1981.10.16

1980 (O) 130

Minshu Vol.35, No.7, at 1224

Judgment upon the case concerning a lawsuit for damages against a foreign corporation having a place of business in Japan and the jurisdiction of Japan

Case to seek damages

Judgment of the Second Petty Bench, dismissed

Nagoya High Court, Judgment of November 12, 1979

It is reasonable to understand that the jurisdiction of Japan extends to a foreign corporation with a place of business in Japan with respect to a lawsuit for damages filed against such corporation.

Articles 4(1) and 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 7 of the Law concerning the Application of Laws in General

Articles 4(1) and 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(1) The general forum for a corporation or other association or a foundation shall be determined by the location of its principal office or principal place of business or, in the absence of any such office or place, by the address of the principal executive member.
(3) With respect to the general forum for a foreign association or foundation, the provision of Paragraph 1 of this article shall apply to its office, place of business, or executive member in Japan.

Article 7 of the Law concerning the Application of Laws in General
With respect to the formation and effect of a juristic act, the applicable laws shall be determined according to the intentions of the parties. If the intentions of the parties are unclear, the laws of the country where such act is committed shall apply.

The present jokoku appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of jokoku appeal shall be borne by the jokoku appellant.

On the grounds for jokoku appeal Nos. 1, 2-1, and 2-2 given by the attorneys for the jokoku appellants, HAYASHIDA Takaomi and KASHIWAGI Toshihiko
The attorneys argue that the second instance court incorrectly interpreted and applied Articles 4(3) and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and invalidly revoked, on insufficient grounds, the judgment of the first instance court dismissing the present case filed by the jokoku appellees on the basis that the case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Japan.
The present case has been raised by Japanese nationals against a foreign corporation for damages. The jokoku appellants say that A, an individual, was killed in the crash of an aircraft of the jokoku appellant, a corporation, in Tanjukuban, Johor Bahru, Malaysia on December 4, 1977 during its flight from Penang to Kuala Lumpur which the decedent was on board under a passenger transport agreement concluded between the decedent and the jokoku appellant on the same day in Malaysia. The three jokoku appellees, including the decedent's wife and two children, require the jokoku appellant to pay damages of 13,330,000 yen to each of them based on the decedent's claim for damages of 40,454,442 yen arising from said crash which constitutes a default under said passenger transport agreement, which claim has been inherited equally by each of the three jokoku appellees.
A country's jurisdiction is exercised as an operation of its sovereignty and basically covers the same territory as the sovereignty, so that, in principle, the jurisdiction of Japan does not extend to foreign corporations with their principal places of business in foreign countries unless they elect to submit to the jurisdiction of Japan. However, with respect to cases in which the defendants are somehow legally related to our country, including those concerning land within our country's territory, it is reasonable for the defendants to be subject to the jurisdiction of Japan regardless of their nationalities and locations. Given that there are no laws or regulations directly providing for international jurisdiction over such cases, and there are no established applicable conventions or generally accepted rules under international laws, it is reasonable to determine the scope of such exceptions on the basis of impartiality toward the parties and proper, prompt judgment. Further, it is reasonable to subject the defendants to the jurisdiction of Japan with respect to cases in which, under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of Japan concerning territorial jurisdiction, any of the forums, determined on the basis of the defendants' residences (Article 2 thereof), the defendants' offices or places of business in cases where the defendants are corporations or other associations (Article 4 thereof), the place of performance of the relevant obligations (Article 5 thereof), the defendants' assets (Article 8 thereof), the place where the relevant tortious act was committed (Article 15 thereof), or other factors specified in other provisions, is located in Japan.
According to the lawful determination of the second instance court, the jokoku appellant was incorporated under the corporation law of Malaysia and has its principal place of business in that country, but appointed E as its representative in Japan and has a place of business at c-d, a b-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo, so it is reasonable to subject the jokoku appellant to the jurisdiction of Japan despite the fact that it is a foreign corporation having its principal place of business in a foreign country. Therefore, the judgment of the second instance court that courts of Japan have jurisdiction over the present case is affirmed as reasonable, and said judgment cannot be found invalid on the basis of insufficient grounds. The attorneys' argument is no more than a challenge based on their own opinions that differ from said findings of the Supreme Court and is therefore rejected.
On the grounds for jokoku appeal No. 2-3 given by the attorneys
The attorneys contend that the second instance court incorrectly interpreted Articles 4(3) and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure when it remanded the present case to the first instance court, the Nagoya District Court, rather than transferring it to the Tokyo District Court, the general forum for the jokoku appellant.
However, in the last instance, neither party can assert that the second instance court is in violation of the provisions for voluntary jurisdiction (see Articles 381, 396, and 395(1)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure), so the attorneys' argument does not provide lawful cause for jokoku appeal and is rejected.
Therefore, pursuant to Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment was rendered in the form of the main text by the unanimous consent of the Justices.
Second Petty Bench of the Supreme Court

Justice KINOSHITA Tadayoshi
Justice KURIMOTO Kazuo
Justice SHIONO Yasuyoshi
Justice MIYAZAKI Goichi