ログイン
言語:

WEKO3

  • トップ
  • ランキング
To
lat lon distance
To

Field does not validate



インデックスリンク

インデックスツリー

メールアドレスを入力してください。

WEKO

One fine body…

WEKO

One fine body…

アイテム

  1. 広島大学の刊行物
  2. 広島法科大学院論集
  3. 14号

信販会社による所有権留保に関する最判平22年6月4日と最判平29年12月7日に基づく三者関係の構造に関する考察

https://doi.org/10.15027/45751
https://doi.org/10.15027/45751
8418d9e1-180d-47e2-8676-825ecc0af579
名前 / ファイル ライセンス アクション
HiroshimaLawRev_14_95.pdf HiroshimaLawRev_14_95.pdf (1.2 MB)
Item type デフォルトアイテムタイプ_(フル)(1)
公開日 2023-03-18
タイトル
タイトル 信販会社による所有権留保に関する最判平22年6月4日と最判平29年12月7日に基づく三者関係の構造に関する考察
言語 ja
タイトル
タイトル Two Supreme Court Decisions on Ownership Reservation by a Credit Company
言語 en
作成者 田村, 耕一

× 田村, 耕一

ja 田村, 耕一

en Tamura, Koichi

Search repository
アクセス権
アクセス権 open access
アクセス権URI http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
権利情報
権利情報 許可なく複製・転載することを禁じる
主題
主題Scheme NDC
主題 320
内容記述
内容記述 Japanese Supreme Court Decision (June 4, 2010) “According to the facts, it is appropriate to construe that the Tripartite Contract was not concluded to confirm that the ownership of the Automobile reserved by the sales company would be transferred to the appellee as a result of subrogation, but it was concluded to make an agreement that the appellee, as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, would acquire the ownership of the Automobile transferred thereto from the sales company and then reserve such ownership. It should therefore be construed that the right that the appellee is entitled to exercise as the right of separate satisfaction is said ownership that has been reserved thereby as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. More specifically, the appellee is to acquire, under the Tripartite Contract, the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. against the appellant, which covers not only the amount equivalent to the Remaining Price but also the amount of commission. Under this contract, the parties have agreed that the ownership of the Automobile shall be reserved by the appellee until the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. is fully satisfied, and that when the appellant forfeits the benefit of time for the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. and delivers the Automobile to the appellee, the appellee may appropriate the appraised value of the Automobile to satisfaction of the Obligation for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. This clearly indicates that the ownership to be transferred from the sales company and reserved by the appellee is intended as security for the Claim for the Money Paid on the Purchaser's Behalf, etc. If the effect of the appellee making payment on behalf of the appellant is limited to the transfer of the ownership of the Automobile, which has been reserved by the sales company, to the appellee as a result of subrogation, the appellee's claim would be secured only up to the amount equivalent to the Remaining Price, which is contrary to what the parties reasonably intended under the Tripartite Contract." Japanese Supreme Court Decision (December 7, 2017) “In the case where it was agreed that the ownership of the Automobile reserved by the sales company as security for the Claim for the Remaining Price, the guarantor of the trade price paid the Remaining Price to the selling company as the guarantee obligation. It causes subrogation by performance, and as a result, the ownership of the Automobile that has been reserved by the sales company as security for its claim for the Remaining Price is transferred to the guarantor, by operation of law, along with the claim for the Remaining Price held by the sales company against the buyer. " The difference between the two judgments arises from the difference in the secured claims that the credit company contracted with the buyer. Then, is it possible to exercise the remaining price claim under the tripartite contract? Under Japanese law, transfer of collateral without secured claim is not allowed. Therefore, the secured claim will be attributed to the credit company. However, the selling company still has claims on automobiles as secured receivables. Therefore, the possibility of exercising secured claims depends on the interpretation of collateral subshares.
言語 en
出版者
出版者 広島大学法学会
言語
言語 jpn
資源タイプ
資源タイプ識別子 http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
資源タイプ departmental bulletin paper
出版タイプ
出版タイプ VoR
出版タイプResource http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
ID登録
ID登録 10.15027/45751
ID登録タイプ JaLC
収録物識別子
収録物識別子タイプ ISSN
収録物識別子 1880-1897
収録物識別子
収録物識別子タイプ NCID
収録物識別子 AA12028691
開始ページ
開始ページ 95
書誌情報 広島法科大学院論集
Hiroshima Law Review

号 14, p. 95-116, 発行日 2018-03-20
見出し
大見出し 論説
言語 ja
旧ID 45751
戻る
0
views
See details
Views

Versions

Ver.1 2025-03-03 10:33:18.162623
Show All versions

Share

Mendeley Twitter Facebook Print Addthis

Cite as

エクスポート

OAI-PMH
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 2.0
  • OAI-PMH JPCOAR 1.0
  • OAI-PMH DublinCore
  • OAI-PMH DDI
Other Formats
  • JSON
  • BIBTEX

Confirm


Powered by WEKO3


Powered by WEKO3