Setoff; Aufrechnung

Japanese: 相殺 - そうさい（英語表記）setoff; Aufrechnung

When a debtor has a claim against his/her creditor of the same kind as his/her debt, the claim (the claim of the party doing the offsetting, the active claim) and the debt (the claim to be offset, the passive claim) are extinguished in equal amounts. The system of offsetting has long been recognized for the sake of fairness between the two parties, and there are examples of methods that are recognized only by court decisions, and examples of legislation that state that offsetting has occurred automatically by law when the situation is such that offsetting is possible (a suitable situation for offsetting). Under current Japanese law, offsetting can be achieved by a set-off contract or by a unilateral manifestation of intention to the other party (unilateral act) (Civil Code Article 506, Paragraph 1). However, in order to set off, both claims must be in a state of being set off (Article 505, paragraph 1), i.e., both claims are valid, both are due, and not prohibited from being set off, such as those with a special agreement not to set off (paragraph 2), or those whose contents make them impossible or inappropriate to set off (Article 505, paragraph 1, proviso, Articles 509, 510, and 511, Commercial Code, Article 200, paragraph 2, etc.). Set-off is effective retroactively for equal amounts from the time when the claim is in a state of being set off by unilateral manifestation of intention (Civil Code, Article 506, paragraph 2; see also Article 512). However, set-off by a set-off contract is permitted for claims that are not in a state of being set off, but it cannot be asserted against a third party acting in good faith (Article 505, paragraph 2). However, precedent has stated that the set-off of unpaid claims based on a set-off reservation can be asserted against the person who has attached the receiver's claim (Supreme Court decision, June 24, 1970, Minshu Vol. 24, No. 6, 587). Thus, set-off also functions as a security for claims. The Bankruptcy Law has special provisions regarding set-off (Articles 98 and following).

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise Encyclopedia About Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Information

Japanese:

債務者が自己の債務と同種の債権を，自己の債権者に対して有する場合，その債権 (相殺する側の債権，自働債権) と債務 (相殺される側の債権，受働債権) を対等額で消滅させること。相殺の制度は古くから両当事者の公平のため認められており，その方法としては裁判によってのみ認めるものや，相殺可能な状態 (相殺適状) になれば法律上当然に行われたものとする立法例がある。日本の現行法では，相殺は相殺契約によるか，相手方への一方的意思表示 (単独行為) による (民法 506条1項) 。ただし相殺を行うには双方の債権が相殺適状にあること (505条1項) ，つまり両債権が有効に存在し，ともに弁済期であり，相殺禁止債権，たとえば相殺をしない特約のある場合 (2項) ，内容が相殺できないものや相殺を不適当とする場合 (505条1項但書，509，510，511条，商法 200条2項など) でないことが必要である。相殺は一方的意思表示によって相殺適状になったときにさかのぼって対等額につき効果を生じる (民法 506条2項，なお 512条参照) 。もっとも，相殺契約による相殺は相殺適状にない債権についても許されるが，善意の第三者には対抗できない (505条2項) 。ただし判例は相殺予約に基づく弁済期未到来債権の相殺は受働債権を差押えた者に対抗しうるとしている (最判 1970.6.24.民集 24巻6号 587) 。こうして相殺は債権担保の作用も営んでいる。破産法には相殺について特則がある (98条以下) 。

出典　ブリタニカ国際大百科事典小項目事典ブリタニカ国際大百科事典小項目事典について　情報

<<: Countervailing Duties Act

>>: Tomé de Sousa