Page 72 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชำานัญพิเศษ

Regarding this point, the existing German registration could have had some
relevance in terms of verification of the good faith of the transactions made by Japanese

importer Inter Auto and subsequent purchasers. There was again, therefore, an issue
regarding the international link between different markets respectively based on domestic

registration.
According to art.192 of the Japanese Civil Code, good faith is required for

acquisition of movable property from a transferor (not being the owner). According to
34
Japanese case law, the meaning of good faith is that “the person who commenced

possession of a movable was mistaken in believing that the opposite party was not
a person without any rights over the movable and was not negligent in believing so”.
35
A Supreme Court judgment held that, as with a stolen thing, any further additional

condition shall not be imposed. The issue in this case was what elements are necessary
36
for a purchaser of an imported car to be proved as having been in good faith. 37

Supreme Court’s refusal of High Court’s view

As for this point, the Japanese Supreme Court acknowledged the good-faith-

based acquisition of an allegedly individual consumer B, taking into consideration
the current practice of used-car import in Japan with the following view opposed to
the High Court’s view. The Supreme Court began to state its own position, with

the restatement of the High Court’s view as follows:

“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,

34 Supra note 7.
35 See the Supreme Court’s judgment on December 4, 1970 (24-13 Minshu 1987), according to which
art.192 of the Civil Code shall be applied also to car ownership in the case in which a car is not registered in line
with the Road Transportation Vehicle Act or in which the car registration is omitted.
36 The Supreme Court’s judgment on November 27, 1949 (5-13 Minshu 775).
37 Strictly speaking, the burden of proof regarding whether or not the transferee acted in good faith is
charged on the plaintiff in this case. According to the Supreme Court’s judgment on June 9, 1966 (20-5 Minshu
1011), the transferee with the possession is not charged with the proof of his/her own non-negligence, due to
the contrary assumption.

70