Page 76 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

Once the transaction, made with such an importing dealer, is accomplished and
the car’s possession obtained in apparent good faith, the ownership of the domestic

purchaser is now regarded to be superior to any claim based on foreign transaction,
foreign registration, and another kind of good faith based on a foreign market.

Here we can find a particular kind of concept of the stable and secure transaction
with exclusion and enclosure at first realized on the basis of the real-material location

inland and on the basis of parochial practice. 40

Contrast with the High Court’s idea

Contrary to the idea regarding proof of good faith, which was rejected by
the Supreme Court, the High Court suggests a different option, according to which

verification by an individual purchaser of the genuine ownership of the exporter abroad
is not strictly necessary by him/herself, but a reliable certificate of a domestic dealer
(importer) on this point also would be sufficient. This idea was reintroduced in

the following section of the Supreme Court’s judgment.

“The original instance court ruled that in trading unregistered foreign cars,
regardless of whether the assignee is a car dealer or a consumer such as B,

unless the assignee checks the assignment certificate accompanied by
the presentation or the handing over of a copy of a document which verifies
the rights of the foreign manufacturer or the former genuine owner such as

a car certificate, or a reliable certificate etc. of the domestic dealer to the effect
that the dealer had verified these documents, the assignee is negligent”.

[underlined by the author]

40 It is certainly impossible to confirm in a general manner that the Japanese Supreme Court held
a particular view on secure transaction, with the reference to this case only. However, in the judgment on another
case on March 8, 1994 (48-3 Minshu 835), the Supreme Court also held that to invalidate the transaction of
the immovable as part of succession, which is contrary to the applicable law for succession (Taiwanese Law), would
seriously harm the “security of transaction” in Japan because there is no way of public notification of the restriction
on heir’s disposition imposed by the foreign applicable law of succession, while the laws of Japan as the place of
the transferred immovable do not stipulate such restriction, as does Taiwanese Law.

74