Genjō-kaifuku (原状回復) — literally "restoration to original condition" — is a distinctively Japanese legal and industry term that governs what a tenant must repair or pay for when vacating a rental property in Japan. Most English-speaking rental markets have no exact equivalent: move-out obligations there are typically left to a loose "leave the unit in good condition" clause, or handled through a generic security-deposit deduction with far less statutory definition. In Japan, genjō-kaifuku carries a specific legal meaning. It does not mean returning the unit to the exact condition it was in on move-in day. Ordinary wear and tear (通常損耗, tsūjō-sonmō) and deterioration through the simple passage of time (経年劣化, keinen-rekka) are, in principle, excluded from what the tenant must pay for. For international investors and asset managers who own or oversee Japanese rental properties, getting this distinction wrong is not a minor language issue — it destabilizes the entire logic of a move-out settlement statement.
On the ground in Japanese property management, three near-identical-sounding terms circulate: genjō-kaifuku (原状回復), genjō-fukki (原状復帰), and a widespread mistake, 現状回復, which is also pronounced "genjō-kaifuku." This is where the topic becomes genuinely interesting for anyone unfamiliar with Japanese: 原状 (genjō, "the original state") and 現状 (genjō, "the current state") are pronounced identically in spoken Japanese, despite being written with entirely different characters and carrying near-opposite meanings. It is roughly analogous to how an English speaker might confuse "stationary" (not moving) and "stationery" (writing paper) — true homophones that trip up even native speakers in writing, though the Japanese case cuts deeper, because it surfaces inside binding legal and contractual language rather than casual correspondence. When property managers are careless about which term they use, the vagueness cascades: explanations to tenants become unclear, repair estimates lose their legal footing, and the basis for a move-out settlement becomes shaky. In particular, 現状回復 — restoring "the current state" rather than "the original state" — is a documented misuse that should never appear in a lease contract or a settlement statement. This article is a practical terminology guide for property management staff, written to help them use these terms correctly and reduce move-out disputes.
Key points in this article
- The correct term to use in Japanese rental move-out practice is genjō-kaifuku (原状回復).
- Genjō-fukki (原状復帰) is a near-synonym, but it is mainly a term used on construction and interior-fit-out sites.
- 現状回復 confuses genjō ("original state," 原状) with the identically pronounced genjō ("current state," 現状) — an incorrect term that should never appear in a contract or settlement statement.
- Article 621 of Japan's Civil Code (民法, Minpō) excludes normal wear and tear and age-related change from the scope of genjō-kaifuku.
- Explaining the terminology, the cause of the damage, and the cost allocation together is what keeps a move-out settlement calm and dispute-free.
What Is Genjō-kaifuku? Definition and Legal Basis
Genjō-kaifuku is the principle that, at move-out, a tenant restores only the damage caused by their own intentional acts or negligence, a violation of their duty of care as a prudent manager (善管注意義務, zenkan-chūi gimu — an obligation to use the property with the ordinary degree of care expected during a tenancy, a concept with no precise one-word equivalent in most Western lease law), or use of the property beyond what is considered normal. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's genjō-kaifuku guidelines define the term as "restoring the deterioration or damage to a rental unit's value caused by the tenant's intentional acts, negligence, breach of the duty of care, or other use exceeding normal use, out of the overall decline in the building's value that occurred through the tenant's residence and use."
This principle is not merely industry custom — it is written directly into statute. Article 621 of the Civil Code sets out the tenant's genjō-kaifuku obligation as follows.
Where damage has arisen to the leased property after the lessee received it (excluding wear and tear of the leased property caused by ordinary use and profit-earning, and deterioration of the leased property from the passage of time), the lessee, upon termination of the lease, is obligated to restore the damage to its original condition; provided, however, that this does not apply where the damage is due to a cause not attributable to the lessee.
Two points in the statutory text matter most. First, wear and tear from normal use, and deterioration from the simple passage of time, are excluded from the scope of genjō-kaifuku. Second, damage that is not the tenant's fault is also excluded. In other words, genjō-kaifuku is not the work of returning a room to brand-new condition — it is the narrower principle of restoring only the damage attributable to how the tenant used the unit. This is a genuinely useful distinction for foreign investors to internalize: unlike some jurisdictions where a landlord can informally justify near-total deposit forfeiture as "cleaning and refresh costs," Japanese law and industry guidance draw an explicit, named boundary around what a tenant may be charged for.
It is worth noting that the MLIT guidelines are not themselves a legally binding regulation. They are a reference document, compiled to prevent disputes before they happen and to help resolve them amicably when they do. That is precisely why property management companies carry the responsibility of translating the statute and the guidelines into language a tenant can actually understand and accept. The specific content of the duty of care of a prudent manager (善管注意義務) is covered in more detail in What Is a Tenant's Duty of Care? Violations, Restoration Obligations, and How Property Managers Should Respond.
Genjō-kaifuku vs. Genjō-fukki vs. the Common Mis-Written Genjō-kaifuku (現状回復): What's the Difference?
The term to use precisely in Japanese property management is genjō-kaifuku (原状回復). Genjō-fukki (原状復帰) is used with a nearly identical meaning, but in lease agreements and move-out settlements, genjō-kaifuku is the term that actually tracks the statute and industry practice. The three terms look and sound similar to an outsider, but they have different origins and are used in different contexts — a distinction that matters far more in Japan's kanji-based writing system than it would for near-synonyms in an alphabetic language.
| Term | Meaning and Origin | Primary Context of Use | Acceptable in Move-Out Settlements? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genjō-kaifuku (原状回復) | Restores only the necessary scope, measured against genjō (原状, "the original state") | Lease agreements, move-out settlements, statutes, and government guidelines | Recommended — the official, legally grounded term |
| Genjō-fukki (原状復帰) | Means "return to genjō, the original state" — nearly synonymous with the term above | Construction and interior-fit-out sites, and commercial office move-outs | Same underlying meaning, but settlement statements should standardize on genjō-kaifuku |
| Genjō-kaifuku, mis-written (現状回復) | A self-contradictory phrase, literally "restore the current state" — since 現状 (also read genjō) means "the state right now," not "the original state" | Creeps in through IME (Japanese input-method) homophone mis-conversion and careless drafting | Do not use — this is a documented misuse |
Why Is 現状回復 (the Mis-Written Genjō-kaifuku) Incorrect?
現状回復 is a typographical and terminological error that arises from confusing 原状 with the identically pronounced 現状. 原状 refers to the original condition before the tenancy began; 現状 refers to whatever condition exists right now, in front of you. At move-out, the damaged condition of the room is itself "the current state" — so writing "現状回復" leaves it genuinely unclear what is being restored, and to what. Unlike a spelling mistake in English, which is usually visible in speech as well as on the page, this error is completely silent when spoken aloud, because both words are pronounced exactly the same way. It surfaces only in writing, which is exactly why it slips past careless proofreading.
Both Article 621 of the Civil Code and the MLIT guidelines use the term genjō consistently. If "現状回復" appears in a lease contract, a pre-contract disclosure statement, a move-out settlement statement, a repair estimate, or an email to a tenant, the connection to the statutory term is severed, and the basis for the explanation becomes fuzzy. Because this is exactly the kind of word that a word processor's kanji-conversion feature can substitute without the writer noticing — much like an autocorrect slip between "their," "there," and "they're" in English — it is worth locking every internal template and boilerplate phrase to genjō-kaifuku (原状回復) as a fixed, non-negotiable spelling.
Which Term, in Which Situation? A Context-by-Context Reference Table
Deciding in advance which term belongs in which document removes the guesswork. We have organized the choice into three practical contexts — move-out settlements, tenant-facing explanations, and estimate wording — showing which term to use and which to avoid in each. Sharing this reference table across a team prevents individual staff members from drifting into inconsistent phrasing, which is itself a source of tenant distrust independent of any single dispute.
| Context / Document | Term to Use | Term to Avoid | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lease agreement and special provisions (特約, tokuyaku) | Genjō-kaifuku | Genjō-fukki / mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) | Aligns with the exact terminology used in Civil Code Article 621 and the MLIT guidelines |
| Move-out settlement statement | Genjō-kaifuku cost, tenant-borne portion, landlord-borne portion | A lump-sum "現状回復一式" (mis-written, all-inclusive) line item | Ties the basis for cost allocation directly back to the statute |
| Construction / repair estimate | Genjō-kaifuku restoration work (broken into repair, replacement, and cleaning line items) | Mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) | Keeps settlement vocabulary and construction vocabulary consistent |
| Explanations and emails to tenants | Genjō-kaifuku, supplemented with everyday-language explanations of normal wear and tear (通常損耗) and age-related deterioration (経年劣化) | Mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) | Translating legal terms into plain, everyday language builds tenant understanding and buy-in |
| Conversations with interior-fit-out contractors | Genjō-fukki is understood on-site, but revert to genjō-kaifuku for the settlement statement | Mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) | Prevents site jargon and settlement terminology from becoming conflated |
| Internal company manuals | Standardize on genjō-kaifuku | Genjō-fukki / mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) | Reduces variation in explanation quality across different staff members |
With this table in hand, a company avoids the scenario where an estimate says "genjō-fukki," the settlement statement says the mis-written "genjō-kaifuku," and an email to the tenant says something like "the cost to put it back the way it was" — three different phrasings for what should be one consistent concept. Standardizing terminology is not a reactive move made after a complaint; it is preventive work done in advance. How the 2020 Civil Code reform affects security deposit refunds and genjō-kaifuku is covered in more legal detail in How Did the Civil Code Reform Change Security Deposits and Genjō-kaifuku? A Landlord's Practical Response — useful background for overseas owners unfamiliar with how Japan's 2020 civil law amendments reshaped deposit-return practice compared to, for example, US or UK deposit-protection schemes.
Why Does Misusing These Terms Trigger Move-Out Disputes?
Terminology errors become a real problem because they make it harder for the tenant to understand what, exactly, they are being asked to pay for. Move-out settlements involve the return of the security deposit and, potentially, an additional bill — so any ambiguity in language converts directly into distrust. This is a universal risk in any rental market, but it is sharpened in Japan by the sheer number of near-identical terms in circulation, and it is worth noting for overseas readers that Japan's security deposit (敷金, shikikin) already functions differently from a typical Western deposit: it is explicitly, statutorily tied to genjō-kaifuku cost recovery rather than functioning as a general-purpose damage bond.
Consider an estimate that says only "現状回復一式" ("mis-written genjō-kaifuku, all-inclusive"). The tenant has no way of judging what the charge is actually for. Is it wallpaper replacement? Floor repair? Cleaning? And on top of that, there is no way to tell whether the charge reflects normal wear and tear or the tenant's own intentional acts or negligence. Billing forcefully worded charges without a visible, itemized basis does not produce acceptance — it produces pushback.
By contrast, preparing better phrasing in advance makes the basis for a charge much easier to communicate. This is not about tilting the outcome in the tenant's favor; it is about organizing what a landlord is legally entitled to charge, and charging it calmly, on a documented basis.
| Phrase to Avoid | Why It's Risky | Suggested Rephrasing |
|---|---|---|
| "Genjō-kaifuku, all-inclusive" (mis-written, lump-sum) | Leaves unclear what is being restored, and to what condition | "We itemize the tenant-borne portion of the genjō-kaifuku restoration work in the attached breakdown." |
| "Please restore the unit completely to its pre-move-in condition." | Sounds as if it includes normal wear and tear and age-related deterioration too | "We will confirm any damage that goes beyond normal use." |
| "It's dirty, so it's entirely your responsibility as the tenant." | Ignores both the cause of the soiling and how much time has elapsed | "We will confirm the cause of the soiling and the move-in condition before determining the cost allocation." |
| "We're billing you because it's written in the contract." | Fails to convey whether the tenant actually understood and agreed to the clause | "We will confirm this in line with the special provision (特約, tokuyaku) explained to you at the time of signing." |
In practice, billing forcefully with vague language is weaker than explaining calmly with precise language. Honest, transparent explanation is the baseline on which a property management company's credibility is built — and, for an overseas owner, it is also the baseline that keeps a locally managed asset from generating cross-border complaints or reputational drag.
Sample Explanations for Tenants: Translating Legal Terms into Everyday Language
When explaining genjō-kaifuku to a tenant, replacing legal terminology with everyday language communicates far better than reciting statutory phrasing. Property management staff are expected to first understand the technical terms correctly, and then convert them into language the other party can readily accept. The core terms can first be rephrased as follows.
- Genjō-kaifuku: the idea of repairing only the damage that goes beyond normal use — not the parts that simply aged naturally through everyday living.
- Tsūjō-sonmō (通常損耗, normal wear and tear): damage that naturally occurs from daily living, which in principle is not charged to the tenant.
- Keinen-rekka (経年劣化, age-related deterioration): parts that naturally age simply because time has passed.
- Zenkan-chūi gimu (善管注意義務, duty of care of a prudent manager): the obligation to use the property with the ordinary degree of care generally expected during the tenancy.
Beyond that, preparing ready-to-use sample phrasing for each specific situation lets a company maintain consistent explanation quality even as staff turn over. Below are sample phrasings usable from the move-out inspection through to the final settlement.
| Situation | Sample Explanation for the Tenant |
|---|---|
| Move-out inspection notice | "During the move-out inspection, we will check the condition of the room together. Comparing it against your move-in photos, we will separate what resulted from normal use from any damage beyond that." |
| Communicating a tenant-borne cost | "This mark does not appear in your move-in photos and appears to have resulted from moving furniture during your tenancy. Because it goes beyond normal use, we have estimated it as a genjō-kaifuku cost to be borne by you, the tenant." |
| Communicating a landlord-borne cost | "This discoloration of the wallpaper is age-related change from normal use. It falls outside the scope of genjō-kaifuku, so it will be handled at the landlord's expense. You do not need to cover this cost." |
| Communicating a prorated cost | "This fixture has depreciated with age. Rather than charging the full amount, we will prorate your share based on how many years it has been in use." |
| Answering a question about terminology | "Our documents consistently use genjō-kaifuku. It means restoring only what goes beyond normal use, measured against the original condition — not the mis-written 'genjō-kaifuku' (現状回復), which would literally mean restoring the current state." |
The goal of these explanations is never to win an argument against the tenant. It is to align the tenant's and the landlord's understanding of the facts, and move toward a move-out settlement both sides can accept. This is where the human dimension of property management shows through — a quality that matters just as much to an overseas owner who cannot be present at the inspection in person and is relying entirely on the manager's judgment. Consultations on move-out settlements are also available through INA's rental management team.
Correct Wording for Estimates and Settlement Statements
In estimates and settlement statements, it matters that "genjō-kaifuku restoration work, all-inclusive" is never the entire entry. Separating out the work item, the location, the quantity, the unit price, the cost allocation, and the reasoning behind that allocation makes the content verifiable for both the tenant and the property owner. At minimum, the following items should be organized in practice.
| Line Item | Example Entry |
|---|---|
| Location | Western-style room wallpaper, washroom flooring, kitchen cabinet door |
| Work performed | Replacement, repair, cleaning |
| Cause | Smoking residue, physical damage, normal wear and tear, age-related deterioration |
| Cost allocation | Tenant-borne, landlord-borne, prorated |
| Supporting evidence | Move-in photos, move-out inspection record, lease special provisions |
It also helps to share good and bad wording examples internally, side by side, so that the level of detail stays consistent across staff and across properties.
| Wording to Avoid | Recommended Wording |
|---|---|
| "Mis-written genjō-kaifuku work, all-inclusive — ¥80,000 (approx. $516, at 155 JPY/USD)" | "Genjō-kaifuku restoration work (Western-style room wallpaper replacement / smoking residue, tenant-borne) — ¥XX,XXX" |
| "Cleaning and repair, all-inclusive" | Itemized separately as house cleaning (landlord-borne) and fixture repair (physical damage, tenant-borne) |
| "Deducted from the security deposit as a genjō-kaifuku fee" | Itemizing the tenant-borne portion of genjō-kaifuku, then returning the remaining security-deposit balance after applying that amount |
On receiving an estimate, a property management company should at minimum confirm the following: whether the work items are broken out by location; whether the quantity, unit price, and scope are verifiable; whether the level of detail allows tenant-borne and landlord-borne costs to be separated; whether it can be cross-checked against move-in photos and the move-out inspection record; and whether items that actually qualify as normal wear and tear or age-related deterioration have been mixed in improperly. A coarse-grained estimate produces a coarse-grained settlement statement, which in turn produces a coarse, unconvincing explanation to the tenant. The scope of genjō-kaifuku construction work and how to think about typical cost ranges — useful benchmarking for an overseas owner comparing renovation quotes across properties — are covered in more depth in What Is Genjō-kaifuku Restoration Work? Scope, Cost, and Dispute Prevention for Rental Owners.
An Internal Standardization Checklist for Property Management Companies
Genjō-kaifuku terminology only takes hold in daily practice once it has been standardized internally. If different staff members use different phrasing, the quality of the explanation shifts even for the same property. Property management companies do well to standardize the following items.
- Standardize on genjō-kaifuku in lease agreements and the pre-contract disclosure statement (重要事項説明書, jūyō jikō setsumeisho).
- Never use the mis-written 現状回復 in estimates or settlement statements.
- Keep move-in and move-out photos in the same storage location.
- Share a classification table distinguishing normal wear and tear, age-related deterioration, and tenant fault or negligence.
- When charging the tenant, record both the cause and the supporting evidence.
- When relying on a special provision (特約), keep a record that it was explained at the time of contract signing.
- Write settlement line items in language a tenant can actually understand.
In an internal review, checking move-out settlement statements and tenant-facing emails against the following points makes the standard much easier to translate into daily practice.
| Review Item | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Terminology | Whether genjō-kaifuku, genjō-fukki, and the mis-written genjō-kaifuku (現状回復) are mixed together |
| Cause | Whether the cause of the damage is documented |
| Cost allocation | Whether tenant-borne, landlord-borne, and prorated costs are clearly separated |
| Supporting evidence | Whether it is linked to move-in photos, lease special provisions, and the inspection record |
| Explanatory text | Whether the wording is understandable to a tenant reading it |
This may look like a small point of standardization, but building this kind of internal discipline is what actually reduces move-out disputes. At INA, we treat rental management not as routine paperwork but as work that compounds trust over time — and for an overseas owner who cannot inspect the property or read the paperwork in Japanese, that compounding trust is effectively the entire product being purchased. Standardizing terminology also lowers training costs, since it lets even a newly hired staff member deliver explanations of consistent quality. If you are considering a change of property management company, INA's rental management consultation is available to discuss your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. Do Genjō-fukki and Genjō-kaifuku Mean the Same Thing?
A. They are close in meaning, but for Japanese rental move-out practice, genjō-kaifuku (原状回復) is the appropriate term to use. Genjō-fukki (原状復帰) is more often used on construction and interior-fit-out sites, and it is safer to standardize on genjō-kaifuku — the same term used in Civil Code Article 621 — for lease contracts and move-out settlements.
Q2. Is It Ever Acceptable to Use 現状回復?
A. It should be avoided, because 現状回復 mistakenly substitutes 現状 ("current state") for 原状 ("original state") — the two are pronounced identically but written and mean differently. It does not automatically invalidate a document as a matter of law, but because 現状 refers to the state of things right now, writing "現状回復" in a move-out settlement leaves it ambiguous exactly what is meant to be restored.
Q3. Is the Full Cost of Genjō-kaifuku Always Charged to the Tenant?
A. No, not the full cost. Under Civil Code Article 621, normal wear and tear and age-related change are excluded from the scope of genjō-kaifuku and are, in principle, borne by the landlord. Charging the tenant requires supporting grounds — intentional acts, negligence, use beyond what is considered normal, or an applicable special provision (特約) in the lease.
Q4. What Should a Property Management Company Keep on Record?
A. Move-in photos, move-out photos, repair history, the record of communications with the tenant, estimates, and settlement statements should all be kept. The more complete the records, the more objective the explanation of a move-out settlement becomes, and the easier it is to demonstrate the basis for both the terminology used and the cost allocation applied.
Related Reading
Citations and References
