A Provisional Attachment Has Been Made Against You｜Remedies Available Under Japanese Law

A payment falls due, you go to make it, and the account will not move. In Japan that is how most debtors discover that a provisional attachment (kari-sashiosae) has been granted against them. The application is heard without the debtor being called to state a case, and no warning is given before the order issues: the first news arrives with service of the written order, or from the bank or a customer. What follows is an outline, under Japanese law, of the remedies open to a debtor in that position.

Contents

Begin by obtaining the order and the application, and establish what claim is being secured
Objection to the provisional remedy (hozen-igi)
Revocation of the provisional remedy, and the order to bring an action
Release by depositing the sum fixed in the order
Damages for a wrongful attachment, and the effect on the business
In closing
How to contact us

Begin by obtaining the order and the application, and establish what claim is being secured

Which remedy is worth pursuing depends entirely on the claim the creditor asserts. Apply first to the issuing court for inspection and copies of the case record, and obtain the written order, the application and the evidence filed in support. From these you can establish the nature and amount of the right to be preserved, the security bond furnished by the creditor, and the sum fixed in the order for release from the attachment. Until that is done, approaching the creditor or making a part payment is unwise: a part payment may amount to an acknowledgement of debt and renew prescription in the creditor’s favour.

Objection to the provisional remedy (hozen-igi)

An objection is made to the very court that granted the order, and no time limit applies to it. The debtor may contest the right to be preserved, either denying it outright or showing that it is smaller than claimed — the debt has been paid, the calculation is wrong, the creditor’s own performance was defective and gives rise to a set-off or a defence of simultaneous performance. It may equally contest the necessity of preservation, for instance by showing that its means are ample and that there is no realistic prospect of assets being concealed. The court hears both parties and then affirms, varies or sets aside the order. An objection does not of itself suspend execution: the freeze continues, as a rule, until the court has ruled.

Revocation of the provisional remedy, and the order to bring an action

Revocation is a separate route, which may be pursued alongside an objection, and rests on one of three grounds.

Failure to bring the action on the merits — the debtor may apply for an order to bring an action (kiso-meirei), by which the court directs the creditor to file the substantive action and produce proof of filing within a fixed period (at least two weeks by statute, commonly around one month in practice). If the creditor lets the period pass, the debtor may apply to have the attachment revoked. Against a creditor who obtained the attachment as leverage and has no intention of litigating, this is the most effective step available.
Change of circumstances — revocation may be sought where the right to be preserved has been extinguished by payment, set-off or prescription, or where the necessity of preservation has fallen away. A first-instance judgment dismissing the creditor’s claim in the action on the merits may itself constitute such a change.
Special circumstances — where the execution causes the debtor grave loss of a kind not ordinarily entailed, revocation may be sought on the debtor providing security.

A party dissatisfied with the ruling on an objection or on an application for revocation may lodge an appeal against the provisional remedy (hozen-kokoku) with the superior court within the unextendable period of two weeks from service.

Release by depositing the sum fixed in the order

Every order for provisional attachment must specify a sum on payment of which the attachment is released (kari-sashiosae kaiho-kin). Once the debtor deposits that sum with the Legal Affairs Bureau, it may apply for the execution to be cancelled. This does not challenge the order itself; the deposit takes the place of the assets attached, and the frozen deposits or real property become free again. For a business unable to meet wages or supplier payments because its account is frozen, this is the quickest solution available. It presupposes cash in hand, so it is weighed alongside the objection and revocation routes rather than instead of them.

Damages for a wrongful attachment, and the effect on the business

The security bond deposited by the creditor with the Legal Affairs Bureau exists precisely to answer for the loss a debtor suffers from an unjustified attachment. If the attachment is later revoked, or the creditor’s claim is finally dismissed in the action on the merits, the debtor may claim damages under article 709 of the Civil Code of Japan and may look to that security bond for satisfaction. The burden of proving both the loss and its amount rests on the debtor.

The commercial consequences deserve equal attention. Under standard Japanese bank transaction terms, the attachment of a deposit account is commonly an event that accelerates the borrower’s obligations, and it may halt new lending or trigger a demand for immediate repayment of existing loans. Where the attachment reaches accounts receivable, the customer learns of it directly and the damage to standing is greater still.

In closing

A provisional attachment is a temporary measure, but its effect on a business is immediate and real. Whether to object, to seek revocation, to apply for an order to bring an action, or to deposit the sum fixed for release turns on the strength of the claim asserted, the cash available, and whether there is room to negotiate. These proceedings move quickly, and instructions should be given as soon as the order is served. We are equally glad to work through the debtor’s own counsel abroad.

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