Guide
Japan rent guarantor companies and individual guarantors: the writing requirement, the two defences a joint and several guarantor does not have, and the article that requires a stated maximum only of a guarantor who is not a corporation
A rent guarantee raises separate questions: the writing required, the guarantor's liability, and whether a stated maximum is required. This page reads the provisions, the Ministry's voluntary register, and the certification scheme introduced on 1 October 2025, including its criteria concerning relatives and friends.
Published 11 September 2026. Statutory text read on 11 September 2026.
One English word, two different arrangements
A guarantee of rent can be given by a natural person or by a company. The Japanese terms differ, the contracts differ, and several provisions of the Civil Code reach one and not the other.
| Arrangement | Japanese term | Who contracts with whom |
|---|---|---|
| An individual who guarantees the rent | rentai hoshonin (連帯保証人), a joint and several guarantor. | The individual contracts with the landlord. The Civil Code calls the landlord the creditor and the tenant the principal debtor. |
| A business paid to guarantee the rent | yachin saimu hosho gyosha (家賃債務保証業者) | Two contracts sit side by side: a guarantee owed to the landlord, and a guarantee commission contract (保証委託契約, hosho itaku keiyaku) under which the tenant instructs the business and pays it. |
Article 33(ii) of the regulation defines the commission contract specifically for the certification scheme: a tenant requiring special assistance in securing housing entrusts the guaranteeing of rent debt to a certified business. That definition, quoted below, is not a definition of every guarantee arrangement.
No writing, no effect
Before anything else, Article 446 of the Civil Code sets out what a guarantor answers for and imposes a form requirement on the contract itself.
保証人は、主たる債務者がその債務を履行しないときに、その履行をする責任を負う。２保証契約は、書面でしなければ、その効力を生じない。３保証契約がその内容を記録した電磁的記録によってされたときは、その保証契約は、書面によってされたものとみなして、前項の規定を適用する。Paragraph 2 does not say that an oral guarantee is hard to prove. It says the contract does not take effect. Paragraph 3 puts an electromagnetic record on the same footing as paper. Paragraph 1 fixes the order of events: the guarantor answers when the principal debtor does not perform. The next article is where that order stops being a sequence anyone can insist on.
The two defences a joint and several guarantor does not have
Articles 452 and 453 give a plain guarantor two ways to send the creditor back to the principal debtor first.
（催告の抗弁）第四百五十二条債権者が保証人に債務の履行を請求したときは、保証人は、まず主たる債務者に催告をすべき旨を請求することができる。ただし、主たる債務者が破産手続開始の決定を受けたとき、又はその行方が知れないときは、この限りでない。（検索の抗弁）第四百五十三条債権者が前条の規定に従い主たる債務者に催告をした後であっても、保証人が主たる債務者に弁済をする資力があり、かつ、執行が容易であることを証明したときは、債権者は、まず主たる債務者の財産について執行をしなければならない。The first is the defence of demand, the second the defence of recourse to the principal debtor's assets. Article 454 removes both in one sentence.
保証人は、主たる債務者と連帯して債務を負担したときは、前二条の権利を有しない。The words 連帯して are the same characters that appear in the Japanese name for the arrangement. Where a guarantee is given jointly and severally, Articles 452 and 453 do not require the creditor to approach the tenant first, and a rent guarantee business paying out under such a guarantee is doing what the Code allows rather than skipping a step.
The stated maximum, and the phrase that decides who the article reaches
Article 465-2 opens with a definition, and everything the article does afterwards runs only to what that definition catches. What it describes and what it excludes are decided in the same sentence.
一定の範囲に属する不特定の債務を主たる債務とする保証契約（以下「根保証契約」という。）であって保証人が法人でないもの（以下「個人根保証契約」という。）の保証人は、主たる債務の元本、主たる債務に関する利息、違約金、損害賠償その他その債務に従たる全てのもの及びその保証債務について約定された違約金又は損害賠償の額について、その全部に係る極度額を限度として、その履行をする責任を負う。２個人根保証契約は、前項に規定する極度額を定めなければ、その効力を生じない。Three things sit inside that quotation. The first is the class the article works on: a guarantee contract whose principal obligation is unspecified debts falling within a certain range. The Code names that class ne-hosho keiyaku (根保証契約), a revolving guarantee. Whether any particular guarantee of rent answers to that description turns on the words of that contract, and this page does not decide it for any contract.
The second is the phrase であって保証人が法人でないもの, and one where the guarantor is not a corporation. It stands between the two parentheses, narrowing the class just named before the article gives that narrower class its own name, kojin ne-hosho keiyaku (個人根保証契約), an individual revolving guarantee. Every obligation the article goes on to impose is imposed on that narrower class, so the question Article 465-2 turns on is whether the guarantor is a corporation.
A guarantee business is not always a corporation
That question is not the same as asking whether the guarantor is a business. The same statutes that set up the schemes described further down contemplate a rent guarantee business carried on by a natural person: Article 73(viii) of the Act on Promotion of Rental Housing Supply to Persons Requiring Special Assistance in Securing Housing disqualifies 個人であって、その国土交通省令で定める使用人のうちに第一号から第五号までのいずれかに該当する者があるもの, an individual with a disqualified employee, and Article 73(vi) deals with a minor; the regulation under it repeatedly separates 認定を受けようとする者が法人である場合 from 認定を受けようとする者が個人である場合. The Ministry's own outline of the register does the same, opening one of its criteria with 法人の場合. Which side of Article 465-2 a particular guarantor falls on therefore depends on what that guarantor is, and this page settles it for no one.
The third is kyodogaku (極度額), the maximum amount: the guarantor answers up to that figure and no further, and the figure covers principal, interest, penalties and damages together. Article 446(2) attaches loss of effect to the absence of writing; paragraph 2 here attaches the same consequence to the absence of the figure. Paragraph 3 then applies the writing rule to the fixing of the maximum itself.
What the article settles, and what it leaves open
As Article 465-2 read on 11 September 2026, what it settles is that its requirements run only where the guarantor is not a corporation. What it leaves open, for any actual contract, is whether that contract is a revolving guarantee in the first place — a question about the words of that contract, which this page does not read. The article also says nothing about the commission a tenant agrees to pay a guarantee business, which is a separate contract and is not a guarantee.
What a guarantor may require the landlord to disclose
Article 458-2 runs in the opposite direction from the articles above: it places a duty on the creditor.
保証人が主たる債務者の委託を受けて保証をした場合において、保証人の請求があったときは、債権者は、保証人に対し、遅滞なく、主たる債務の元本及び主たる債務に関する利息、違約金、損害賠償その他その債務に従たる全てのものについての不履行の有無並びにこれらの残額及びそのうち弁済期が到来しているものの額に関する情報を提供しなければならない。The article is conditional on two things: the guarantee was given at the principal debtor's request, and the guarantor asks. Where both hold, the creditor supplies, without delay, information on whether there has been default and on the amounts outstanding and already due.
A guarantor’s right of reimbursement under Article 459(1)
Article 459(1) concerns a guarantor who gave the guarantee at the principal debtor's request and then used the guarantor's own property to pay or otherwise extinguish the debt. It provides for a right of reimbursement against the principal debtor.
保証人が主たる債務者の委託を受けて保証をした場合において、主たる債務者に代わって弁済その他自己の財産をもって債務を消滅させる行為（以下「債務の消滅行為」という。）をしたときは、その保証人は、主たる債務者に対し、そのために支出した財産の額（その財産の額がその債務の消滅行為によって消滅した主たる債務の額を超える場合にあっては、その消滅した額）の求償権を有する。The right provided in paragraph 1 is kyushoken (求償権), a right of reimbursement. The amount specified in that paragraph is the value of the property expended, capped at the principal debt extinguished. Paragraph 2 also refers to Article 442(2). This page has not examined those additional rules or subrogation, and does not state the total amount recoverable.
The disclosure article that reaches business debt only
Article 465-10 requires a principal debtor, when asking someone to become a guarantor, to disclose their own assets, income and other debts to that person. Its opening words fix how far the article goes.
主たる債務者は、事業のために負担する債務を主たる債務とする保証又は主たる債務の範囲に事業のために負担する債務が含まれる根保証の委託をするときは、委託を受ける者に対し、次に掲げる事項に関する情報を提供しなければならない。…３前二項の規定は、保証をする者が法人である場合には、適用しない。Paragraph 1 covers a guarantee of debt incurred 事業のために, for the purposes of a business, or a revolving guarantee whose principal debts include such debt. Paragraph 3 disapplies paragraphs 1 and 2 where the guarantor is a corporation. This page does not determine whether a debt under any particular lease meets the business-purpose condition.
A register that is voluntary, under a notification
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism keeps a register of rent guarantee businesses. Its own page describes the register as created by a notification of the Ministry, promulgated on 2 October 2017 and in force from 25 October 2017, and then says this about it:
なお、これは任意の登録制度であり、登録をしなくても家賃債務保証業を営むことは可能です。The sentence states that the registration is voluntary and that the business may be carried on without it. A separate outline document, which the Ministry publishes on the same page, prints the criteria for entry and the conduct rules that follow it. The items below are what that document prints under its headings for the criteria, the conduct rules and supervision. The same Ministry page records that the notification was last amended by 令和七年七月十八日国土交通省告示第五百四十三号, in force from 1 October 2025, and the outline document carries no date of its own by which it could be placed on either side of that amendment.
- To be entered: no involvement of organised crime members; net assets of at least ten million yen; training for compliance; internal rules and an organisational structure covering the conduct of the business; an appropriate manner of exercising rights of reimbursement; arrangements for handling enquiries and complaints; for a corporation, five years carrying on the business or an executive with three years in it; and for the person in charge of an office, one year of experience.
- Once entered: employees to carry proof of employment; exclusion of organised crime members; a bar on false statements and exaggerated advertising; a restriction on contract terms as to penalties that conflict with the Consumer Contract Act; explanation of important matters and delivery of a document before contracting, and a further document on contracting; a ledger of payment history for each tenant; display of the sign showing registration; money received to be kept separate from the business's own; and reporting on the state of that separation.
- Supervision: the outline lists the collection of reports and the production of documents to secure proper conduct; guidance, advice, recommendations and removal from the register for a breach; and publication of the fact that an entry has been withdrawn.
- Renewal: the outline gives the entry a five-year cycle.
The Ministry's register stated 123 businesses as at 13 August 2026. Registration numbers take the forms 国土交通大臣（１）第◯号 or 国土交通大臣（２）第◯号. We counted 60 of the first and 62 of the second, including one half-width digit: 122, against the stated 123. The foreign-language support list stated 52 businesses as at 30 June 2026; we counted 53 distinct registration numbers in 53 rows, excluding its unnumbered heading. Both gaps remain unexplained. Sources below link the lists; no business is named here.
Rental housing management has a separate registration requirement
Article 3(1) of the Act on Proper Management of Rental Housing Management Business requires ministerial registration, except below a size fixed by ministerial order. Article 2(2) defines the business by work entrusted by a landlord: maintenance and preservation of rental housing, including arranging contracts for that work, and management of rent, deposits, common charges and other money only when performed alongside that work.
この法律において「賃貸住宅管理業」とは、賃貸住宅の賃貸人から委託を受けて、次に掲げる業務…を行う事業をいう。一当該委託に係る賃貸住宅の維持保全…を行う業務…二当該賃貸住宅に係る家賃、敷金、共益費その他の金銭の管理を行う業務（前号に掲げる業務と併せて行うものに限る。）We extracted that Act whole, main and supplementary provisions together, on 11 September 2026 and counted 12,638 characters. The string 保証, guarantee, occurs 0 times in it, and 家賃債務, rent debt, 0 times. Those are word counts, not an exemption for an operator. Article 2(2) defines management work; the Ministry's voluntary register concerns rent guarantees. If a rent guarantee business also performs the management work defined in Article 2(2), Article 3's registration requirement and its proviso concern that work as well.
The certification that started on 1 October 2025
A second scheme sits above the voluntary register. Chapter VII of the Act on Promotion of Rental Housing Supply to Persons Requiring Special Assistance in Securing Housing, Articles 72 to 80, lets the Minister certify a rent guarantee business whose work meets three criteria.
We read the Act at asof=2025-09-30 and at asof=2026-09-11 and counted the term for a certified business, 認定保証業者, in each: 0 occurrences in the earlier text and 17 in the later, the extracted text growing from 22,614 characters to 36,032. The revision e-Gov returns for the later reading is labelled 1 October 2025. That comparison is our own measurement.
家賃債務保証業者は、国土交通省令で定めるところにより、その行う住宅確保要配慮者の家賃債務の保証に関する業務（以下「家賃債務保証業務」という。）が次の各号に掲げる基準のいずれにも適合していることにつき、国土交通大臣の認定を受けることができる。一認定住宅の賃貸借契約を締結しようとする住宅確保要配慮者から家賃債務の保証に係る申込みがあった場合には、正当な理由なくこれを拒まないものであること。二前号に掲げるもののほか、家賃債務保証業務において、家賃債務の保証に係る申込みをした住宅確保要配慮者に対し、その保証に係る契約の締結の条件として、当該住宅確保要配慮者の親族その他国土交通省令で定める関係者の連絡先に関する情報の提供を求めないものであること。Item (i) is a duty not to refuse an application without just cause, confined by its own words to an applicant about to conclude a lease of certified housing. Item (ii) is not confined that way: it attaches to the certified business's rent guarantee work as a whole, and forbids making the contract conditional on being given contact details for relatives or for the related persons the regulation names.
（法第七十二条第一項第二号の関係者）第三十二条法第七十二条第一項第二号の国土交通省令で定める関係者は、友人、知人その他の住宅確保要配慮者が氏名を知り、かつ面識がある自然人とする。（認定の基準）第三十三条法第七十二条第一項第三号の国土交通省令で定める基準は、次に掲げるものとする。一第二十条各号のいずれかに該当する者によって家賃債務保証業務が行われること。二保証委託契約（認定保証業者が賃借人である住宅確保要配慮者と締結する契約であって、当該認定保証業者が当該住宅確保要配慮者の家賃債務を保証することを当該住宅確保要配慮者が委託することを内容とするものをいう。以下同じ。）の締結の実績並びに標準的な保証委託契約の内容及びその締結の条件について、インターネットの利用その他の適切な方法により公示するものであること。三家賃債務保証業務において、家賃債務の保証に係る申込みをした住宅確保要配慮者に対し、その保証に係る保証委託契約の締結の条件として、保証人の設定を求めないものであること。四保証委託契約に係る保証委託料が、当該保証委託契約の履行のために要する費用に照らして不当に高いものでないこと。Article 32 defines the related persons as friends, acquaintances and other natural persons whose name the applicant knows and with whom the applicant is personally acquainted. Article 33 has four criteria: (i) the operator meets Article 20, as a support corporation performing the specified work or a business holding ministerial registration; (ii) it publishes the record of guarantee commission contracts concluded, the content of its standard contract and the conditions for concluding it, online or by another appropriate method; (iii) it does not require a guarantor as a condition of that contract; and (iv) its commission is not unduly high in light of the cost of performing the contract.
The certification attaches to the business, not to any contract, and Articles 77 to 79 provide for an order to conform, inspection and withdrawal. The Ministry's list of certified businesses stated 12 as at 31 July 2026, numbered in the form 国土交通大臣（認定）第◯号; we counted the rows and reached the same figure.
The item that names a person without Japanese nationality
Both criteria turn on the phrase jutaku kakuho yohairyosha (住宅確保要配慮者), a person requiring special assistance in securing housing. Article 2(1) lists five categories and delegates a sixth to ministerial order. Article 3 of the regulation holds that order, in thirteen items, and the first is short.
法第二条第一項第六号の国土交通省令で定める者は、次に掲げる者とする。一日本の国籍を有しない者…A person who does not hold Japanese nationality is within the definition by that item, with no further condition in the item itself. That is what connects the preceding section to anyone who has moved to Japan: the criterion about relatives and acquaintances, and the criterion about not requiring a guarantor, are framed in terms of the same defined category.
What certification does and does not settle
Article 72(1) sets criteria for certifying a business. It does not state what any particular contract contains, and this page makes no statement about the terms any business uses. Whether a business holds a certification, and whether it still holds one, is shown by the Ministry's published list rather than by anything here.
What a guarantee does not change about the tenancy
A guarantee sits alongside the lease. The lease is governed by the Act on Land and Building Leases, and three of its articles stand behind the tenancy whatever the guarantee says.
建物の賃貸借について期間の定めがある場合において、当事者が期間の満了の一年前から六月前までの間に相手方に対して更新をしない旨の通知又は条件を変更しなければ更新をしない旨の通知をしなかったときは、従前の契約と同一の条件で契約を更新したものとみなす。ただし、その期間は、定めがないものとする。Article 26(1) concerns a building lease with a stated term, not the non-renewing fixed-term form under Article 38. If neither party gives notice of non-renewal, or renewal only on changed conditions, between one year and six months before expiry, it deems the lease renewed on the same conditions for an indefinite period.
Article 28 allows a landlord's notice under Article 26(1), or a termination, only where seito no jiyu (正当の事由), just cause, is found on the matters it lists.
この節の規定に反する特約で建物の賃借人に不利なものは、無効とする。Article 30 voids a special term contrary to that section where it disadvantages the building lessee. The page on shikikin and reikin covers deposits and the Article 38 fixed-term lease form.
Four articles that void terms, quoted and not applied
The Consumer Contract Act voids certain terms in contracts between a business operator and a consumer. These are statutory tests, not findings about any contract. Their application to a disputed term is for a court.
| Article | What the article voids |
|---|---|
| Art. 8 | Terms excluding a business operator's own liability in damages for non-performance or in tort, in whole; terms limiting it in part where the operator acted with intent or gross negligence; and terms giving the operator the power to decide whether, or how far, it is liable. |
| Art. 8-2 | A term making a consumer give up the right to terminate for the operator's non-performance, or giving the operator the power to decide whether that right exists. |
| Art. 9(i) | The excess, where liquidated damages or a penalty on termination exceed the average loss to the operator on the same kind of contract. |
| Art. 9(ii) | The excess above 14.6 per cent a year, where a term fixes damages or a penalty for late payment of money owed under the contract. |
| Art. 10 | A term that restricts a consumer's rights or adds to a consumer's obligations beyond the default rules, and that unilaterally harms the consumer's interests contrary to the fundamental principle in Art. 1(2) of the Civil Code. |
消費者の不作為をもって当該消費者が新たな消費者契約の申込み又はその承諾の意思表示をしたものとみなす条項その他の法令中の公の秩序に関しない規定の適用による場合に比して消費者の権利を制限し又は消費者の義務を加重する消費者契約の条項であって、民法第一条第二項に規定する基本原則に反して消費者の利益を一方的に害するものは、無効とする。What this page could not read
- The registration notification itself was not read. On 11 September 2026, e-Gov searches by its title and number each returned 0 results. The Ministry's PDF has 33 pages; text extraction returned 0 characters. No provision of that notification is quoted here. The criteria above come from the separate outline. Its date is unknown, so its relationship to the amendment effective 1 October 2025, identified above, remains unverified.
- No case law was read. The statutory readings and Ministry publications are identified separately. Neither the judgment mentioned on the Ministry's register page nor its related warning is described here.
- The reach of the Money Lending Business Act was not settled. Article 2(1) covers lending money or mediating its lending or borrowing as a business, subject to five exclusions. Its parenthesis includes advancing money by discounting bills, by a sale used as security or similar methods, and mediating the receipt and delivery of money by those methods. The Act's other provisions concerning guarantee businesses were not examined. No conclusion about its application to rent guarantees follows from this limited reading.
- Commissions and their tax treatment are not on this page. No commission figure appears above, no business is named, ranked or rated, and nothing here concerns how a commission is treated for tax.
- Certified housing was not surveyed. The duty in Article 72(1)(i) turns on a lease of certified housing under the residential support scheme in the same Act. Which dwellings carry that status was not examined.
この法律において「貸金業」とは、金銭の貸付け又は金銭の貸借の媒介（手形の割引、売渡担保その他これらに類する方法によつてする金銭の交付又は当該方法によつてする金銭の授受の媒介を含む。以下これらを総称して単に「貸付け」という。）で業として行うものをいう。ただし、次に掲げるものを除く。…Sources
Every statutory text below was read on 11 September 2026 through the e-Gov law search service maintained by Japan's Digital Agency, at the version in force on that date, except where a different asof date is stated because the point being made is a change between two versions. Ministry material was read from the Ministry's own site on the same day. Where a date, a count or a comparison is our own measurement rather than something printed in a source, we say so both here and in the body.
Civil Code (民法), Act No. 89 of 1896 — Arts. 446, 452, 453, 454, 458-2, 459, 465-2, 465-10
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 129AC0000000089_20260624_508AC0000000045. Art. 446(1) states what a guarantor answers for, and Art. 446(2) makes a guarantee contract of no effect unless made in writing, with Art. 446(3) treating an electromagnetic record as writing. Arts. 452 and 453 are the defence of demand and the defence of recourse to the principal's assets. Art. 454 removes both where the guarantor is bound jointly and severally with the principal debtor. Art. 458-2 is the duty of the creditor, on request, to inform a guarantor who guaranteed at the principal debtor's request about default and outstanding amounts. Art. 459(1) gives a guarantor who guaranteed at the principal debtor's request a right of reimbursement after using the guarantor's own property to extinguish the debt; the amount specified in that paragraph is capped at the principal debt extinguished. Art. 459(2) refers to Art. 442(2), whose additional rules were not examined here. This page does not examine subrogation or state the total amount recoverable. Art. 465-2(1) defines a revolving guarantee and, within it, an individual revolving guarantee as one where the guarantor is not a corporation, and caps liability at a stated maximum; Art. 465-2(2) states that such a contract has no effect unless the maximum is fixed; Art. 465-2(3) applies the writing rule to that fixing. Art. 465-10(1) limits its disclosure duty to a guarantee of debt incurred for business, and Art. 465-10(3) disapplies the article where the guarantor is a corporation.
Act on Land and Building Leases (借地借家法), Act No. 90 of 1991 — Arts. 26, 28, 30
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 403AC0000000090_20260521_504AC0000000048. Art. 26(1) deems a building lease that has a stated term — not the fixed-term lease of Art. 38, which is the form under which a lease does not renew — renewed on the same terms, for an indefinite period, where neither party gave notice between one year and six months before expiry. Art. 28 allows a landlord's notice under Art. 26(1) or a termination only where just cause is found, weighing the listed matters. Art. 30 voids a special term contrary to that section where it is disadvantageous to the building lessee.
Consumer Contract Act (消費者契約法), Act No. 61 of 2000 — Arts. 8, 8-2, 9, 10
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 412AC0000000061_20260624_508AC0000000046. Art. 8(1) voids terms excluding or limiting a business operator's own liability in the four listed ways; Art. 8(2) disapplies that in the two cases it sets out, and Art. 8(3) separately voids a partial exclusion for ordinary negligence that does not make clear on its face that it applies only to that. Art. 8-2 voids a term making a consumer give up the right to terminate for the operator's non-performance. Art. 9(i) voids the excess where liquidated damages or a penalty on termination exceed the average loss to the operator on the same kind of contract, and Art. 9(ii) voids the excess above 14.6 per cent a year on late payment of money owed under the contract. Art. 10 voids a term that restricts a consumer's rights or adds to a consumer's obligations beyond the default rules and that unilaterally harms the consumer's interests contrary to the fundamental principle in Art. 1(2) of the Civil Code. These four are quoted on this page and applied to nothing.
Money Lending Business Act (貸金業法), Act No. 32 of 1983 — Art. 2
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 358AC1000000032_20251001_505AC0000000053. Art. 2(1) defines the money lending business as lending money or mediating its lending or borrowing, carried on as a business, subject to five exclusions. Its parenthesis includes advancing money by discounting bills, by a sale used as security or similar methods, and mediating the receipt and delivery of money by those methods. Art. 2(3) includes a loan contract and a related guarantee contract in its definition of a loan contract. The Act's other provisions concerning guarantee businesses were not examined. This limited reading does not establish whether a rent guarantee business falls within the Act, and no conclusion is drawn either way.
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 502AC0000000060_20250601_504AC0000000068. Art. 2 defines the rental housing management business as maintenance and preservation work under a mandate from the landlord, together with the handling of rent, deposits and common charges alongside that work, and separately defines a master lease and a sublease operator; Art. 3(1) requires the Minister's registration to carry on that business, with a proviso that it does not apply below a size of business fixed by ministerial order; we did not read that order. We extracted the whole text, main provisions and supplementary provisions together, and counted characters: 12,638 in total, with the string 保証 occurring 0 times and the string 家賃債務 occurring 0 times. That count is our own measurement.
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 419AC1000000112_20251001_506AC0000000043. Art. 2(1) defines a person requiring special assistance in securing housing across six items, item (vi) delegating further categories to ministerial order. Chapter VII, Arts. 72 to 80, is the certification of a rent guarantee business by the Minister: Art. 72(1) sets the three criteria, Art. 73 the disqualifications, Arts. 74 and 75 the notifications of change and of discontinuance, Art. 76 the books, Art. 77 the order to conform, Art. 78 reports and on-site inspection, Art. 79 the withdrawal of a certification, and Art. 80 the insurance the Japan Housing Finance Agency may write on a certified business. We also read the same Act at asof=2025-09-30, which returns the revision e-Gov labels 419AC1000000112_20250701_506AC0000000043, and counted the string 認定保証業者 in each: 0 occurrences on 30 September 2025 and 17 on 11 September 2026, the extracted text growing from 22,614 to 36,032 characters. That comparison is our own measurement, and it is how the date of 1 October 2025 in the body was established.
Read at asof=2026-09-11, at the revision e-Gov labels 429M60000800063_20251001_507M60000800071. Art. 3 lists the thirteen further categories under Art. 2(1)(vi) of the Act, and item (i) is a person who does not hold Japanese nationality. Art. 20 is the requirement referred to by the certification criteria, met either by a support corporation carrying on the listed work or by a business holding the Minister's registration. Art. 32 defines the related persons in Art. 72(1)(ii) of the Act as friends, acquaintances and other natural persons whose name the person knows and with whom the person is personally acquainted. Art. 33 sets the four criteria under Art. 72(1)(iii): the requirement in Art. 20, publication of the record of guarantee commission contracts concluded and of the standard contract and the conditions for concluding it, not requiring a guarantor as a condition, and a commission that is not unduly high measured against the cost of performing the contract.
Read on 11 September 2026. The page states that the registration system was created by a notification of the Ministry, promulgated on 2 October 2017 and in force from 25 October 2017, and states in its own words that this is a voluntary registration system and that the business may be carried on without registering. The page links the register, the registration ordinance, the criteria for withdrawal, the application method, a question and answer document, and the lists reproduced below. This page does not describe the further material that page carries about contract terms, because that material concerns a court judgment and no judgment has been read.
Read on 11 September 2026, extracted to text with a PDF library and read in full: one page, 1,114 characters extracted. It is the source of the registration criteria and the conduct rules summarised in the body, including net assets of at least ten million yen, the five-year renewal cycle, and the sentence stating that registration is voluntary. It gives the promulgation and commencement dates of the notification as 2 October 2017 and 25 October 2017. The criteria and rules on this page are a summary of what that document prints; the notification itself is described in the limits section.
Read on 11 September 2026. The page states 123 registered businesses as at 13 August 2026. Registration numbers on it take one of two forms, 国土交通大臣（１）第◯号 and 国土交通大臣（２）第◯号; we counted 60 of the first and 62 of the second, 122 numbers in all against the 123 the page states, and we report that gap without explaining it. No entry from the list is reproduced here.
Read on 11 September 2026. The Japanese heading states 52 businesses as at 30 June 2026. We counted the table ourselves: 56 table rows, of which one is the heading row, which carries no registration number, and two carry none either, leaving 53 rows each holding a registration number, all 53 different. Our count is one more than the figure the page prints, and we do not explain the difference. The English line beneath the Japanese heading gives a different date from the Japanese one, and the page itself notes that the English company names and addresses on it are machine-generated. We report the Japanese date. No entry from the list is reproduced here.
Read on 11 September 2026. The scheme page points to Chapter VII of the Act and Chapter V of its regulation as the provisions behind it. The list page states 12 certified businesses as at 31 July 2026, numbered in the form 国土交通大臣（認定）第◯号; we counted the rows ourselves and found 12, matching the stated figure. No entry from the list is reproduced here. The list of certified businesses is at https://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/jutakukentiku_house_fr7_000064.html .
A note on what this page deliberately leaves out
SHINWA CREATIVE, K.K. is a welding and metalwork company in Miyagi Prefecture and it also lets property. This page does not advertise those lettings or name, rate or link to individual guarantee businesses. The linked lists are the Ministry's publications.
The source links make these readings open to examination. We are grateful for careful attention to this evidence and its stated limits.