after the enforcement of the Arbitration Act (April 1, 2004).
As a premise for the overall explanation of court cases, the current Arbitration Act of Japan isenacted based upon the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration(hereinafter, the “Model Law”).1

In this regard, in the 001Tokyo High Court decision of August

1, 2018 (2018 (la) No.817) (Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No. 1551, p.13) which dealt with a petition for
the annulment of an arbitral award, the court stated that “common interpretations with thearbitration laws of other countries, and internationally acceptable interpretations should be aimed…… in the interpretation of the Arbitration Act of Japan”, upon perceiving that the Arbitration
Act reflected the legislative intent that domestic law discipline should have contents which arecommon with other countries to the extent possible since the Arbitration Act was formed based
upon the Model Law.2
Currently, work to amend the Arbitration Act is progressing with such purposes as reflecting
the 2006 version of the Model Law.

Japan is also a member of the Convention on the

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter, the “New York
Convention”).

Other than this, Japan is also a member country of the ICSID Convention andthe Energy Charter Treaty, and provisions related to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral

Unique provisions related to arbitration based upon consumer arbitration and individual
employment contracts are also added.
2002The Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho
No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no.25473502 referred to the provisions of Article 4 of the
Arbitration Act and stated as follows: “Since the arbitration system is a dispute resolution systemwith the substance being the autonomous intent between the parties and being based upon theagreement of the parties, the court is not permitted to excessively interfere.”11awards exist in the treaties executed with some countries.3
Hereafter, this report firstly provides an explanation of the operations in Japan of the annulment,
as well as recognition and enforcement, of arbitral awards for which there are many inquiries
from overseas.

Next, this report provides a similar explanation regarding arbitration agreements

and arbitrators.

I.

Annulment of Arbitral Awards

1.

Introduction(1)

Basic Stance of the Courts Annulling Arbitral Awards

Article 44 of the Arbitration Act provides for the annulment of arbitral awards.

Events for theannulment of arbitral awards are provided in Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act, which
is based upon Article 34 Paragraph 2 of the Model Act.

Regarding its role, 003the Tokyo

District Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB literature no.25451576,
Hanrei Times No.1302 p.292 stated as follows: “Arbitration procedures are out-of-court dispute
resolution procedures based upon the agreement of the parties without appellate proceedings, andtheir decisions are positioned as being final; also, in light of the fact that Article 4 of the said act
provides that the court can exercise its powers in relation to arbitration procedures only when the
Arbitration Act so provides, it is without saying that arbitral awards should be respected as muchas possible”4, and also, the aforementioned 001Tokyo High Court decision of August 1, 2018stated as follows: “examinations which perform a substantial re-examination of arbitral awards
are not permitted in cases of petition for annulment of arbitral awards.”

On top of that, the saiddecision stated as follows: “even in the case where the fact-finding and legal judgment of anarbitral award appears to be erroneous from the perspective of the domestic court of the seat ofarbitration, the domestic court of the seat of arbitration cannot interfere with and annul the arbitralaward on grounds of mere errors in fact-finding and legal judgment (those which do not satisfy
events for annulment of an arbitral award)”.5
For example, there are bilateral treaties including provisions related to recognition andenforcement of arbitral awards between such countries as the United States of America, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Republic of China, Pakistan, Peru, El Salvador,
Argentina, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary.
4002The Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho
No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no.25473502 stated the same intent on this point.
5004The Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015 (arbitration) No.4) not recordedin casebooks, etc., 2016WLJPCA02176008 and the aforementioned 001Tokyo District Court
decision of August 1, 2018 also state the same intent. Even in court cases before the enforcement
23

As seen in the following court cases regarding individual annulment events, the Japanesecourts repeatedly reach decisions to respect the arbitral award.
(2)

Procedural flow of cases of annulment of arbitral awards

The procedural flow of cases of annulment of arbitral awards is petition, interrogation anddecision.

These procedures are undisclosed.

Firstly, according to Article 44 Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act, a petition for the annulmentof an arbitral award must be made to the district court of Japan with jurisdiction provided in
Article 5 of the Arbitration Act within three (3) months from the date on which a notification wasmade by sending a copy of the written arbitral award.6

Even if the petition is made within the

period for petition for annulment of the arbitral award, 003the Tokyo District Court decision ofJuly 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB literature no.25451576, Hanrei Times No.1302
p.292 and 002the Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei
Jiho No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no.25473502 have decided that it is not permitted to newly
add and assert events for the annulment of arbitral awards after such period has elapsed, with the
exception of the annulment events which are matters which the court investigates under its own
authority provided in Items 7 and 9 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act.
Next, according to Article 44 Paragraph 5 of the Arbitration Act, the interrogation is conductedon the date of the oral argument or on a date where both parties can attend.

Even if a petition ismade within the period for petition of annulment of the arbitral award, 003the Tokyo District
Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB literature no.25451576, Hanrei
Times No.1302 p.292 and 002the Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009(arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no.25473502 have decided that
it is not permitted to newly add and assert events for the annulment of arbitral awards after such
period has elapsed, with the exception of the annulment events which are matters which the court
investigates under its own authority provided in Items 7 and 9 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the
Arbitration Act.
Even if an event for the annulment for the arbitral award exists, according to Article 44of the Arbitration Act, the former Supreme Court (“Taishinin”) judgment of October 27, 2918,
Taishinin Minji Hanreishu Vol.7 p.848, 861 stated that the appropriateness of the grounds for thearbitral award “is not a matter to be examined by the court, so even if the grounds are said to beinappropriate, this cannot be the grounds for requesting annulment.” The Kobe District Court
judgment of September 29, 1993, Hanrei Times No.863 p.273 and the Tokyo District Court
judgment of January 16, 2004 also cited the aforementioned Taishinin judgment.
6
According to Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act, the court with jurisdiction over thepetition for annulment of an arbitral award is (i) the district court determined by agreement of theparties, (ii) the district court with jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration, (iii) the district court withjurisdiction over the general venue of the respondent of such case. In preparation of the case of (ii)above, the seat of arbitration is required to be determined as the territory belonging to thejurisdictional territory of one of the district courts of Tokyo or Osaka, etc.
3Paragraph 6 of the Arbitration Act (similarly as Article 34 of the Model Law), the court may
decide, at its own discretion, not to annul the arbitral award, as also shown in the decision of
005the Osaka District Court decision of March 17, 2015 (2014 (arbitration) No.3) Hanrei Jiho
No.2270 p.74 that even where there is a violation of the obligation to disclose interested relations
by the arbitrator, the defect in the arbitration procedures due to this is slight, and therefore it isinappropriate to annul the arbitral award based on such grounds.
Finally, the court renders its judgment by decision.

The decision of the court may be

immediately appealed in accordance with Article 44 Paragraph 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Appealby permission to the supreme court may be permitted against the appellate decision.
2.

Individual grounds for annulment
No court cases can be found in Japan where the arbitral award was annulled on the grounds ofItems 1 through 3, 5 and 7 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act.
On the other hand, there are the following court cases which garner attention related to each of
the events for annulment of arbitral awards provided in Items 4, 6 and 8 of Article 44 Paragraph
1 of the Arbitration Act.
a.

The petitioner was unable to defense in the arbitration procedure (Item 4)With respect to Item 4, 003the Tokyo District Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008(arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB literature no.25451576, Hanrei Times No.1302 p.292 stated asfollows: “It is appropriate to interpret that the intention is to allow the court to annul the arbitralaward only in cases where there is a material violation of procedural guarantee such as the parties
were absolutely not granted any opportunity to defend themselves, for instance, procedures inwhich the parties could not attend were implemented, or judgment was made in reliance uponmaterials which the parties could not perceive, etc.

Therefore, it cannot be recognized that it

falls under the annulment event under the said Item just by the circumstances that the parties did
not perceive that it was a material issue.”(However, as a result, the arbitral award was notannulled.)
002The Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho
No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no.25473502, and its appellate case which was 006the Tokyo
High Court decision of March 13, 2012 (2012 (la) No. 1334) LLI/DB L06710125, annulled thearbitral award stating that there was an annulment event of the arbitral award in that “Since
rendering facts which are disputed between the parties as undisputed facts is not making any
judgment regarding such facts, so long as such facts are material matters impacting the main text4

of the arbitral award, there is an event for annulment of the arbitral award in awarding an arbitralaward by rendering facts which are disputed between the parties as undisputed facts.”7b.

The composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitration procedure is inviolation of Japanese laws and regulations (Item 6)
In relation to Item 6, in a case where a petition was made to annul the arbitral award on the
grounds that there was a defect in the arbitration procedures due to the application by the arbitral
tribunal of substantive governing laws differing from the substantive governing laws agreed uponby the parties, 008the Tokyo District Court decision of October 10, 2017 (2014 (arbitration) No.1)
not recorded in casebooks, etc. did not recognize the petition for annulment of the arbitral award,
stating as follows with respect to substantive governing laws: “It falls under the annulment event
prescribed in Article 44 Paragraph 1 Item 6 of the Arbitration Act, where the failure of the arbitral
tribunal to apply the laws of the most closely related country is a violation of laws and regulationsof arbitration procedures, only where there exist special circumstances that the judgment of thearbitral tribunal is a clear contravention of the intent of Article 36 Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration
Act, such as where the arbitral tribunal selects the governing law arbitrarily.”Also, 004the Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015 (arbitration) No.4) notrecorded in casebooks, etc. 2016WLJPCA02176008 did not recognize the annulment of thearbitral award, stating as follows with respect to the failure by the arbitral tribunal to recognize
the submission of evidence submitted on the final day of the oral proceedings dates as allegationand evidence advanced outside the appropriate time, upon confirming the reason for the delay ofsubmission of the evidence: “It is an appropriate measure based upon the right of command of
examination proceedings of the arbitral tribunal, and the claims made by the petitioner forannulment in this regard only mean the unjustness of such right of command.”
009The Tokyo High Court decision of August 19, 2016 (2016 (la) No.497) not recorded in
casebooks, etc. 2016WLJPCA081900, where a claim was made that an error in judgment by thearbitral tribunal related to the burden share of proof-making fell under an annulment event, statedas follows: “The right or wrong of the interpretation of the burden share of proof-making is an
issue of substantive judgment, and it does not fall under an annulment event under Item 6 as a
violation of the laws and regulations of Japan regarding arbitration procedures even if there were

However, since the parties also filed for annulment of the arbitral award based upon Item 8 at thatoccasion, the court based the annulment event upon a violation of Item 8 (as stated below).
007The Tokyo District Court decision of March 28, 2018 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) Kinyu Shoji
Hanrei No.1551 p.24 also annulled the arbitral award due to the same reason (however, the appellatecase reversed the decision to annul the arbitral award).
57

an error in its interpretation.”
In 010the Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017 (2016 (kyo) No. 43) Saibansho Jiho
No. 1960 p.6, court website, Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No.1533 p.28, where a petition was made toannul the arbitral award stating that the breach of obligations to disclose interested relations by
the arbitrator provided in Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the Arbitration Act fell under Article 44
Paragraph 1 Item 6 of the Arbitration Act, the court stated as follows with respect to the fact which
was the subject of the arbitrator’s disclosure obligations: “there is an obligation to disclose matterswhich may normally become evident through investigation within a reasonable scope”; however,the court did not clarify the relationship between the breach of disclosure obligations and theannulment event of arbitral award (it is the same with 011the Osaka High Court decision of March
11, 2019 (2017 (la) No.1552), Hanrei Times No.1468 p.65, LEX/DB literature no. 25564932,
which was the remanded appellate case).
c.

The content of the Arbitral Award is contrary to public policy in Japan (Item 8)
Item 8 states as follows: “The content of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy in Japan.”In this regard, 003the Tokyo District Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3)
LEX/DB literature no: 25451576, Hanrei Times No.1302 p.292 stated as follows: “Since it should
be said that the court is in a position to respect an arbitral award as much as possible, the intent
of Item 8 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act is not to recognize that the court canannul the arbitral award in the case where merely the fact-finding or legal judgment by arbitral
tribunal is found to be unreasonable; it is appropriate to interpret that the intent is to recognizethat the court can annul the arbitral award only when the legal results realized by the arbitralaward is found to be contrary to public policy in Japan.”With respect to whether or not the contents of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy,
009the Tokyo High Court decision of August 19, 2016 (2016 (la) No.497) not recorded in
casebooks, etc., 2016WLJPCA081900 stated as follows: “since it should be judged not by theapplication or non-application of the legal regulations breaching public policy, but by whether or
not the results of the application is contrary to public policy, the violation of substantive law onwhich the arbitrator should rely and the violation of mandatory legal regulations do not all become
the grounds for annulment.”
Furthermore, 005the Osaka District Court decision of March 17, 2015 (2014 (arbitration) No.3)
Hanrei Jiho No.2270 p.74, 004the Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015(arbitration) No.4) not recorded in casebooks, etc. 2016WLJPCA02176008, and 011the Osaka
High Court decision of March 11, 2019 (2017 (la) No.1552) Hanrei Times No.1468 p.65,
LEX/DB literature no. 25564932 also state that a violation of public policy is not found where6“only the fact-finding or legal evaluation of the arbitral award is said to be unjust.”
On the other hand, with respect to whether “public policy” in Item 8 includes procedural
violations of public policy, 002the Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009(arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB literature no: 25473502 stated as follows:“According to the provisions of the Arbitration Act regarding procedures and their intent,
regardless of what the governing laws of the arbitration procedures are, if the arbitration
procedures are contrary to the procedural public policy of our country, the arbitral award granted
pursuant to such procedures would be contrary to the basic legal order of our country as thecontents of the arbitral award would not carry the procedures conforming to procedural public
policy, and the mandatory effect of dispute resolution of the country cannot be affirmed, and it
would fall under an annulment event under Item 8 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the ArbitrationAct.” This decision was also affirmed by 006the Tokyo High Court decision of March 13, 2012(2012 (la) No.1334) LLI/DB L06710125, the appellate case of this decision, and 007theaforementioned Tokyo District Court decision of March 28, 2018 (the Tokyo District Court
granted a decision to recognize annulment; however, the decision of the district court was reversed
at the appellate stage and the annulment of the arbitral award is not recognized) also followed thisdecision.

When the parties disputed on the premise that the public order under Item 8 of Article

44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act also includes procedural public policy in the aforementioned
004Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 and its appellate case, the aforementioned
009Tokyo District Court decision of August 19, 2016, and the aforementioned 011Osaka High
Court decision of March 11, 2019, the courts did not recognize the annulment of the arbitral award
as a conclusion, but the courts examined the existence or non-existence of the breach of the said
Item in the process of reaching their decisions. The aforementioned 008Tokyo District Court
decision of October 10, 1998 made a reservation, stating that “even if the annulment events
prescribed in Item 8 of Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act includes the case where thearbitration procedures are in contravention of public policy in Japan.”
I have also mentioned before that the aforementioned 002Tokyo District Court decision of June
13, 2011 and its appellate case8, as well as the aforementioned 007Tokyo District Court decisionof March 28, 2018, annulled the arbitral award on the grounds of the said Item with respect to thearbitration procedures in which the arbitral tribunal organized the facts disputed between theparties as undisputed facts, on the premise that the said Item includes procedural public policy.

II.

8

Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

The aforementioned 006Tokyo High Court decision of March 13, 2012.
7

Articles 45 and 46 of the Arbitration Act provide for the recognition and enforcement of arbitralawards.

In addition, Japan is a member of the New York Convention, and foreign arbitral awards

may also be recognized and enforced based on the said convention. The requirements of bothare substantially the same, and there is no substantial difference depending upon whichever therecognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is based.9
Upon petitioning for an enforcement decision, in accordance with Article 46 Paragraph 4 of the
Arbitration Act, (i) a copy of the arbitral award and (ii) a document evidencing that the contentsof such copy and the written arbitral award are identical must be submitted to the district court
recognized to have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5 of the Arbitration Act10 or the district
court with jurisdiction over the location of the assets of the debtor which may be attached or thetarget of the claim.

If the written arbitral award is not prepared in the Japanese language, aJapanese translation must be submitted.
According to Article 44 Paragraph 5 of the Arbitration Act which is applied mutatis mutandis
by Article 46 Paragraph 10 of the Arbitration Act, the date of oral argument, or interrogation which
can be attended by both parties, is established.
According to Article 46 Paragraph 7 of the Arbitration Act, a petition for an enforcement
decision of an arbitral award may be dismissed only when the court recognizes that there exists
an event provided in each of the items of Article 45 Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act. Thismeans that the cases where recognition and enforcement may be rejected are limited to the cases
provided in each of the items of Article 45 Paragraph 2, and the court may possibly refuse todismiss a petition for an enforcement decision even if there exists an event provided in each of
the items of the said Paragraph.
With respect to cases of petition of an enforcement decision of arbitral awards, statistics11 showthat approximately 2 or 3 cases are filed to the court every year, and there were a total of 34 casesof petition from 2004 through 2016 including 2 unresolved cases.

From among these, petitions

However, Article 4 Paragraph 2 of the New York Convention requests that the party requesting forrecognition and enforcement submit the original, or a duly certified copy, of the arbitration award
and the arbitration agreement, and in the cases where these are not prepared in the official languageof the country invoking the arbitral award, it requests the party to submit a translation certified by apublic or certifying translator, or a diplomat or consular officer. On the other hand, the Arbitration
Act of Japan does away with the obligation to submit the arbitration agreement, and with respect tothe translation, it also provides that it does not have to be a translation certified by a public or
certifying translator, or a diplomat or consular officer, so long as it is a translation, so there is adifference in this regard.
10
Please refer to note (5) above in relation to Article 5 of the Arbitration Act.
9

Hidenobu Nagasue, “Status of Examination of ‘Arbitration Related Cases’ at the Main Offices of
the Tokyo District Court”, JCA Journal Vol.64 No.7 p.3 (2017), p.5.
811

for enforcement decisions were recognized by the courts in approximately 70% of the cases. 12
In most of the remaining cases, the procedures concluded by withdrawal by the parties, and there
was also 1 case where the petition was dismissed.13
It is reported that the statistics regarding the examination period of the cases which concluded,from among the cases of petition for enforcement decision of the arbitral award pending at themain offices of the Tokyo District Court, are as follows.14

Total

WithinWithinWithinWithin

Withi

3

6

1 year

2 years n

month

month

s

s

11

5

8

34.38

15.63

%

%

Withi

3 n

Withi

4 n

Exceedin5 g 5 years

years

years

years

4

2

1

0

1

25.00

12.50

6.25

3.13

0.00

3.13%

%

%

%

%

%

Tota
l

32

numberof casesconclude
d

(from

2004

to

2016)

(Source: Hidenobu Nagasue, “Status of Examinations of ‘Arbitration Related Cases’ at the Main
Offices of the Tokyo District Court”, JCA Journal Vol.64 No.7 p.3 (2017), p.12)

Hidenobu Nagasue, “Status of Examination of ‘Arbitration Related Cases’ at the Main Offices of
the Tokyo District Court”, JCA Journal Vol.64 No.7 p.3 (2017), p.5. For example, as for court
cases recorded in publicly published casebooks, etc. from among those which recognized the petition
for an enforcement decision of an arbitral award, there are the following:(i) 012the Osaka District Court decision of March 25, 2011 (2010 (arbitration) No.3)
Hanrei Times No.1355 p.249, Hanrei Jiho No.2122 p.106,(ii) 013the Osaka District Court decision of December 9, 2014 (2014 (arbitration) No.2)
JCA Journal Vol.62 No.6 p.74,(iii) 014the Osaka High Court decision of February 26, 2015 (2017 (la) No.74) JCA
Journal Vol.62 No.7 p.64 (appellate decision of the decision of (ii)),(iv) 004the Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015 (arbitration) No.4)
not recorded in casebooks, etc., 2016WLJPCA02176008, and(v) 009the Tokyo High Court decision of August 19, 2016 (2016 (la) No.497) not recordedin casebooks, etc. 2016WLJPCA0819002 (appellate decision of the decision of (iv)).
13
Hidenobu Nagasue, “Status of Examinations of ‘Arbitration Related Cases’ at the Main Offices of
the Tokyo District Court”, JCA Journal Vol.64 No.7 p.3 (2017), p.11.
14
Hidenobu Nagasue, “Status of Examinations of ‘Arbitration Related Cases’ at the Main Offices of
the Tokyo District Court”, JCA Journal Vol.64 No.7 p.3 (2017), p.12.
912

Cases in which the enforcement decision procedures concluded within 6 months exceed 50%,
and the courts of Japan speedily handle the cases of petition for enforcement decisions of arbitralawards.
Decisions of the courts related to petition for enforcement decisions may be immediately
appealed in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 Paragraph 8 of the Arbitration Act
applied mutatis mutandis by Article 46 Paragraph 10.

Appellate court decisions may sometimes

be permitted to be appealed with permission to the supreme court.
The individual events for refusal of recognition are the same as the aforementioned annulment
events, and with respect to the interpretation and operation thereof, please refer to theaforementioned contents regarding events for annulment of arbitral awards.

III.

Arbitration Agreement

1.

Introduction
Article 14 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act provides that if a lawsuit is filed with the court

regarding a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the fact that there is anarbitration agreement between the parties, as a general rule, the court must dismiss the claim bya petition made by the party who is the defendant.15

Exceptions are provided in each of the items of Article 14 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act.
Item 2 provides that demurrer (“bosokoben”) of an arbitration agreement is not recognized whenarbitration procedures based upon the arbitration agreement cannot be performed, and 016theMiyazaki District Court judgment of January 23, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.606) court website stated asfollows: “It is interpreted that ‘when arbitration procedures based upon the arbitration agreement
cannot be performed’ means cases where it is recognized that there are obstructions to theperformance of procedures related to such arbitration agreement such as in the cases where a specificperson selected as an arbitrator under the arbitration agreement dies, or the arbitration procedures
cannot commence for a long time because the opinions of the parties regarding how to proceed withthe arbitration procedures do not match.”
Item 3 also provides that demurrer of an arbitration agreement, made after an argument on the
merits or statement in the oral preparation procedures at the court, is not recognized. 017The
Tokyo District Court judgment of November 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.35170)
2008WLJPCA11268014 applied this provision and did not recognize the formation of a demurrer,
stating that “The petition requesting for the dismissal of a claim on the grounds that an arbitrationagreement exists was made after the defendant argued on the merits.” 018The Tokyo District Court
judgment of August 7, 2012 (2012 (wa) No.842) LEX/DB 25496039 stated, with respect to whether
or not a deemed statement of an answer towards the statement of a claim fell under “oral argument”,
that “An answer towards the statement of a claim belongs to a part of the oral argument; however,since it is normally performed simply, and it cannot be said that, just by performing it, an argument
1015

However, as a special rule to this, Articles 3 and 4 of the Supplementary Provisions of the
Arbitration Act recognize the claims of invalidity and termination from the side of the consumer
or worker in relation to an arbitration agreement between a business operator and a consumer aswell as an arbitration agreement between an employer and a worker.

With respect to theapplicable territorial scope of such provision, although it is not clear from the legal text, 015theTokyo District Court judgment of February 15, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.37494 and 2010 (wa)No.5622) LEX/DB literature no.25471107, Hanrei Times No.1350 p.189 related to an arbitrationagreement between an employer and a worker stated as follows: “It is interpreted that the said
Article is not applicable to this arbitration agreement which renders the seat of arbitration and all
the procedures as that of the United States of America.”
Below, I would like to provide an explanation of the court cases focusing upon issues for which
related court cases exist.
2.

Law applicable to arbitration agreement
The governing laws used upon determining the existence or non-existence and validity or thearbitration agreement are as follows according to court cases.
selected by the parties is followed.

Firstly, the laws of the place

Even if there is no express intent of the parties regarding theselection of governing laws, if it is recognized that there is an implied agreement regarding
governing laws between the parties in light of the existence or non-existence, or contents, of theagreement regarding the seat of arbitration, the contents of the main contract and other various
circumstances, selection of governing laws based upon such implied agreement may berecognized.

If an implied agreement regarding governing laws may not be recognized, it isdetermined by the laws of the country to which the seat of arbitration belongs. Below, I would
like to provide an explanation along with the court cases.
The Supreme Court judgment of September 4, 1997 (1994 (o) No.1848) Minshu Vol.51 No.8
p3657 stated as follows: “With respect to the formation and validity of an arbitration contract ininternational arbitration, it is appropriate to interpret that firstly its governing laws are determinedin accordance with the intent of the parties in accordance with Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the Act onGeneral Rules for Application of Laws (Horei).” The said Supreme Court judgment stated that,“Even if there is no express agreement regarding the governing laws” of the formation and validityof an arbitration contract, “if it is recognized that there is an implied agreement regarding

is made on the factual or legal issues and the litigation is progressed and submitting a demurrer of anarbitration after that would confuse and delay the litigation procedures, it should be interpreted that a
deemed statement of an answer towards the statement of a claim does not fall under an argument on
the merits provided in Article 14 Paragraph 1 Item 3 of the Arbitration Act.”11

governing laws between the parties in light of the existence or non-existence, or contents, of theseat of arbitration, the contents of the main contract, and other various circumstances, such
implied agreement should be followed.”16This Supreme Court judgment was issued prior to theenactment of the current Arbitration Act; however, cases such as 019the Tokyo District Court
judgment of June 19, 2020 (2018 (wa) No.10883) LEX/DB literature no.25585189, Hanrei Hisho
L07530758, 020the Tokyo District Court judgment of June 17, 2019 (2018 (wa) No.36570)
LEX/DB literature no.25580234, 2019WLJPCA06178003, 021the Tokyo District Court
judgment of June 29, 2018 (2017 (wa) No.4327) LEX/DB literature no.25555966, 022the Tokyo
District Court judgment of October 17, 2014 (2012 (wa) No.35871) Hanrei Times No.1413 p.271,
and 023the Tokyo District Court judgment of March 10, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.11437) LEX/DB
literature no.25473642, Hanrei Times No.1358 p.236, 2011WLJPCA03108014 cite this byrereading “Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the Act on General Rules on Application for Laws (Horei)”,
which was the private international law provision of Japan which was subsequently amended, to“Article 7 of the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws (Tsusokuho)” after amendment.
As for a case which recognized the existence of an express agreement regarding governing laws
in relation to the governing laws of an arbitration agreement, the aforementioned 020Tokyo
District Court judgment of June 17, 2019 (2018 (wa) No.36570) LEX/DB literature no.25580234,
2019WLJPCA06178003 stated as follows: “Any dispute, controversy, violation or claim
occurring from this Agreement shall submit to arbitration in Tokyo governed by the laws of Japan,
and each party shall respectively select one (1) arbitrator, and the selected two (2) arbitrators shallselect the third arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrators or two (2) or more of them shall befinal” and stated that there was an express agreement to render the laws of Japan as being thegoverning laws in relation to an arbitration agreement between the parties.
On the other hand, court cases which recognized the existence of implied agreements regarding
governing laws by adopting the judgment framework of the aforementioned Supreme Court
judgment can be classified into two types.

One of such classifications recognize implied

agreements regarding governing laws in relation to the governing laws of an arbitration agreement
by focusing on the seat of arbitration, similarly as the aforementioned Supreme Court judgmentof September 4, 1997.

The other classification recognizes implied agreements regarding

governing laws in relation to an arbitration agreement by focusing on the governing laws of thecontract.
As for court cases falling under the former classification, the aforementioned 023TokyoAs for the resolution of the specific case, it focused upon the agreement regarding the seat ofarbitration, and recognized that the laws applicable to the seat of arbitration (the state of New Yorkin this case) were the governing laws of the arbitration agreement, stating that there was an implied
agreement regarding the governing laws of the arbitration agreement.
1216

District Court judgment of March 10, 2011 did not expressly refer to the aforementioned Supreme
Court judgment of September 4, 1997, but stated wordings similar to the said Supreme Court
judgment, and stated as follows: “Although there is no express provision regarding the governing
laws of the arbitration agreement, considering such facts as that there is an agreement regarding
the seat of arbitration that the arbitration procedures filed by the defendant be conducted in Tokyoand the arbitration procedures filed by the plaintiff be conducted in the Principality of Monaco,with respect to the arbitration filed by the plaintiff, it is recognized that there was an implied
agreement to render the laws applicable in the Principality of Monaco, the seat of arbitration, as
the governing laws of the arbitration contract.”

Also, while the aforementioned 021Tokyo

District Court judgment of June 29, 2018 stated that no express agreement regarding governing
laws related to the arbitration agreement can be recognized, it referred to the aforementioned
Supreme Court judgment of September 4, 1997 and took into account that there was an agreement
to the effect that “It shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in the Republicof Singapore”, and decided that it was appropriate to recognize that there was an implied
agreement to render the laws of the Republic of Singapore as the governing laws.
On the other hand, as for court cases falling under the latter classification, the aforementioned
022Tokyo District Court judgment of October 17, 2014 referred to the aforementioned Supreme
Court judgment of September 4, 1997 and decided that there was an implied agreement on
governing laws in relation to an arbitration agreement, based upon the governing law provisions
that the Arizona state laws and the laws of the United States of America are the contractual
governing laws in the contract including the arbitration agreement.

Also, 019the Tokyo District

Court judgment of June 19, 2020 (2018 (wa) No.10883) LEX/DB literature no.25585189, Hanrei
Hisho L07530758 and 020the Tokyo District Court judgment of June 17, 2019 (2018 (wa)No.36579) LEX/DB literature no. 25580234, 2019WLJPCA0617800 referred to theaforementioned Supreme Court judgment of September 4, 1997 and stated that, although there
was no express agreement regarding governing laws in the arbitration agreement, in light of thefact that the contract governing laws are provided to be the laws of England (England and Wales)
and the fact that the seat of arbitration is London, U.K., it is appropriate is recognize that there is
an implied agreement that the governing laws of the arbitration agreement is the laws of England.
There are also court cases which do not mention the aforementioned Supreme Court case of
September 4, 1997 and independently determine the governing laws of the arbitration agreement.
However, most of such court cases determine the governing laws of the arbitration agreement byfocusing on the governing laws of the main contract.

For instance, 024the Tokyo District Court

decision of August 28, 2007 (2007 (yo) No.20047) Hanrei Jiho No1991 p.89 stated that “Since
the Arbitration Act does not have an express provision regarding the governing laws of the13

arbitration agreement, the validity of the arbitration agreement would be determined by the lawsof the place selected by the parties at the time of such legal act” and decided that, since there isan agreement in the contract to render the laws of South Korea as the governing laws, thegoverning laws regarding the validity of this arbitration agreement would be the laws of South
Korea.

Also, 025the Tokyo High Court judgment of December 21, 2010 (2010 (ne) No.2785)

LEX/DB literature no.25471557, Hanrei Jiho No.2112 p.36 stated as follows: “The laws of thecountry regarding the formation and validity as well as format of the arbitration agreement should
as a general rule be determined in accordance with the intent of the parties, and even if there is
no express agreement regarding this point, if it is recognized that there is an implied agreement
regarding the governing laws between the parties such as in the case where the parties designate
the applicable laws regarding the main contract, then such laws should be followed.”

026TheTokyo District Court interlocutory judgment of January 28, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.35587) Hanrei
Jiho No.2258 p.100 did not refer to the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment of September
4, 1997 and stated as follows: “Considering that it is provided that the time charter contract should
be interpreted by the laws of England and the seat of arbitration is London of the said country, it
is appropriate to recognize that there was an implied agreement that the laws of England are thegoverning laws of this arbitration agreement.”17Also, in the case that an implied agreement regarding the arbitration agreement cannot berecognized between the parties, 021the Tokyo High Court judgment of December 21, 2010 (2010(ne) No.2785) LEX/DB literature no.25471557, Hanrei Jiho No.2112 p.36 stated that “Taking
into account the intent of the provisions of Article 44 Paragraph 1 Item 2 and Article 45 Paragraph
2 Item 2 of the Arbitration Act, it is appropriate to interpret that the laws of the country of theplace which is the seat of arbitration should be followed in relation to such arbitration agreement”
and decided that the governing laws were the laws of Japan as the laws of the country of Tokyo
which was the seat of arbitration.
3.

Adhesive contracts and arbitration agreement
Article 13 Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act requires that the arbitration agreement be inwriting.

In this regard, even if the contract cites an adhesive contract and such adhesive contract

There also is 028the Tokyo District Court judgment of August 23, 2013 (2012 (wa) No.24603)
Hanrei Times No.1417 p.243 which is a court case that recognized “that there was an implied
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to render the laws of Japan as the governing laws
regarding the formation or non-formation and validity of the arbitration agreement since there wasno dispute regarding the selection of governing laws from the start”, on the grounds that both parties“claimed that the formation or non-formation and validity, as well as format, of the arbitrationagreement are both based upon the laws of Japan” in the court.
14
17

contains an arbitration clause, according to Paragraph 3 of the said Article, it satisfies the writing
requirement as a case where a document describing provisions, of which the contents are an
arbitration agreement, constitutes a part of the said contract.

In this regard, as for court cases,

the aforementioned 025Tokyo High Court judgment of December 12, 2010 also decided that anarbitration clause within the written format cited by the contract satisfied the writing
requirement.18
In a case where an adhesive contract containing an arbitration clause cited in a contract wasdelivered before such contracting but was not delivered once more at the time of such contracting,
027the Tokyo District Court judgment of March 12, 2010 (2008 (wa) No.33387)
2010WLJPCA03128005 recognized that an arbitration agreement was formed, stating that it
could not be recognized that the parties had an intent to use a separate adhesive contract otherthan this adhesive contract.
Furthermore, in a case where an adhesive contract containing an arbitration clause was cited in
the back side of the contract, and only the upper side of the contract was delivered, 029the Tokyo
District Court judgment of March 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.886) Kaijiho Kenkyukaishi No.216
p.61, 2008WLJPCA03268009 took into account that 100 or more cargo transportationtransactions were performed annually since previously, in which cases only the upper side wasdelivered by facsimile, and that there was only one type of contract format used between bothparties; and perceiving that even if the back side was not received, the back side contained a
description of an adhesive contract related to the details of the transportation contract, and uponstating that it could be presumed that the parties considered that it was also applicable to thetransportation contract in this case, it recognized that an arbitration agreement existed.
4.

Designation of arbitral institution in arbitration agreement
The aforementioned 028Tokyo District Court judgment of August 23, 2013 decided, in the casewhere an arbitration clause could be interpreted to be an agreement permitting the filing for
The said judgment is particular in that it recognized that an arbitration agreement was formed in acase where, separately from the writing requirement, “a document describing an arbitration clauseupon such contracting was not delivered to the contracting parties”, it stated as follows regardingwhether or not an arbitration agreement was formed: “Since it is recognized to be premised uponcommercial transaction practices frequently performed among merchants engaged in internationalcommercial transactions, that is, international commercial transaction practices where contracts are
executed in the form of citing general contractual terms or standard formats including the arbitration
clause, upon determining whether or not there was a meeting of the minds between the contracting
parties regarding the arbitration agreement executed in this manner, it is appropriate to determine
upon comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances such as the characteristics ofsuch contracting parties, the general industry practices in which the contracting was made, and thetransaction experiences of such contracting parties up till then.”
15
18

arbitration to either of the agencies of the International Commercial Arbitration Court establishedin Russa, Belgium or Ukraine, that it was valid as an arbitration agreement even if it was unclear
as to which of such agencies the dispute was intended to be submitted.
5.

Insolvency law and arbitration agreement
Other than the above, in a case where a decision was requested on issues regarding the

Corporate Reorganization Act of Japan, 026the Tokyo District Court interlocutory judgment ofJanuary 28, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.35587) Hanrei Jiho No. 2258 p.100, which dealt with the issue
as to whether the jurisdiction of the Japanese court was lost, decided that the parties could not berecognized to have agreed to submit to arbitration even in a dispute related to the merits of thislawsuit, on such grounds as that it was an issue specific to the interpretation of the Corporate
Reorganization Act of Japan.
6.

Court’s confirmation of arbitration agreement
Article 23 Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal has the power

to rule on its own jurisdiction, including a ruling on claims related to the existence or nonexistence or validity of an arbitration agreement.

Paragraph 5 of the said Article recognizes thatthe parties may petition to the court to decide the existence or non-existence of the jurisdiction ofan arbitral tribunal, separately from the decision of the arbitral tribunal, in the case where thearbitral tribunal has decided that it has jurisdiction.
As for court cases where the court did not recognize the existence of an arbitration agreement
even though the arbitral tribunal recognized that an arbitration agreement existed, there are 030the
Osaka District Court decision of September 27, 2015 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) not recorded in
casebooks, etc. and 031the Tokyo District Court decision of September 18, 2020 (2020(arbitration) No.3) not recorded in casebooks, etc.

These are cases where, in cases where a sportorganization governing specific sports discipline had an arbitration clause, and an arbitration was
filed to the sport organization which is affiliated with the governing body by an athlete, the courts
was decided that the request for arbitration could not be recognized, since the affiliated sportorganization was a separate organization even though it was under the governing body’s
jurisdiction, and there was no arbitration agreement between such affiliated sport organizationand the athletes.

IV.

Arbitrators
16

From among the provisions of the Arbitration Act regarding the arbitrators, the disclosure
obligation under Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the Arbitration Act was raised as an issue in court cases.
Paragraph 3 of the said Article imposes disclosure obligations upon a person who intends to
respond to negotiations upon being requested to become an arbitrator, and Paragraph 4 of the said
Article imposes disclosure obligations upon an arbitrator progressing arbitration procedures inrelation to facts with the likelihood of causing doubts regarding his/her fairness or independency
to occur. There are court cases for these Articles as to (i) the scope of the facts which should be
disclosed as “facts with the likelihood of causing doubts regarding his/her fairness or
independency to occur” (“facts under Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the Act” cited in the following
judgment), and (ii) how disclosure needs to be made in order to satisfy the disclosure obligations
provided in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 18 of the Arbitration Act.
With respect to (i), 011the Osaka High Court decision of March 11, 2019 (2017 (la) No.1552)
Hanrei Times No.1468 p.65, LEX.DB literature no. 25564932, which was the remanded appellatecase of 010the Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017, stated with respect to the intent of
Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the Arbitration Act that “It is interpreted as an attempt to secure theefficacy of the system of arbitrator avoidance by causing the arbitrator to disclose facts broader
than the facts falling under ‘probable cause sufficient to doubt the fairness or independency of thearbitrator’ so that the parties may appropriately file for an avoidance”, and furthermore, “whether
or not it falls under the facts to be disclosed mentioned above should be objectively determinedin light of the nature of the facts” and “it is not appropriate for the determination as to whether it
falls under facts to be disclosed to depend upon circumstances known only to the arbitrator side”.
On top of that, as an application to the specific facts, it recognized that the fact that an attorney
belonging to the same law firm as an arbitrator was acting as the litigation agent in an affiliatedcompany of the party was a fact with the likelihood to cause doubts of his/her fairness or
independency to occur (however, as stated below, the said Osaka High Court decision recognizedthat there was no breach of disclosure obligations because the arbitrator did not perceive such fact
and there was no possibility that it would normally become evident by investigation within areasonable scope by the said arbitrator).
With respect to (ii), the aforementioned 010Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017
stated that “an arbitrator owes to the parties” “an obligation to disclose matters that would
normally become evident by investigation within a reasonable scope” regarding facts with thelikelihood of causing doubts to his/her fairness or independency to occur.

Also, theaforementioned 011Osaka High Court decision of March 11, 2019, which was the remanded
appellate case of the Supreme Court decision of 2017, stated that the conflict check system in thismatter was “a standard system generally used in large-scale firms in the United States of America
17and is recognized to be in line with the professional rules of conduct of the ABA”, that such
arbitrator “was, upon being selected as an arbitrator for these arbitration procedures, recognized
to have conducted an investigation within a reasonable scope, in confirmation of the possibilityof conflicts of interest, using the conflict check system”, that the possibility of conflicts of interest
due to the problematic facts had not occurred at the time the arbitrator was selected, that such
arbitrator did not perceive the problematic facts till the arbitral award was rendered, and that theexistence of these facts occurring due to the exceptional circumstances, namely, the failure tonotify to the transfer destination law firm the resignation notice of matters in which he/she hadceased to become involved, could not be recognized to normally become evident even if aninvestigation within a reasonable scope were conducted, and concluded that the arbitrator had notcommitted a breach of disclosure obligations.
The aforementioned 010Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017 stated as follows: “Ifan arbitrator were treated to have ‘already disclosed’ as above only by abstractly stating to theparties that there is a possibility that the facts under Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the Act would occur,then, the parties would not be able to appropriately file for avoidance based upon specific facts,
and the intent of the said Paragraph to secure the efficacy of the arbitrator avoidance system may
be lost, and that would be inappropriate.”

As an application to specific facts, it decided that an

attorney of such law firm “may possibly advise such client or represent a client in the future in amatter where the interests of the client conflict with the interests of a party and/or its affiliatedcompany of this arbitration case even though it does not have any relationship with this arbitration
case.

Furthermore, a written statement that an attorney of such law firm ‘may possibly advise

or represent a party and/or its affiliated company of this arbitration case in the future in a matter
which does not have any relationship with this arbitration case’ merely abstractly states that there
may possibly be a conflict of interest in the future between an arbitrator and an attorney to which
he/she belongs, and it does not fall under ‘already disclosed’ under Article 18 Paragraph 4 of the
Arbitration Act.”End of text18

Table of Cases (in order of appearance)
001. Tokyo High Court decision of August 1, 2018 (Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No. 1551, p.13)
002. Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho
No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB no.25473502
003. Tokyo District Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB
no.25451576, Hanrei Times No.1302 p.292
004. Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015 (arbitration) No.4) not recordedin casebooks, etc., 2016WLJPCA02176008
005. Osaka District Court decision of March 17, 2015 (2014 (arbitration) No.3) Hanrei Jiho
No.2270 p.74
006. Tokyo High Court decision of March 13, 2012 (2012 (la) No. 1334) LLI/DB L06710125
007. Tokyo District Court decision of March 28, 2018 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) Kinyu Shoji
Hanrei No.1551 p.24
008. Tokyo District Court decision of October 10, 2017 (2014 (arbitration) No.1) not recorded in
casebooks, etc.
009. Tokyo High Court decision of August 19, 2016 (2016 (la) No.497) not recorded in casebooks,
etc. 2016WLJPCA081900
010. Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017 (2016 (kyo) No. 43) Saibansho Jiho No. 1960
p.6, court website, Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No.1533 p.28 (court website)
011. Osaka High Court decision of March 11, 2019 (2017 (la) No.1552), Hanrei Times No.1468
p.65, LEX/DB no. 25564932
012. Osaka District Court decision of March 25, 2011 (2010 (arbitration) No.3) Hanrei Times
No.1355 p.249, Hanrei Jiho No.2122 p.106
013. Osaka District Court decision of December 9, 2014 (2014 (arbitration) No.2) JCA Journal
Vol.62 No.6 p.74
014. Osaka High Court decision of February 26, 2015 (2017 (la) No.74) JCA Journal Vol.62 No.7
p.64
015. Tokyo District Court judgment of February 15, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.37494 and 2010 (wa)No.5622) LEX/DB no.25471107, Hanrei Times No.1350 p.189
016. Miyazaki District Court judgment of January 23, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.606) court website
017. Tokyo District Court judgment of November 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.35170)
2008WLJPCA11268014
018. Tokyo District Court judgment of August 7, 2012 (2012 (wa) No.842) LEX/DB 25496039
019. Tokyo District Court judgment of June 19, 2020 (2018 (wa) No.10883) LEX/DB
no.25585189, Hanrei Hisho L07530758,
19020. Tokyo District Court judgment of June 17, 2019 (2018 (wa) No.36570) LEX/DB
no.25580234, 2019WLJPCA06178003,
021. Tokyo District Court judgment of June 29, 2018 (2017 (wa) No.4327) LEX/DB no.25555966
022. Tokyo District Court judgment of October 17, 2014 (2012 (wa) No.35871) Hanrei Times
No.1413 p.271
023. Tokyo District Court judgment of March 10, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.11437) LEX/DB
no.25473642, Hanrei Times No.1358 p.236, 2011WLJPCA03108014
024. Tokyo District Court decision of August 28, 2007 (2007 (yo) No.20047) Hanrei Jiho No1991
p.89
025. Tokyo High Court judgment of December 21, 2010 (2010 (ne) No.2785) LEX/DB
no.25471557, Hanrei Jiho No.2112 p.36
026. Tokyo District Court interlocutory judgment of January 28, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.35587)
Hanrei Jiho No.2258 p.100
027. Tokyo

District Court

judgmentof March

12,2010 (2008(wa) No.33387)

2010WLJPCA03128005
028. Tokyo District Court judgment of August 23, 2013 (2012 (wa) No.24603) Hanrei Times
No.1417 p.243
029. Tokyo District Court judgment of March 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.886) Kaijiho Kenkyukaishi
No.216 p.61, 2008WLJPCA03268009
030. Osaka District Court decision of September 27, 2015 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) not recordedin casebooks, etc.
031. Tokyo District Court decision of September 18, 2020 (2020 (arbitration) No.3) not recordedin casebooks, etc.

20

Table of Cases (chronological order)
1.

024 Tokyo District Court decision of August 28, 2007 (2007 (yo) No.20047) Hanrei Jiho

No1991 p.89
2.

029 Tokyo District Court judgment of March 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.886) Kaijiho

Kenkyukaishi No.216 p.61, 2008WLJPCA03268009
3.

017 Tokyo District Court judgment of November 26, 2008 (2007 (wa) No.35170)

2008WLJPCA11268014
4.

003 Tokyo District Court decision of July 28, 2009 (2008 (arbitration) No.3) LEX/DB

no.25451576, Hanrei Times No.1302 p.292
5.

027 Tokyo District Court judgment of March 12, 2010 (2008 (wa) No.33387)

2010WLJPCA03128005
6.

025 Tokyo High Court judgment of December 21, 2010 (2010 (ne) No.2785) LEX/DB

no.25471557, Hanrei Jiho No.2112 p.36
7.

015 Tokyo District Court judgment of February 15, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.37494 and 2010(wa) No.5622) LEX/DB no.25471107, Hanrei Times No.1350 p.189
8.

023 Tokyo District Court judgment of March 10, 2011 (2009 (wa) No.11437) LEX/DB

no.25473642, Hanrei Times No.1358 p.236, 2011WLJPCA03108014
9.

012 Osaka District Court decision of March 25, 2011 (2010 (arbitration) No.3) Hanrei Times

No.1355 p.249, Hanrei Jiho No.2122 p.106
10. 002 Tokyo District Court decision of June 13, 2011 (2009 (arbitration) No.6) Hanrei Jiho
No.2128 p.58, LEX/DB no.25473502
11. 006 Tokyo High Court decision of March 13, 2012 (2012 (la) No. 1334) LLI/DB L06710125
12. 018 Tokyo District Court judgment of August 7, 2012 (2012 (wa) No.842) LEX/DB
25496039
13. 028 Tokyo District Court judgment of August 23, 2013 (2012 (wa) No.24603) Hanrei Times
No.1417 p.243
14. 022 Tokyo District Court judgment of October 17, 2014 (2012 (wa) No.35871) Hanrei Times
No.1413 p.271
15. 013 Osaka District Court decision of December 9, 2014 (2014 (arbitration) No.2) JCA
Journal Vol.62 No.6 p.74
16. 016 Miyazaki District Court judgment of January 23, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.606) court website
17. 026 Tokyo District Court interlocutory judgment of January 28, 2015 (2012 (wa) No.35587)
Hanrei Jiho No.2258 p.100
18. 014 Osaka High Court decision of February 26, 2015 (2017 (la) No.74) JCA Journal Vol.62
No.7 p.64
2119. 005 Osaka District Court decision of March 17, 2015 (2014 (arbitration) No.3) Hanrei Jiho
No.2270 p.74
20. 030 Osaka District Court decision of September 27, 2015 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) notrecorded in casebooks, etc.
21. 004 Tokyo District Court decision of February 17, 2016 (2015 (arbitration) No.4) notrecorded in casebooks, etc., 2016WLJPCA02176008
22. 009 Tokyo High Court decision of August 19, 2016 (2016 (la) No.497) not recorded in
casebooks, etc. 2016WLJPCA081900
23. 008 Tokyo District Court decision of October 10, 2017 (2014 (arbitration) No.1) not recordedin casebooks, etc.
24. 010 Supreme Court decision of December 12, 2017 (2016 (kyo) No. 43) Saibansho Jiho No.
1960 p.6, court website, Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No.1533 p.28 (court website)
25. 007 Tokyo District Court decision of March 28, 2018 (2015 (arbitration) No.2) Kinyu Shoji
Hanrei No.1551 p.24
26. 021 Tokyo District Court judgment of June 29, 2018 (2017 (wa) No.4327) LEX/DB
no.25555966
27. 001 Tokyo High Court decision of August 1, 2018 (Kinyu Shoji Hanrei No. 1551, p.13)
28. 011 Osaka High Court decision of March 11, 2019 (2017 (la) No.1552), Hanrei Times
No.1468 p.65, LEX/DB no. 25564932
29. 020 Tokyo District Court judgment of June 17, 2019 (2018 (wa) No.36570) LEX/DB
no.25580234, 2019WLJPCA06178003,
30. 019 Tokyo District Court judgment of June 19, 2020 (2018 (wa) No.10883) LEX/DB
no.25585189, Hanrei Hisho L07530758,
31. 031 Tokyo District Court decision of September 18, 2020 (2020 (arbitration) No.3) notrecorded in casebooks, etc.

22