COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH CONCERNING INTERESTRELATION OFCUSTOMERS IN CREDIT-TRANSACTIONS.

关于信用交易中客户利益关系的全面研究。

• 批准号: 07620025
• 负责人: SEKI Takeshi
• 金额: $ 0.96万
• 依托单位: NIIGATA UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 1995
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 1995 至 1996
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-07620025/
• 关键词: PRINCIPLES OF TRUST; CUT-OFF OF DEFENSES; 継続的債権関係; 不安の抗弁; 事情変更の原則

I conducted comprehensive research related to installment sales in Germany. The aim of my research was how to protect customers in modern credit-transactions. As a result, I discovered German judgments and literatures in which the cut-off of defenses against financers of customers was recognized. These have considered that customers should be given such a defense if man can recognize an actual and economical bond between contracts of sale and loan for consumption. But legal explanations presented by literatures were not consistent : Oneside considers, for example, as that bond the "aim-bond" (s.(section) 818), "one action" (s.(section) 139), an "action basis" (Geschaftsgrundfage) founded from (section) 242 or "same legal relation" in (section) 273 of German civil law. The other, understand the relation between customers and creditinstution as a partnership-contract and then recognizes the customer's cut-off of defense as a responsibility according to (section) 415 of German civil law. However, German judgments understood the matter of "informed consent" (Aufklarungspflicht) : These have protected customers in applications of (section) 242 of German civil law. However, cut-off of defenses for customers should be recognized without informed consent, because customers have little knowledge concerning risk resulting from various contracts among seller, customer and creditinstitution, as C.Bockmann says in his work.

我在德国进行了与分期付款销售相关的全面研究。我研究的目的是如何在现代信用交易中保护客户。结果，我发现了德国的判决和文献，其中承认切断对客户融资者的防御。这些人认为，如果人们能够认识到销售合同和消费贷款合同之间的实际和经济联系，就应该给予客户这样的辩护。但文献所提出的法律解释并不一致：例如，一方认为该债券是德国民法第242条建立的“目的债券”(S，第818条)、“一诉”(S，第139条)、“诉讼根据”(Geschaftsgrundfage)或第273条中的“相同法律关系”。二是将客户与信用的关系理解为合伙合同，并根据德国民法第415条将客户的抗辩事由认定为一种责任。然而，德国的判决理解“知情同意”(Aufklarungspflicht)的问题：这些条款在适用德国民法第242条时保护了客户。然而，客户防御的切断应该在没有知情同意的情况下得到承认，因为客户对卖方、客户和信贷机构之间的各种合同造成的风险知之甚少，正如C.Bockmann在他的工作中所说的那样。