Execution Against Movables in Japan｜What the Court Execution Officer Can Seize, and What He Cannot

You hold an enforceable title against a debtor in Japan. There is no land in his name, and the bank account, when you reach it, is all but empty. The question that follows is almost always the same: can the goods in his shop, or the machinery in his workshop, simply be taken? Japanese law does provide for this. It is called execution against movables, and it is carried out by a court execution officer who attends in person at the place the debtor occupies. Whether it is worth doing varies enormously from case to case, and used in the wrong matter it produces costs and nothing else. What follows explains the procedure, its limits and the situations in which it remains effective, under Japanese law.

Contents

What execution against movables is
The procedure, and the officer’s powers on site
Property exempt from seizure
The practical limits, and where the remedy still bites
Goods belonging to a third party
How it compares with the other forms of execution
In closing
How to contact us

What execution against movables is

On the application of a creditor holding an enforceable title, a court execution officer seizes movable property in the debtor’s possession, sells it, and applies the proceeds to the debt. It stands alongside execution against claims and execution against immovables as one of the three principal forms of compulsory execution, and what distinguishes it is that a public officer physically attends the premises. Movables here means not only stock in trade, machinery, furniture and appliances, but also cash, securities and precious metals. Under Japanese law, banknotes found on the debtor’s premises are themselves a proper object of this procedure.

The procedure, and the officer’s powers on site

Application to the court execution officer of the District Court for the place where the movables are. The application states the enforceable title, the sum claimed and the premises at which execution is to be carried out — the debtor’s home, business office or shop.
An advance deposit against the officer’s fees and expenses, paid on filing. Each court fixes its own figure; in practice it is commonly of the order of 30,000 yen.
Attendance. The officer fixes a date with the creditor and attends; as a rule the debtor is not told beforehand.
Seizure. The officer lists the items that have a realisable value and marks or seals them. The debtor is usually left in custody of the goods and may continue to use them, but he may not dispose of them.
Valuation and sale. A valuer fixes the price where necessary. Sale is by auction as a rule, with tender and special forms of sale also available.
Payment out. The costs of execution are taken from the proceeds and the balance is paid to the creditor, or distributed where there are several creditors.

The real strength of the remedy lies in the officer’s powers at the premises. Under article 123, paragraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act, where it is necessary the officer may enter the debtor’s dwelling or any other place the debtor occupies and search there — including any safe or other receptacle in the debtor’s possession — for the property to be seized, and where necessary may take the steps required to open a closed door or receptacle. In plain terms, if the debtor will not open the door, the officer may have a locksmith open it and go in. If he is obstructed, he may call on the police for assistance. This is a coercive act of the State, and it is a wholly different thing from a creditor going round to collect goods himself.

Property exempt from seizure

Against that, article 131 of the Civil Execution Act protects what the debtor and the relatives living with him need in order to live. The principal categories are these.

Clothing, bedding, furniture, kitchen utensils, tatami mats and fittings such as doors and screens, so far as indispensable to daily life.
Food and fuel required for one month by the debtor and the relatives living with him.
Money up to the sum fixed by cabinet order, at present 660,000 yen.
The implements a person needs for a business he carries on mainly by his own labour — farm tools, fertiliser, livestock, fishing gear, a craftsman’s or technician’s tools.
Study materials, aids used by persons with disabilities, and family registers, memorial tablets and other objects of religious observance.

In addition, the officer must not seize goods whose expected proceeds would not cover the costs of the procedure (article 129). It is largely for this reason that ordinary household appliances and furniture are, in practice, passed over.

The practical limits, and where the remedy still bites

The limits first. Second-hand movables realise very little. Execution at an ordinary private dwelling frequently turns up nothing beyond the exempt items, and the creditor is left having spent the deposit for no return. Anyone whose expectations are formed by television dramas, with seals pasted over every item in the house, will be disappointed.

It remains effective, however, in three situations. First, at a trader’s shop or factory, where stock, machinery and business vehicles carry real value. Second, where the debtor holds precious metals, expensive watches, securities or cash. Third, where what is sought is the pressure created by the officer’s attendance itself. Execution takes place during business hours, openly, in front of staff and customers, and it is not uncommon in practice for the debt to be paid in full on the day the officer arrives, or for an instalment agreement to be reached on the spot. To that extent the remedy is as much a negotiating instrument as a means of realisation.

Goods belonging to a third party

Because the officer proceeds on the basis of possession, not of title, the goods at the premises will not all belong to the debtor. Leased machinery, goods held on consignment and items belonging personally to a family member are seized often enough. A third party asserting ownership may bring a third-party action to oppose the execution (daisansha-igi-no-uttae; article 38 of the Civil Execution Act) to have the execution against that item set aside, and may apply for an order staying execution in the meantime. Seen from the other side, a creditor who has established beforehand that the equipment is on lease, or subject to a retention of title, saves himself a fruitless seizure.

How it compares with the other forms of execution

Execution against claims is the most effective route where the debtor’s bank or his trade customers are known: the filing fee is small, and the attachment order takes effect as soon as it is served on the third-party obligor. Its weakness is that an empty account yields nothing. Execution against immovables produces the largest recoveries where the debtor owns land with equity left in it, but the deposit runs to several hundred thousand yen or more, and months or well over a year may pass between the auction and payment out. Execution against movables is cheap, works on what is physically present, and suits both trading debtors and the opening stage of a matter in which the debtor’s assets are unknown. In practice one commonly begins with execution against claims and adds execution against movables as circumstances require; where nothing at all is known of the debtor’s assets, the property disclosure procedure and the procedure for obtaining information from third parties should come first.

In closing

Execution against movables is neither a cure-all nor a waste of time. Its value turns on whether anything of worth is actually on the premises, and on how well the pressure of the officer’s attendance is used. Investigate the debtor’s trade, his premises and his customers before deciding which form of execution to put first. The retainer, the investigation of assets and the application itself can all be handled from outside Japan by email and video conference, and we are equally glad to work through the creditor’s own counsel.

How to contact us

Telephone 03-6435-8418 within Japan, or +81-3-6435-8418 from overseas. Lines are open from 08:00 to 24:00 Japan time, including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Enquiries are also received at any hour through the form on this site.

M&A Partners Law Office LPC　Katsuhiro Tsuchiya, Representative Attorney-at-Law (Tokyo Bar Association, Registration No. 26775)　17F Mori Trust Shiroyama Trust Tower, 4-3-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan

This article is a general explanation based on the laws and practice of Japan as at August 2026 (Reiwa 8). The outcome of any particular matter depends on its own facts, and no specific result is guaranteed.

Contents