1983.06.07

1982 (O) 826

Minshu Vol.37, No.5, at 611

Judgment upon the case concerning the meaning of "there is a mutual guarantee" as set forth in Article 200, sub-para. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Case to seek execution

Judgment of the Third Petty Bench, dismissed

Tokyo High Court, Judgment of March 31, 1982

1. "There is a mutual guarantee" as set forth in Article 200, sub-para.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be interpreted to mean that there is a guarantee that in the country where the foreign court rendering a judgment is located, judgments rendered by the courts of Japan that are of the same type as said judgment shall be effective on conditions that are not different in any material respect from those listed in Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The provision of Article 200, sub-para.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be interpreted to require that neither the contents nor the formation of a judgment rendered by a foreign court shall be adverse to public order or standards of decency in Japan.

(With respect to summary items 1 and 2) Article 24 of the Law of Civil Execution, (with respect to summary item 1) Article 200, sub-para.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (with respect to summary item 2) Article 200, sub-para.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Article 24 of the Law of Civil Execution
Para.1 Jurisdiction of a lawsuit for a judgment ordering the execution of a judgment rendered by a foreign court shall lie with the district court having jurisdiction over the location of the general forum for the obligor or, in the absence of such general forum, with the district court having jurisdiction over the location of the subject matter of the claim or the property of the obligor that may be attached.
Para.2 An execution judgment shall be rendered without investigating whether the original judgment is proper or not.
Para.3 The lawsuit set forth in para.1 of this article shall be dismissed if it is not established that the judgment rendered by the foreign court is final or if said judgment does not satisfy the conditions specified in Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Para.4 The execution judgment shall declare that compulsory execution under the judgment rendered by the foreign court is permitted.

Article 200, sub-paras.3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure
A final judgment rendered by a foreign court shall be effective only if the following conditions are satisfied:
Sub-para.3 Said judgment is not adverse to public order or standards of decency in Japan.
Sub-para.4 There is a mutual guarantee.

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 given by the attorney for the jokoku appellant, YASUNO Kazumi
"There is a mutual guarantee" as set forth in Article 200, sub-para.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be interpreted to mean there is a guarantee that, in the country where the foreign court rendering a judgment is located (hereinafter the "country of judgment"), judgments rendered by the courts of Japan that are of the same type as said judgment shall be effective on conditions that are not different in any material respect from those listed in Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With respect to the affirmation of judgments rendered by foreign courts (hereinafter "foreign judgment") (the term "affirmation" hereinafter means that foreign judgments are affirmed in countries other than the country of judgment), the country of judgment can hardly be expected to specify exactly the same conditions as Japan unless there is a treaty to that effect between Japan and that country. In the international community today, where there is a considerable expansion in foreign affairs, there is a growing need to prevent the rendering of contradictory judgments with respect to the same parties, to achieve economies of litigation, and to provide remedies for violations of rights. The provision of sub-para.4 of said article shall be interpreted to mean, for the affirmation of foreign judgments, the conditions in the country of judgment only need to be substantially similar to those in Japan. When the provision of sub-para.4 of said article is understood to mean that the country of judgment affirms judgments rendered by the courts of Japan on conditions that are equal to or more lenient than such provisions (as in Case 1933(O)No.2295, judgment of the Former Supreme Court on December 5, 1933 as reported in Law Journal No. 3670 at page 16), if the country of judgment requires a mutual guarantee and provides conditions for the affirmation of foreign judgments that are more lenient than those of Japan, this means that the corresponding conditions in Japan are more strict. This outcome may cause the courts in that country not to affirm judgments rendered by the courts of Japan, thereby unreasonably resulting in no mutual guarantee for Japan. The precedent established by the Former Supreme Court, which is different from the discussion above, shall be modified. To determine whether there is a mutual guarantee between Japan and the country of judgment, the provision of sub-para.3 of said article may reasonably be interpreted as requiring that neither the contents nor the formation of the judgment rendered by a foreign court be adverse to "public order or standards of decency" in Japan.
With respect to the present case, records show that in the District of Columbia of the United States of America, judgments rendered by foreign courts ordering payment of money are affirmed on the same conditions as for the original judgments and such conditions are considered not to be different in any material respect from those specified in Article 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure to affirm the same type of judgments rendered by foreign courts. As a result, the requirement of "mutual guarantee" as specified in sub-para.4 of said article is met with respect to the original judgment in question rendered by the district court in the District of Columbia of the United States of America. Therefore, the judgment of the second instance court, which is the same as the above, can be affirmed as proper, and the alleged invalidity is not found in the process of its formation. The attorney's argument 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.
Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court

Justice ITO Masami
Justice YOKOI Daizo
Justice KIDOGUCHI Hisaharu
Justice YASUOKA Mitsuhiko