Floating Charge in Japan-A Theoretical and Practical Study

有人说，一个人不能拥有“一个集合的东西（Sachinbegriff）”的个人财产，但一个人只能拥有每一个东西，它构成了一个集合。指出“物的集合体”的概念违反了《日本民法典》第85条关于只有可支配物才是物的规定。然而，在实践中，我们很好地利用了库存融资（例如商品或贸易库存）。1979年以后，日本最高法院判定集合体中的存货是贷款的担保（所谓的浮动留置权）。学者们进行了无数的尝试，以一致地解释存货融资的两种效果。第一种是“物的集合体”担保的受让人即使在其担保权益被强制执行之前也可以对他人设定自己的权利;第二种是他不能对债务人=所有人转让的作为“物的集合体”组成部分的每一动产的人设定权利。这个问题是sti ...更多信息 我们从我们的项目中获得了以下结果。为了解释前一种效应，我们必须承认“物的集合”的概念（所谓“实体论”）。学者们对这一概念有不同的看法。然而，“物的集合”的概念是必要的：（1）解释关于事后取得的财产的协议（参见《统一商法典》第101（37）条），（2）理解在债务人=所有人提供库存品担保时，事后取得的财产已经完善，尽管每一动产最初并不包括“物的集合”。如果我们接受这一概念，就有可能解释后一种效果，我们应该弄清楚我们陈述这一概念的意图。“物的集合体”不能定义为一个物（物），而可以定义为“一个浮动的物体”（一个仅具有担保权益的物体），它的组成部分发生了变化，但它仍然存在。漂浮的物体不是一个可移动的物体。因此，只有当由浮动块组成的可移动属性彼此紧密地存在并且浮动块的整体大于所有部分时，才有可能完善浮动块。少

It is said that one can't have a personal property of "an aggregate of things (Sachinbegriff)", but one can own only each things, which consist of an aggregate. It is pointed out that the concept of "an aggregate of things" is against (section) 85 Japanese Civil Code that only corporeal objects are things. However, in practice, we make good use of an inventory financing (ex.merchandiseor stock in trade). After 1979 the Japanese Supreme Court judged an inventory in the aggregateto be a security for a loan (so-called floating lien).Numerous attempts have been made by schoiars to consistently explain two effects of inventory financing. The first one is that the transferee for security of "an aggregate of things" can set up his own right against others even before the enforcement on of his security interest ; the other is that he can't set up against the person whom the debtor=owner assigned each movable properties, which are component parts of "an aggregate of things". This problem is sti … More ll in controversial.We obtained the following results from our project. in order to explain the former effect, we must admit the concept of "an aggregate of things"(socalled "entity theory"). Opinions are divided among scholars on this concept. The concept of "an aggregate of things" is, however, necessary (1) to explain the agreement about after-aquired property (cf.UCC (section) 101 (37)), and (2) to understand that after-aquired properties have been already perfected at the time when the debtor=owner furnished security on an inventory, inspite that each movable properties didn't first consist of "an aggregate of things". If we accept thisconcept, it is possible to explain the latter effect.We should make it clear what we intended by the statement of this concept. Theterm of "an aggregate of things" can't be defined as one thing (res), but can be defined as "a floating mass" (an object of only security interest), which continues to exist inspite of changes in its component parts. The floating mass is not a corporeal object. Thus, the floating mass is possible to be perfected only when movable properties, which consist of the floating mass, exist closely to each others, and the whole of the floating mass is more greater than all parts. Less