ICLG

The International Comparative Legal Guide to:

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2018
3rd Edition
A practical cross-border insight into the enforcement of foreign judgments
Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from:
Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co., Ltd.
Allen & Gledhill LLP
ArchipelBär & Karrer Ltd.
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLPBoga & Associates
Bonn Steichen & Partners
Brain Trust International Law Firm
Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.
Covington & Burling LLP
Esenyel|Partners Lawyers & Consultants
Fichte & Co
Gall
GASSER PARTNER Attorneys at Law
Gürlich & Co.
Herbert Smith Freehills Germany LLP
Herbert Smith Freehills South Africa LLP

Jafa & Javali, Advocates
Jones Day
Konrad & Partners
Legance – Avvocati Associati
Lex Navicus Concordia
Linklaters LLP
Matheson
MinterEllison
Montanios & Montanios LLC
N-Advogados & CM Advogados
Pinheiro Neto Advogados
Polenak Law Firm
Rahmat Lim & Partners
Simonsen Vogt Wiig
Stek
TripleOKlaw Advocates LLP
Williams & Connolly LLPThe International Comparative Legal Guide to: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2018
General Chapters:

Contributing Editors
Louise Freeman and
Chiz Nwokonkor,
Covington & Burling LLP

1Beyond Brexit: Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments between the UK and the EU – 		Louise Freeman & Chiz Nwokonkor, Covington & Burling LLP
1

2

European Union – Sébastien Champagne & Vanessa Foncke, Jones Day

6

Country Question and Answer Chapters:
3

Albania

Boga & Associates: Gerhard Velaj & Eno Muja

4

AngolaN-Advogados & CM Advogados: Nuno Albuquerque & 		
Conceição Manita Ferreira
16

5

Australia

MinterEllison: Beverley Newbold & Tamlyn Mills

21

6

Austria

Konrad & Partners: Dr. Christian W. Konrad & Philipp A. Peters

27

7

Belgium

Linklaters LLP: Joost Verlinden & Nino De Lathauwer

34

Sub Editor
Jane Simmons

8

BrazilSenior Editors
Suzie Levy
Caroline Collingwood

Pinheiro Neto Advogados: Renato Stephan Grion & 		
Guilherme Piccardi de Andrade Silva
40

9CanadaBlake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: Erin Hoult & Daniel Styler

47

10 China

Linklaters LLP: Justin Tang

53

11 Cyprus

Montanios & Montanios LLC: Yiannis Papapetrou

58

12 Czech RepublicGürlich & Co.: Richard Gürlich & Kamila Janoušková

64

13 England & Wales

Covington & Burling LLP: Louise Freeman & Chiz Nwokonkor

69

14 France

Archipel: Jacques-Alexandre Genet & Michaël Schlesinger

75

15 Germany

Herbert Smith Freehills Germany LLP: Catrice Gayer & Sören Flecks

81

16 Hong Kong

Gall: Nick Gall & Lydia Mak

88

17 India

Jafa & Javali, Advocates: Kirit S. Javali

93

18 Ireland

Matheson: Julie Murphy-O’Connor & Gearóid Carey98

19 Italy

Legance – Avvocati Associati: Daniele Geronzi & Stefano Parlatore

105

20 Japan

Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.: Masahiro Nakatsukasa

111

GLG Cover Image Source
iStockphoto

21 Kenya

TripleOKlaw Advocates LLP: John M. Ohaga & Gloria Mwika

116

Printed by
Stephens & George
Print Group
March 2018

22 Kosovo

Boga & Associates: Sokol Elmazaj & Delvina Nallbani

121

23 Liechtenstein

GASSER PARTNER Attorneys at Law: Thomas Nigg & Domenik Vogt

126

24 Luxembourg

Bonn Steichen & Partners: Fabio Trevisan & Laure-Hélène Gaicio-Fievez

132

25 Macedonia

Polenak Law Firm: Tatjana Popovski Buloski & Aleksandar Dimic

137

26 Malaysia

Rahmat Lim & Partners: Jack Yow & Daphne Koo141

27 Myanmar

Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co., Ltd.: Minn Naing Oo

147

28 Netherlands

Stek: Gerben Smit & Max Hetterscheidt

151

29 Norway

Simonsen Vogt Wiig: Tage Brigt A. Skoghøy & 		Ørjan Salvesen Haukaas
156

30 Portugal

N-Advogados & CM Advogados: Nuno Albuquerque & 		
Filipa Braga Ferreira
161

31 Russia

Lex Navicus Concordia: Konstantin Krasnokutskiy & 		Alexey Drobyshev
167

32 Singapore

Allen & Gledhill LLP: Tan Xeauwei & Melissa Mak

33 South Africa

Herbert Smith Freehills South Africa LLP: Jonathan Ripley-Evans & 		
Fiorella Noriega Del Valle
180

Sales Director
Florjan Osmani
Account Director
Oliver Smith
Sales Support Manager
Toni Hayward

Chief Operating Officer
Dror Levy
Group Consulting Editor
Alan Falach
Publisher
Rory Smith
Published by
Global Legal Group Ltd.
59 Tanner Street
London SE1 3PL, UK
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720
Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: info@glgroup.co.uk
URL: www.glgroup.co.uk
GLG Cover Design
F&F Studio Design

Copyright © 2018
Global Legal Group Ltd.
All rights reserved
No photocopyingISBN 978-1-911367-99-4
ISSN 2397-1924
Strategic Partners

12

174

Continued Overleaf

Further copies of this book and others in the series can be ordered from the publisher. Please call +44 20 7367 0720
Disclaimer
This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.
Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication.
This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified
professional when dealing with specific situations.

WWW.ICLG.COM

The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 201834 Switzerland

Bär & Karrer Ltd.: Saverio Lembo & Aurélie Conrad Hari

187

35 Taiwan

Brain Trust International Law Firm: Hung Ou Yang & Jia-Jun Fang

194

36 Turkey

Esenyel|Partners Lawyers & Consultants: Selcuk S. Esenyel

198

37 United Arab Emirates

Fichte & Co: Alessandro Tricoli & Jasamin Fichte

203

38 USA

Williams & Connolly LLP: John J. Buckley, Jr. & Ana C. Reyes

208

EDITORIAL
Welcome to the third edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to:
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.
This guide provides corporate counsel and international practitioners with acomprehensive worldwide legal analysis of the laws and regulations relating to theenforcement of foreign judgments.
It is divided into two main sections:Two general chapters. These chapters are designed to provide readers with acomprehensive overview of key issues affecting the enforcement of foreign
judgments, particularly from the perspective of a multi-jurisdictional transaction.
Country question and answer chapters. These provide a broad overview of common
issues in the enforcement of foreign judgments in 36 jurisdictions.
All chapters are written by leading lawyers and industry specialists, and we are
extremely grateful for their excellent contributions.
Special thanks are reserved for the contributing editors Louise Freeman and Chiz
Nwokonkor of Covington & Burling LLP for their invaluable assistance.
Global Legal Group hopes that you find this guide practical and interesting.
The International Comparative Legal Guide series is also available online atwww.iclg.com.
Alan Falach LL.M.
Group Consulting Editor
Global Legal Group
Alan.Falach@glgroup.co.uk

Chapter 20

Japan
Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.

1 Country Finder
1.1

2.3

Please set out the various regimes applicable
to recognising and enforcing judgments in yourjurisdiction and the names of the countries to whichsuch special regimes apply.

Applicable Law/
Statutory Regime
None.

Relevant
Jurisdiction(s)None.

Corresponding
Section Below
None.

2 General Regime
2.1

Absent any applicable special regime, what is thelegal framework under which a foreign judgment
would be recognised and enforced in yourjurisdiction?

As a civil law country, Japan’s main source of law is legislation.
The Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) and Civil Execution Act(“CEA”) are the two most relevant laws for the enforcement offoreign judgments. Judicial precedents are a secondary source oflaws used to construe the statutes.
Japan is not a party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for thereciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments,
including the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcementof Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
2.2

Masahiro Nakatsukasa

What constitutes a ‘judgment’ capable of recognitionand enforcement in your jurisdiction?

To be capable of recognition and enforcement, a foreign judgment
must satisfy the requirements of Article 118 of the CCP. Whether
these requirements are satisfied will be determined by the courtin an action for “execution judgment” under Article 24 of the
CEA. Further, the CEA must issue an execution judgment for a
foreign judgment to be enforced. In essence, a foreign judgment’s
recognition and enforcement are determined simultaneously.
The final major requirement for recognition is that a foreign
judgment (or order, such as an injunction) must be final, i.e. nonappealable.

What requirements (in form and substance) must a
foreign judgment satisfy in order to be recognised
and enforceable in your jurisdiction?

Article 118 of the CCP governs the requirements for the recognitionof foreign judgments. Whether the specified requirements are
satisfied is determined by the court in a procedure to seeking
enforcement of such foreign judgment under Article 24 of the CEA.
The specific requirements under Article 118 are as follows:
A final and binding judgment rendered by a foreign court shall beeffective only where it meets all of the following requirements:(i)

The jurisdiction of the foreign court is recognised under laws,
regulations, conventions or treaties.

(ii)

The defeated defendant has received a service (excluding aservice by publication or any other service similar thereto) ofa summons or order necessary for the commencement of thesuit, or has appeared without receiving such service.

(iii)

The content of the judgment and the court proceedings are
not contrary to public policy in Japan.

(iv)

A mutual guarantee exists.

More particular details for certain requirements and definitions are
discussed below.
Final and Binding. The final and binding requirement requiresthat the judgment be a final and binding judgment of a foreign
court. In other words, the judgment cannot be appealed based on
existing procedures in the foreign country of judgment. Although
not defined in the CCP, a “foreign court” is generally understood as
being a juridical body in a foreign country authorised to exercise
authority in disputes. A “judgment” refers to a determination incourt proceedings involving a civil dispute between parties who areeach guaranteed the right to participate in and have their grievanceheard. A summary judgment issued in adversarial proceedings may
be considered a “judgment” under CCP Article 118.
Jurisdiction. Article 118(i) of the CCP requires that the foreign
court’s jurisdiction be recognised under laws, regulations,conventions or treaties. However, it was only recently in 2012 thatJapanese courts became able to exercise international jurisdiction.
Prior to this, there was no express provision in Japanese laws
granting Japanese courts international jurisdiction. Consequently,
this jurisdiction requirement was judged based on the rule of reason(Supreme Court, 28 April 1998, Heisei 6 (O) No. 1838). However,
the CCP was amended in 2012 to expressly provide for the exercise
of international jurisdiction by Japanese courts (CCP, Articles 3–2
to 3–12).

ICLG TO: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 2018

WWW.ICLG.COM

111

JapanChuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.

Japan

Service Requirement. The service of process must be completed on
the defendant (or in lieu, in case the defendant otherwise submits
to the jurisdiction of the court by appearing at the proceeding). To
be deemed complete, the service must commence with a summonsor order informing the defendant in an understandable manner thatlegal proceedings will commence against him or her and provide
sufficient information to defend the action (Supreme Court, 28 April
1998, Heisei 6 (O) No. 1838). Further, the service must comply
with any applicable conventions or treaties.
No Contravention of Public Policy. Neither the contents of a foreign
judgment nor the foreign proceedings may contravene Japanesepublic policy requirements. In this context, the contents of theforeign judgment as well as the underlying facts upon which thejudgment is based may be examined to determine whether they are
consistent with the public policy of Japan (Tokyo District Court,
6 September 1969, Showa 43 (Wa) No. 15158). For example, ajudgment ordering a payment of gambling debts would be contrary
to the public policy in Japan, and for that reason could not be
enforced.
Reciprocity. This requires that the foreign country where theforeign judgment was rendered will extend mutuality to Japanese
judgments, so that judgments by Japanese courts will be recognised
and enforceable in that country under requirements substantiallysimilar to those under Article 118 of the CCP.
Procedural Equivalence. As a public policy matter, Article 118(iii)of the CCP requires that due process be observed in the foreign
proceedings. Accordingly, if a defendant’s rights of defence are
not substantially guaranteed in foreign proceedings, a judgment
rendered in those proceedings would not satisfy the public policy
requirement and therefore could not be enforced. For example,
foreign judgments from judicial systems lacking the principles
of an adversarial system, foreign judgments obtained by fraud or
wrongful conduct, and foreign judgments rendered through obvious
misconduct or corruption of the foreign judge are not likely to beconsistent with Japan’s public policy and therefore an execution
judgment would not be granted.
2.4

What (if any) connection to the jurisdiction is requiredfor your courts to accept jurisdiction for recognitionand enforcement of a foreign judgment?

Article 3–2 to 3–12 of the CCP provide for the exercise ofinternational jurisdiction by Japanese courts. In essence, theJapanese courts have jurisdiction over the following actions (please
see the aforesaid Articles for details):

112■

an action against a person domiciled or resident in Japan, or ifthey are unknown, was domiciled in Japan before the action
was filed (unless the person has been domiciled in a foreigncountry after last being domiciled in Japan);■an action against a corporation or any other association or
foundation whose principal office or business office is locatedin Japan, or if they are unknown, whose representative orother person principally in charge of its business is domiciledin Japan;■an action on a claim for the performance of a contractual
obligation; on a claim involving a benevolent intervention
in another’s affairs that has been done, or unjust enrichmentthat has arisen, in connection with a contractual obligation;
on a claim for damages due to non-performance of acontractual obligation; or on any other claim involving acontractual obligation: if the contractually specified place for
performance of the obligation is within Japan, or if the lawof the place adopted under the contract gives a place within
Japan as the place for performance of the obligation;

WWW.ICLG.COM■

an action on a property right: if the subject matter of the claim
is located within Japan, or if the action is a claim for thepayment of monies, and seizable property of the defendant islocated within Japan (except when the value of such property
is extremely low);■an action against a person with an office or a business office,which is filed in connection with the business conductedat that person’s office or business office: if said office orbusiness office is located within Japan;■

an action against a person that conducts business in Japan(that continually carries out transactions in Japan): if said
action involves the business that the person conducts inJapan;■an action for a tort: if the place where the tort occurred iswithin Japan (except where the consequences of a wrongful
act committed in a foreign country have arisen within Japanbut it would not ordinarily have been possible to foresee
those consequences arising within Japan); and■an action related to real property: if the real property is
located within Japan.

2.5

Is there a difference between recognition andenforcement of judgments? If so, what are the legal
effects of recognition and enforcement respectively?

A foreign judgment will be recognised if it meets the requirements
set forth in Article 118 of the CCP discussed in question 2.3 above.
No additional registration procedure is required. However, an
execution judgment must be obtained for the enforcement of aforeign judgment to be enforceable. In practice, the determination
as to whether the Article 118 requirements have been met will be
determined simultaneously by the court adjudicating the action
seeking an execution judgment. In short, the recognition of aforeign judgment will be adjudicated in the same process of seeking
its enforcement.
2.6

Briefly explain the procedure for recognising andenforcing a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction.

A foreign judgment will be recognised if it satisfies the requirements
stipulated in Article 118 of the CCP, and the satisfaction of theserequirements will be adjudicated by the court in an action for“execution judgment” under Article 24 of the CEA. A claimant
desiring to obtain an execution judgment to enforce a foreign
judgment must file a suit against the obligor in the district court
having jurisdiction over the location of the obligor (as in ordinary
civil cases). If the location cannot be determined, the district court
having subject matter jurisdiction of the claim or the obligor’s
property will be the competent court. After obtaining an execution
judgment, the claimant can file a motion for compulsory execution
with the district court that has jurisdiction depending on the subject
matter, for example, the district court that has jurisdiction over thelocation of the property to be seized.
2.7

On what grounds can recognition/enforcement of ajudgment be challenged? When can such a challenge
be made?

A defendant is not entitled to raise substantive objections orchallenges to liability or to the scope of an award or jurisdictions
made in a foreign jurisdiction. To this point, the CEA states that “anexecution judgment shall be made without investigating whether or
not the judicial decision is appropriate” (CEA, article 24(2)).

ICLG TO: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 2018

Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.

With respect to the amount and the type of damages, the amountof damages awarded by a foreign court may be revised under the
public policy requirement of Article 118(iii) of the CCP for the sakeof consistency with Japanese public policy.
Punitive damage awards offer an apt example. The Japanese Supreme
Court has held that foreign judgments based on a legal theory
that not been adopted in Japan does not automatically mean thatsuch foreign judgment violates Japan’s public policy requirement.
However, if the foreign judgment is contrary to Japan’s basic rules
or basic theory of law in Japan, such foreign judgment could be in
violation of Japan’s public policy pursuant to Article 118(iii) of the
CCP. (Supreme Court, 11 July 1997, Heisei 5 (O) No. 1762). In thatcase, the Supreme Court held that punitive damages awarded under
California law could be deemed the equivalent of a penal charge
under Japanese criminal laws which was against the basic rules orbasic theory of law in Japan, and therefore could only be partiallyenforced (i.e., without giving effect to the punitive damages award).
Finally, even though a court may not make an investigation
concerning the appropriateness of a foreign judgment, the court
may examine the foreign judgment for allegations of fraud in thecourse of reviewing the public policy requirement of Article 118(iii)of the CCP in the proceedings for entry of an execution judgment.
Accordingly, if fraud upon the defendant is found, the request for an
execution judgment will be denied.
2.8

What, if any, is the relevant legal framework applicable
to recognising and enforcing foreign judgments
relating to specific subject matters?

Please see question 2.1 above.

2.10 What is your court’s approach to recognition andenforcement of a foreign judgment when there is a
conflicting local law or prior judgment on the same ora similar issue, but between different parties?

If a foreign judgment conflicts with a Japanese law, it would certainly
be contrary to Japanese public policy. Accordingly, it will not berecognised under Article 118 of the CCP. This would be the sameif a foreign judgment conflicts with prior Japanese judgments on
the same or a similar issue. Provided, however, the claimant could
challenge that such prior judgments have not yet been recognised as
public policy or there would be different prior judgments.
2.11 What is your court’s approach to recognition andenforcement of a foreign judgment that purports toapply the law of your country?

Even if a foreign judgment purports to apply the Japanese laws, thesame rule applies under Article 118 of the CCP.
2.12 Are there any differences in the rules and procedureof recognition and enforcement between the various
states/regions/provinces in your country? Please
explain.

Japan does not have a federal legal system. This means that the
courts apply the same laws in a uniform manner throughout Japan.
A foreign judgment will be recognised by any court in Japan if itsatisfies the requirements listed in Article 118 of the CCP, and will
be enforceable if an execution judgment with respect to the foreign
judgment is obtained pursuant to Article 24 of the CEA.
2.13 What is the relevant limitation period to recognise andenforce a foreign judgment?

What is your court’s approach to recognition andenforcement of a foreign judgment when there is: (a) aconflicting local judgment between the parties relating
to the same issue; or (b) local proceedings pending
between the parties?

Although there is no fixed statutory limitation for the enforcementof a foreign judgment, any rights established by a judgment of aJapanese court are subject to a limitation of 10 years (Civil Code,
Article 174–2) starting from the date the judgment becomes final
and binding (Civil Code, Article 157(2)).

If the foreign judgment conflicts with a final judgment from aJapanese court, the request for an execution judgment of the foreign
judgment will not be granted. This is without regard to whether
the foreign judgment was issued before or after the Japanese
judgment (Osaka District Court, 22 December 1977, Showa 50(Wa) No. 4257). In this case, the court took into considerationthat recognising a foreign judgment that conflicts with a Japanese
judgment would upset the very basis of the rule of laws, and as such
would be contrary to Japanese public policy.

If the claimant seeks to enforce a foreign judgment more than 10
years after the foreign judgment became final and binding, and theexecution judgment is granted by the Japanese court, the foreign
judgment would essentially enjoy stronger enforceability than ajudgment originally issued by a Japanese court. It is likely that sucha result would be contrary to the public policy requirement, andtherefore unlikely to be considered enforceable. This would be true
even in a case where the statutory limitation for the enforcement of
the foreign judgment in its original foreign jurisdiction was longer
than 10 years.

2.9

Please note that if the foreign judgment conflicts with anotherforeign judgment, there are two prevalent but different views. The
first view is that the earlier judgment will be recognised over thesubsequent judgment based on the principle of double jeopardy.
The second view is that the subsequent judgment will be recognisedover the prior judgment and given effect as though they were both
domestic judgments. There is no case law clarifying or reconcilingthese two views and neither view is given more weight than theother.

Japan

Nonetheless, where a claim has lapsed, become extinct, wasdischarged or otherwise revised after the foreign judgment wasissued, the defendant can raise these defences in the proceedings
seeking an execution judgment.

Japan

In the opposite situation, where an action for an execution judgment
was sought in respect of a foreign judgment that was beyond theexpiration of the statutory limitation period in its original foreign
jurisdiction, but which was not outside the Japanese limitation
period of 10 years, the public policy requirement would probably
not prevent the execution judgment being granted. That said, thedefendant in such action might argue that the foreign judgment had
already become unenforceable in the foreign jurisdiction and, as aconsequence, fails to meet the other requirements under Article 118of the CCP.

ICLG TO: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 2018

WWW.ICLG.COM

113

Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.

Japan

3 Special Enforcement Regimes Applicableto Judgments from Certain Countries

Japan

3.1

With reference to each of the specific regimes set
out in question 1.1, what requirements (in form andsubstance) must the judgment satisfy in order to berecognised and enforceable under the respective
regime?

This is not applicable in Japan.
3.2

With reference to each of the specific regimes set out
in question 1.1, does the regime specify a difference
between recognition and enforcement? If so, what isthe difference between the legal effect of recognitionand enforcement?

With reference to each of the specific regimes set
out in question 1.1, briefly explain the procedure forrecognising and enforcing a foreign judgment.

This is not applicable in Japan.
3.4

With reference to each of the specific regimes set out
in question 1.1, on what grounds can recognition/
enforcement of a judgment be challenged under the
special regime? When can such a challenge be made?

4 Enforcement
Once a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced,
what are the general methods of enforcement
available to a judgment creditor?

After the claimant has obtained an execution judgment, the claimant
can file a motion for compulsory execution with the district courtthat has jurisdiction over the matter. The CEA permits a compulsory
execution for claims of unpaid money (CEA, section 2) and for aclaim of delivery, surrender or eviction of real property or movables(CEA, section 3).

114

WWW.ICLG.COM

the claimant may request the court to order specificperformance provided that the nature of the obligation is one
that permits such enforcement (CEA, Articles 168 to 170);■

if the nature of the obligation can be performed by a third
party, the claimant may request the court to cause a third
party to perform the obligation at the expense of the obligor(CEA, Article 171); and■regardless of whether the obligation can be performed by athird party, the claimant may request that the court demandthat the obligor pay a reasonable amount of money to secure
performance (CEA, article 172 to 173).

5 Other Matters
Have there been any noteworthy recent (in the last
12 months) legal developments in your jurisdiction
relevant to the recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgments? Please provide a brief description.

On 29 January 2016, the Tokyo District Court admitted the execution
judgment recognising the foreign judgment ordering child support
rendered by the State of Illinois (Tokyo District Court, 29 January
2017, Heisei .26 (Wa) No. 24637). The court held that the foreign
judgment could not be deemed punitive damages against the party
who defaulted in the payment of the child support, but was simply
an order to pay the child support, and accordingly was not contrary
to the Japanese public policy.
5.2

This is not applicable in Japan.

4.1

■

5.1

This is not applicable in Japan.
3.3

A claim for specific performance (an order of a court requiring aparty to perform a specific act) is treated as follows:

Are there any particular tips you would give, or
critical issues that you would flag, to clients seeking
to recognise and enforce a foreign judgment in yourjurisdiction?

In Japan, the service requirement can create unexpected problems.
As discussed above, the service of process must be formal andthe contents of the summons or order must be understandable forthe defendant. In addition, the Tokyo District Court has held thata Japanese translation must accompany a summons served on a
Japanese defendant (Tokyo District Court, 26 March 1990, Showa
62 (Wa) No. 12503). Although this holding has been criticised as
being unnecessary where the defendant completely understands
the language of the foreign jurisdiction, nonetheless, the failure toprovide a translation of the summons or orders can cause a foreign
judgment to be deemed unenforceable, even if all other requirements
have been met.

ICLG TO: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 2018

Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.

Japan

Masahiro Nakatsukasa
Chuo Sogo Law Office, P. C.
Kohda Bldg. 11th Floor, 2-10-2
Nishi-Tenma
Kita-ku, Osaka, 530-0047
Japan

Japan

Tel:
+81 6365 8111 / +81 3 3539 1877
Email: nakataukasa_m@clo.gr.jp
URL: www.clo.jp
Masahiro Nakatsukasa is a bilingual international attorney admitted inJapan and New York, with more than 24 years’ experience representing
Japanese and foreign clients in a wide variety of transactions andlitigations. He is well-known as one of the leading counsels in the areasof cross-border M&A and financial transactions in the Kansai area inJapan (comprised of Osaka, Kobe, and Kyoto). Mr. Nakatsukasa
was selected for inclusion in the 5th to 8th editions of Best Lawyers
in Japan in Banking and Finance Law (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017)
and Insolvency and Reorganization Law (2017). He served as aVice-President of the Osaka Bar Association from 2015 to 2016. Mr.
Nakatsukasa received an LL.B. from Kyoto University in 1994 and an
LL.M. from the Northwestern University School of Law in 2005.

Chuo Sogo Law Office, P.C. is a domestic and international business law firm founded in 1968 with current offices in Osaka, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan.
Currently, we have 53 lawyers (five of whom are qualified in New York as well as Japan, and two foreign attorneys, each qualified in California). Chuo
Sogo enjoys a particularly high reputation in the field of Banking and Finance Law (six attorneys have been seconded from the firm or have priorwork experience at Japan’s Financial Services Agency). For 50 years, we have assisted clients ranging from large corporations to individuals – withcomplex litigation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate, tax, intellectual property, restructuring and other interdisciplinary matters. In addition to longstanding relationships with several top U.S. and British law firms, we maintain particularly active networks with law firms in the emerging markets ofSoutheast Asia (Singapore, Thailand, China, and Myanmar) and the Middle East (particularly Dubai and Iran).

ICLG TO: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 2018

WWW.ICLG.COM

115

Current titles in the ICLG series include:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

Alternative Investment Funds
Anti-Money Laundering
Aviation Law
Business Crime
Cartels & Leniency
Class & Group Actions
Competition Litigation
Construction & Engineering Law
Copyright
Corporate GovernanceCorporate Immigration
Corporate Investigations
Corporate Recovery & Insolvency
Corporate Tax
Cybersecurity
Data Protection
Employment & Labour Law
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Environment & Climate Change Law
Family Law
FintechFranchiseGambling

■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■

Insurance & Reinsurance
International Arbitration
Lending & Secured Finance
Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Merger Control
Mergers & Acquisitions
Mining Law
Oil & Gas Regulation
Outsourcing
Patents
Pharmaceutical Advertising
Private Client
Private Equity
Product Liability
Project FinancePublic Investment Funds
Public Procurement
Real Estate
Securitisation
Shipping Law
Telecoms, Media & Internet
Trade Marks
Vertical Agreements and Dominant Firms

59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720 / Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: info@glgroup.co.uk
www.iclg.com