Page 52 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

context of good-faith transactions based on the German registration, and transferred to
another context in which another succession of transactions can take place based on

the existence of the car. In fact, the stolen car was imported into Japan and this other
succession of transactions based not on registration but on the mere existence of car

began to develop in Japan. In addition, the registration of ownership of the same car
was filed in Japan, and thereafter other transactions took place on the basis of registration
in the Japanese market.

The issues theoretically implied in the case concern not simply the validity and
effect of the foreign legal title, which, in this particular case, has been acquired in

the German market, but more broadly the problem of how to construct an international
legal framework for combining and coordinating different markets ruled respectively
under different legal orders.

Polarity between the High Court and Supreme Court
The case presented here has great importance as an example tackling these

points, as it includes both of the two different dimensions, regarding choice-of-law and
the interpretation of a domestic substantive law chosen as applicable law.

For both of these two dimensions, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the case
provides us with several points to be critically assessed. This is so particularly because,
for the former issue, the Supreme Court stipulated a very particular formulation whose

possible implication of parochial unilateralism will be exposed in this article.
Moreover, as for the legal reasoning held by the Supreme Court, it will be

possible to gain insight into its particular view. Although Tokyo High Court (the appeals
court) has shown serious concern regarding the laundering of legal titles by way of
import of stolen cars, the Supreme Court sometimes shows very clear opposition to it.

Behind this opposition, we can find polarity in terms of “secure and stable
transaction,” especially in international commerce. This polarity, first of all, reflects
5

5 The English translation of the Supreme Court’s judgment (see note supra 4) adopted the wording “stability
of trade,” while the original Japanese text, literally speaking, made use of the term “security of transaction”(or trade).
In this article, the wording “secure and stable transaction” will be generally used, but should be regarded here as
interchangeable with these other wordings.

50