|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
[1] Whether the provisions of a foreign law to be applied to legal relations involving foreign elements as the governing law is subject to the court’s ex officio inspection (affirmative), and in a case involving foreign elements, whether the court is responsible for examining and inspecting international conventions or the governing law under the Act on Private International Law to be applied to legal relations, even though no argument has been raised on governing law (affirmative)
Whether the main text of Article 25(1) and Article 26(1) of the former Act on Private International Law are analogously applied as the standard for determining the governing law on the assumption of a contract by a juridical act (affirmative), and, in the assumption of a contract by a juridical act involving foreign elements, whether the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected is the law of the country that applies to the assumed contract (affirmative in principle)
[2] In a case where: (a) Incorporated Company A, which runs a petroleum development business in Indonesia, concluded a contract with Foreign Company B, which was established under the law of the Republic of Seychelles; (b) under the contract, governed by U.K. law, a part of Company A’s participating interest, which was determined in accordance with a production sharing agreement that it entered with an Indonesian state-owned petroleum company and oil and gas industry regulatory agency, was transferred to Company B; and (c) a dispute arose as to whether the assignment of Company A’s participating interest to Company B was validly completed, the case holding that the possibility of the assignment of a participating interest and its effect should be determined in accordance with the law of Indonesia, and that the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine even though there was no circumstance indicating that prerequisites demanded under the above contract for the valid assignment of a participating interest were satisfied
[3] Standard for determining the legality of a disposition refusing a tax reduction in a lawsuit for revocation of the refusal disposition, and whether the burden of proof of the legality of such refusal disposition lies in the tax authority (affirmative in principle)
|
