Case on the Application of Gomi Akira (A Japanese Citizen) to Chinese Court for Recognition and Enforcement of Japanese Judicial Decision

日本公民五味晃申请中国法院承认和执行日本法院判决案

Case on the Application of Gomi Akira (A Japanese Citizen) to Chinese Court for Recognition and Enforcement of Japanese Judicial Decision

Applicant: Gomi Akira, male, born on November 8, 1932, Japanese

nationality, dwelling at No. 698-5 Kanagawa County, Isehara City, Japan.

Represented by: Liu Yong, lawyer from Foreign Business and Trade Law

Firm of Dalian, Liaoning Province, the People's Republic of China

The applicant has applied to the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province, the People's Republic of China due to a dispute on loan with Japanese-Chinese Products Co., Ltd. (legal representative: Uso Kunio), requesting the Court to recognize the judgment made by the original Oda Sub-division of Yokohama District Court of Japan as well as the orders on credit distrainment and credit transfer made by the Tamana Sub-division of Kumamoto District Court of Japan to be legally effective within the mainland of China, and to enforce the said judgment and orders.

It is verified by the Court that:

The applicant is a Japanese citizen. Due to a dispute on loan between the applicant and Japanese-Chinese Products Co., Ltd. (legal representative: Uso Kunio), it was judged by the original Oda Sub-division of Yokohama District Court of Japan that Uso Kunio and his company should repay 140 million Japanese Yen of loan to the creditor Gomi Akira, that is, the applicant. Since Uso Kunio was unable to repay this loan in Japan, the Tamana Sub-division of Kumamoto District Court of Japan then made orders on distrainment and credit transfer, and superadded Dalian Fari Seafood Co., Ltd. (a Chinese-Japanese joint venture which was established in China with Uso Kunio's investments) to be a third party, who was required by the court to distrain Uso Kunio's Renminbi 4.85 million Yuan of investment amount in this company and transfer it to Gomi Akira. After the relevant court in Japan served the above said judgment and orders on distrainment and credit transfer on Dalian Fari Seafood Co., Ltd. by entrusting Ministry of Justice of China in accordance with International Convention on Service concluded in Hague, the company did not think the judgment made by the relevant court in Japan should be legally binding on a Chinese legal person, thus refusing to execute the judgment and orders. Therefore, the applicant applies to the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, requesting for recognition and enforcement of the judgment and the orders on distrainment and credit transfer made by relevant courts in Japan.

It is the Court's opinion: Article 268 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides: “In the case of an application or request for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or written order of a foreign court, the people's court shall, after examining it in accordance with the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or with the principle of reciprocity and arriving at the conclusion that it does not contradict the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China nor violates State sovereignty, security and social and public interest of the country, recognize the validity of the judgment or written order, and, if required, issue a writ of execution to enforce it in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law; if the application or request contradicts the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China or violates State sovereignty, security and social and public interest of the country, the people's court shall not recognize or enforce it.” There are no international treaties concluded or acceded to between China and Japan on the recognition and enforcement of judgments and written orders made by each other's courts, not has corresponding relationship of reciprocity been established between China and Japan. Therefore, the Court made a final written order on November 5, 1994: reject the applicant's request.

The Renminbi 200 Yuan of acceptance fee shall be borne by the applicant.

日本公民五味晃申请中国法院承认和执行日本法院判决案

　　申请人：五味晃。
　　委托代理人：刘勇，中华人民共和国辽宁省大连涉外商贸律师事务所律师。
　　申请人五味晃因与日本国日中物产有限公司（法定代表人宇佐邦夫）借贷纠纷一案，向中华人民共和国辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提出申请，要求承认日本国横滨地方法院小田原分院所作判决和日本国熊本地方法院玉名分院所作债权扣押命令及债权转让命令在中华人民共和国领域内的法律效力，并予执行。
　　大连市中级人民法院审查了五味晃的申请。查明：申请人五味晃系日本公民，因与日本日中物产有限公司（法定代表人宇佐邦夫）存在借贷纠纷，经日本国横滨地方法院小田原分院判决，由宇佐邦夫及其公司向债权人五味晃偿还借款１．４亿日元。由于宇佐邦夫在本国无力偿还该项借款，日本国熊本地方法院玉名分院又下达扣押令和债权转让命令，追加宇佐邦夫在中国投资的中日合资企业大连发日海产食品有限公司为第三人，要求第三人将宇佐邦夫在该公司的投资款人民币４８５万元扣押，并转让给五味晃。上述判决及扣押令、债权转让命令经日本国有关法院依据国际海牙送达公约委托我国司法部向大连发日海产食品有限公司送达后，该公司认为日本国有关法院的判决对中国法人不应产生法律效力，故拒绝履行。为此，五味晃向大连市中级人民法院提出申请，要求承认并执行日本国有关法院的判决及扣押令、债权转让命令。
　　大连市中级人民法院认为：《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百六十八条规定：“人民法院对申请或者请求承认和执行的外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定，依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则进行审查后，认为不违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，裁定承认其效力，需要执行的，发出执行令，依照本法的规定执行。违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，不予承认和执行。”我国与日本国之间没有缔结或者参加相互承认和执行法院判决、裁定的国际条约，亦未建立相应的互惠关系。据此，该院于１９９４年１１月５日作出终审裁定：驳回申请人五味晃的请求。
　　案件受理费人民币２００元，由五味晃承担。