Page 75 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

verification of documents confirming former genuine ownership takes place in Japan.
However, the point mentioned particularly concerns domestic practice among Japanese

dealers and consumers. Can such a practice be reasonable and justified in terms of
the international context? Moreover, the Supreme Court referred to the administrative

practice of registration. However, can such an administrative practice based on
the Japanese domestic regulatory Act, even though it includes some provisions regarding
private-law issues, justify the Supreme Court’s position against the High Court’s
concern?

Here we find a clear contrast in position between the Supreme Court and

the High Court. What is the most fundamental turning point? We can find it in a small
but crucial detail of difference in reasoning between the two courts. It concerns how to
view the way of proving good faith or the sense of good faith. It leads us to find different

concepts of stable transaction as indicated in the following section of the judgment:

“the ruling that B was negligent because he [himself!] had failed to verify

the existence of the documents which prove ownership in the country of the previous
registration …… when B, who is an individual consumer, purchased the Car

from …..a dealer……brings unnecessary risk to the second hand car trading
business and excessively harms the stability of trade”. [underlined by the author]

We see here that the Supreme Court formulated the issue of good faith,

investigating yet ultimately rejecting the idea according to which, for a consumer
purchaser, it is necessary for him/herself to verify the existence or non-existence of
a registration confirming another genuine owner. Supposedly, a successive purchaser

would be requested again to verify the same point by him/herself. Rejecting such
a view, the perspective of the Supreme Court comes to be focused only on a direct
counterpart seller whose genuine ownership should have been derived from the former

transactions abroad. However, it is not verified in practice in any measure in Japan.
39

39 The District Court in the same case displayed a way of thinking similar to the Supreme Court, discussing
the necessity for each transferee, especially B in this case, respectively and individually to verify ownership of
the ultimate transferor (exporter) in the country of export.

73