Page 58 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

registrations in different countries? The case disputed here was a very similar case.
In fact, the Supreme Court held that the simple existence of registration abroad shall

not be enough for identifying the place of primary use there. However, the Supreme
12
Court has not established any clear criterion for identification. 13

Another crucial problem with this formulation regards another key concept of
“a state ready for use.” A clear explanation of how to recognize such a state is also
14
omitted from the judgment. The court referred to such legislation of a country that
recognizes a state ready for use on the basis of registration. However, which law shall
15
be considered in the international context? 16
The remarkable point is that such concepts as “the place of its primary use” and

“state ready for use” have not been adopted nor discussed in legislation, case law, or
academia in any country as yet, except in this Japanese case. Certainly, similar
17

12 The Supreme Court held that, “although the registration in Germany was formally existing, it was evident
that the Car was not in a state to be placed in use.”
13 The Appeal Tokyo High Court considered the place of registration as the place of primary use. As we see
later, the Supreme Court refused such an absolute identification simply based on the registration. See infra note 23.
14 In the Supreme Court’s judgment, there is confusion in the use of terminology. In the summary of
judgment, it adopted the wording “state ready for use,” while it used in other places different expressions such as
being “placed in use”, being “placed in use for a considerable scope”, and “may move around for a considerable scope
over border.” It is very doubtful how carefully the Supreme Court considered the nuances of different expressions.
Moreover, Japanese scholars are not careful about some possible different nuances in terminology.
For instance, DOGAUCHI (supra note 11) 129. See HARATA (supra note*) 384-85.
15 However, according to Japanese Law, a certain kind of car can be put in the state ‘ready for use’ without
registration in Japan. See the Japanese Road Transportation Vehicle Act (art.4). HARATA (supra note*) 388-89.
16 The Supreme Court discussed the concept of the place of primary use, considering mainly the case
in which a car is physically located and also registered within Japan.
However, the question arises of the case in which such a car registered in Japan is moved into another
country in terms of the identification of the place of primary use. If the place of primary use is deemed to be still in
Japan, it leads to the extraterritorial application of Japanese Law regarding the ownership of a car physically being
abroad. See infra III-1.
At any rate, the Supreme Court, without referring to such a case, established a general formulation for
the choice of law.
17 As for discussion in other countries, see, for instance, VENTURINI, Property, in IECL, vol.III,
chap.21 (1976) pp.1-37; STOLL, Rechtskollisionen beim Gebietswechsel beweglicher Sachen, 38 RabelsZ.(1974)
452, 457ss.; KREUZER, Gutachtliche Stellungsnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Ergänzung des
Internationalen Privatrechts, in HENRICH, Vorschläge und Gutachten zur Reform des deutschen internationalen
Sachen- und Immaterialgüterrechts (1991) pp. 57, 72-73, 84, 94; HANISCH, I diritti reali, con particolare riguardo
alle cose mobile ed alle garanzie mobiliari senza possesso, in Il nuovo diritto internazionale privato in Svizzera

56