A mediation case involving a dispute over a lease or other relationship concerning the use of a building lot or a building is to be under the jurisdiction of the summary court that has jurisdiction over the location of the building lot or the building in dispute, or the district court that has jurisdiction over the location as determined by agreement of the parties.

①A person who seeks to file an action to claim an increase or decrease in the amount of rent for land referred to in Article 11 of the Act on Land and Building Leases (Act No. 90 of 1991) or to claim an increase or decrease in the amount of rent for a building referred to in Article 32 of that Act must first file a petition for mediation.

②If a person files an action in the case referred to in the preceding paragraph without first filing a petition for mediation, the court in charge of the case must refer the case for mediation; provided, however, that this does not apply if the court in charge of the case finds it unsuitable to refer the case for mediation.

①In the mediation case involving the claim referred to in paragraph (1) of the preceding Article, if there is no likelihood of an agreement being reached between the parties or if the mediation committee finds that the agreement reached is inappropriate, and there is a written agreement between the parties to the effect that they will obey the terms of mediation determined by a mediation committee (limited to the agreement reached after the petition for mediation was filed concerning the mediation case), the mediation committee may, upon petition, determine the terms of mediation that are appropriate for the resolution of the case.

②If the terms of mediation referred to in the preceding paragraph are entered in a record, the mediation is deemed to have been achieved, and the entry has the same effect as a judicial settlement.

A mediation case involving a dispute over a lease or other relationship related to the use of farmland, or land, buildings or other agricultural assets incidental to farm management (hereinafter referred to as "farmland") are to be governed by the provisions of this Section, in addition to the provisions of the preceding Chapter.

The mediation case stated in the preceding Article is to be under the jurisdiction of the district court that has jurisdiction over the location of the farmland which is in dispute, or the summary court that has jurisdiction over the location as determined by agreement of the parties.

①A ministerial or prefectural farmland official may state their opinions to a mediation committee on the date of appearance for mediation proceedings or on an occasion other than that date.

②After hearing the opinions of the relevant parties and finding it appropriate to do so, a mediation committee may have a ministerial or prefectural farmland official state the opinions stated in the preceding paragraph on the date stated in that paragraph by audio transmission that enables the mediation committee and relevant parties to communicate with the officials simultaneously with one another, pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

If a mediation committee seeks to carry out mediation, it must hear the opinions of a ministerial or prefectural farmland official.

The provisions of the preceding two Articles apply mutatis mutandis to cases in which mediation is carried out only by a judge.

The provisions of Article 28 apply mutatis mutandis to cases in which the court seeks to transfer the case to another court or to process the case by itself pursuant to the provisions of the proviso to Article 4, paragraph (1) or paragraph (3) of that Article, or if the court seeks to issue an order referred to in Article 17.

The provisions of Article 24-3 apply mutatis mutandis to commercial mediation cases.

A mediation case involving a dispute over compensation for mining pollution as prescribed in the Mining Act (Act No. 289 of 1950) is to be under the jurisdiction of the district court that has jurisdiction over the place where the damage occurred.

The provisions of Article 24-3 and Articles 27 through 30 apply mutatis mutandis to mediation cases referred to in the preceding Article. In this case, the phrase "ministerial or prefectural farmland official" in Articles 27 and 28 is deemed to be replaced with "director-general of a regional bureau of economy, trade and industry".

A mediation case involving a dispute over compensation for damages for the death or physical injury of a person caused by driving an automobile is to be under the jurisdiction of the summary court that has jurisdiction over the location of the domicile or residence of the person claiming damages, in addition to the court provided for in Article 3.

A mediation case involving a dispute over damages arising from pollution or infringement of the right to sunlight, ventilation, or other living environment-related rights is to be under the jurisdiction of the summary court that has jurisdiction over the place where the damage occurred or is likely to occur, in addition to the court provided for in Article 3.

A mediation case involving intellectual property disputes is to be under the jurisdiction of the court prescribed in Article 3, in addition to the court listed in the following items if it holds relevant jurisdiction as provided for in that Article (excluding the part covering jurisdiction agreed upon by the relevant parties as provided in paragraph (1) of the that Article).