учебный год 2023 / Bu, Security Rights in Property in Chinese Law

European Review of Private Law 5-2010[1005-1033] © Kluwer Law International BV | Printed in the Great Britain

Security Rights in Property in Chinese Law: The Unattainable Goal of Constructing a Coherent Legal Regime?

YUANSHI BU*

Abstract: The Chinese Law on Property (LoP) was codified in March 2007. The existing provisions on security rights in property, which are an important component thereof, have been consolidated in the newly adopted Law. The aim of this article is to analyse in detail several highly controversial issues, such as creation and perfection, accessoriness and foreclosure of security rights, security rights in bankruptcy proceedings, priority rules, mortgages in movables and real estate, the floating charge, restrictions on the rights of disposal enjoyed by security provider as well as the bona fide acquisition of security rights. This analysis reveals a number of challenges arising from a number of incomplete mixed borrowings from foreign laws, with which China is now faced in constructing an internally coherent and nationally uniform system of property law.

Résumé: Le droit chinois de la propriété a été codifié en mars 2007. Les dispositions existantes sur le droit des sûretés en matière de propriété, qui en est une composante importante, ont été renforcées dans la loi nouvelle. Le but du présent article est d’analyser en détail plusieurs questions hautement controversables, telles que la création et l’achèvement, le caractère accessoire et la forclusion des sûretés, le droit des sûretés dans les procédures de liquidation judiciaire, la procédure d’ordre, les hypothèques sur des biens meubles et immeubles, les « charges flottantes », les restrictions au droit de disposition dont bénéficie celui qui octroie une sûreté, ainsi que l’acquisition de bonne foi de sûretés. Cette analyse révèle plusieurs défis, provenant d’emprunts à des droits étrangers et mêlés de manière incomplète, défis auxquels la Chine fait face actuellement dans la construction d’un système de droit de la propriété cohérent intrinsèquement et uniforme au niveau national.

Zusammenfassung: Das chinesische Sachenrecht wurde im März 2007 kodifiziert. Die bisherigen Bestimmungen zu den Scherungsrechten am Eigentum, die einen wichtigen Teil des Sachenrechts darstellten, wurden überarbeitet und in ein neu angenommenes Gesetz eingeführt. Dieser Beitrag beabsichtigt einige der sehr kontroversen Themen, wie zum Beispiel die Schaffung und Vollendung, die Akzessorietät und Vollstreckung von Sicherungsrechten, Sicherungsrechte in Insolvenzverfahren, die Prioritätsregel, Hypotheken auf bewegliche und unbewegliche Sachen, die Floating Charge, die Beschränkungen der Verfügungsbefugnis des Anbieters eines Sicherungsrechts sowie auch der gutgläubige Erwerb eines Sicherungsrechts, detailliert darzustellen und zu analysieren. Diese Analyse wird eine Anzahl von Herausforderungen aufzeigen, die durch eine Anzahl nicht vollständig aus ausländischen Rechtsordnungen übernommener Institute verursacht wurde und mit denen China bei der Schaffung eines intern kohärenten und national einheitlichen Systems des Sachenrechts konfrontiert wird.

*Professor Dr, LL.M. (Harvard), Professor of East Asian Commercial Law, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br., Germany.

1005

1.Introduction

Chinese property law has undergone a significant overhaul in recent years. In March 2007, the long-awaited Law on Property (LoP) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)1 was adopted by the National People’s Congress. To the disappointment of many,2 this Law has failed to provide a clear and precise set of rules governing property transactions but left a great number of controversial issues open to the courts. On 24 May 2009, two judicial interpretations were issued by the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (SPC) regarding condominium property (Wohnungseigentum) and real estate service companies. With the adoption of the Law, a further step was made towards the creation of a Chinese civil code. In December 2009, there followed the ratification of the Law on Tort Liability, which is also discussed in this article. The rules on conflict of laws, marriage and succession are the next targets for codification or revision. It is envisaged that these will also be included in the future civil code.

The LoP devotes an entire chapter, and nearly one-third of its entire content, to security rights in property (dingliches Sicherungsrecht). This move was intended to consolidate the existing, partially fragmented and contradictory legal rules in this field. The Chinese system of security law began to evolve as early as the 1980s. The General Principles of Civil Law enacted in 1986 essentially provide four types of security rights: guarantees, mortgages, deposits, and liens, without setting out any detailed provisions governing their creation and enforcement. To solve the widespread problem of ‘chain debts’ and liquidity difficulties experienced by businesses, the Law on Securities (LoS) was ratified in the 1990s. A special feature of this Law is that it covers both securities in person and securities in property. The LoS was later complemented by the Judicial Interpretation of the SPC regarding Several Questions of the Application of the Security Act. In addition, the Law on Maritime Property and the Law on Civil Aviation have stipulated security rights in vessels and aircraft. After the LoP entered into effect on 1 July 2007, the question arises as to which Law is applicable in relation to security rights in property, in view of the many statutes given the numerous governing statutes as mentioned above. According to Article 178 LoP, the latter prevails in the event of any conflict with the LoS. Conflicts with any other Laws are to be solved in accordance with such general principles as lex specialis derogat legi generali.

The LoP continues the Chinese legislature’s policy of incorporating foreign law and is an excellent example of mixed borrowings.3 Among the security rights in property, the ‘floating charge’ is allegedly a mixture of the floating charge in English

1 A free online English translation of the statute is available at <www.lehmanlaw.com/resource- centre/laws-and-regulations/general/property-rights-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china.html>.

2Regarding the history of this legislation, see Bu Yuanshi, Einführung in das Recht Chinas (2009), § 14, 1–3.

3Xi Xiaoming, ‘Speech at the International Conference on Security Rights in Property’, <http://vip. chinalawinfo.com/newlaw2002/slc/slc.asp?db=chl&gid=109977>, 29 Apr. 2008.

1006

law and the business charge in Japanese law. The mortgage on movables is modelled on Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), whereas the entire structure of the Law, as well as its basic concepts and terminology, are essentially based on German law. For instance, from a semantic viewpoint, the exact English translation of the title of the LoP would be the Law on Rights to Things (Sachenrechtsgesetz). Quite apart from this, China remains a Socialist country, which explains some particular aspects of the LoP, such as the ban on private land ownership and, consequently, the unavailability of land ownership for the creation of security rights. Instead, the right of land use, a right in rem, assumes the role of land ownership in business transactions and constitutes the most important assets as a basis for the creation of security rights.4

The aim of this article is not to give a detailed and complete account of security rights in Chinese law5 but to highlight some controversial issues in order to illustrate how the Chinese legislature and legal scholars use foreign sources and adapt them to Chinese circumstances. From the perspective of security rights, this article will examine in detail the risks associated with mixed borrowings of foreign law and provide a critical appraisal of the LoP. It begins with a discussion of the basic principles of Chinese property law, which also governs the creation, transfer, and extinction of security rights in movables and real estate. In section 3, some contentious issues regarding security rights in general will be discussed. Sections 4, 5, and 6 address mortgages, pledge, and the bona fide acquisition of security rights. This article ends with several concluding observations.

2. Basic Principles of Chinese Property Law

Chinese property law features the following basic principles: a fixed number of property rights, disclosure, and the principle of separation. They have been borrowed primarily from the German Civil Code (BGB) and are therefore not unfamiliar to European lawyers. However, the adoption of these principles in China has not been entirely free from doubt and challenges.

The ‘fixed number’ principle restricts by definition the freedom of choices enjoyed by the parties to create new types of property rights and has been criticized by some Chinese scholars for this reason.6 The justification for incorporating this principle is based primarily on the absolute effect of property rights, even though a business approach to this principle as adopted in the United States7 is also discussed

4 Infra s. 4.1.

5Cf. Tu Changfeng, ‘Chinese Business Law’, ed. Bu Yuanshi, supra n. 2, Ch. 7; a book review by André Janssen is also printed in this volume.

6 Cf. Bu Yuanshi, supra n. 2, s. 14, 17–18.

7Most notably Reinier H. Kraakman & Henry Hansmann, ‘Property, Contract, and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights’, Journal of Legal Studies 31 (2002): S373; Henry E. Smith & Thomas W. Merrill, ‘Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle’, Yale Law Journal 110 (2000): 1.

1007

occasionally. As the legal effect of property rights is also binding on third parties, those who are thus affected have a legitimate expectation to know what kind of property rights are permitted by law and what contents they are allowed to have. The two aspects of the ‘fixed number’ rule, to wit the fixed number of types (Typenzwang) and the fixed number of contents (Typenfixierung), are now laid down by statute in Article 5 LoP, which reads: ‘The type and content of property rights shall be proscribed by law’.8 The proponents of this system ultimately prevailed with the argument that without such a ‘fixed number’ the distinction between the law of obligations and property law, which has already taken root as an undisputed principle in Chinese law, would become less clear-cut. That being said, Chinese law faces several unresolved issues in relation to this ‘fixed number’ rule, such as the integration of trusts into the property law regime (as proposed by the leading writers),9 the recognition of atypical security rights such as transfers by way of security (Sicherungsübereignung), and the security transfer of real estate (mortgages in the narrow sense),10 which have yet to be regulated by this Law. As regards trusts, the model constructed by the Law is a problematic one.11 Recognizing trusts implies recognition of fragmented ownership. In order to avoid split ownership, the notion of beneficiary ownership has been rejected in China.12

Disclosure has been incorporated as a principle of property law by Article 6 LoP, according to which the creation, alteration, transfer, and extinction of property rights in real estate require registration, and the creation and transfer of property

8In the opinion of some commentators, this definition fails to capture the essence of the ‘fixed number’ system under which the creation of new types of property rights by agreement between the parties is prohibited; Chen Benhan & Chen Ying, ‘On the Principle of Numerus Clausus – Discussion of s. 5 of the Property Act’, Law Review (Faxue Pinglun) 4 (2009): 36.

9Other civil law jurisdictions that have incorporated the concept of trust into their legal systems have experienced the same problem – Sjef van Erp, ‘Civil and Common Property Law: Caveat Comparator – The Value of Legal Historical-Comparative Analysis’, European Review of Public (2003): 404–405.

10This refers to the legal construct under which the owner of real estate conveys the title to the mortgage lender in order to secure the mortgage lender’s claim against the owner and the owner enjoys a redemption right upon repaying the loan. In the Chinese context, this construction is used primarily to secure the loan payment incurred for the purchase of a condominium apartment under construction. In this scenario, the purchaser signs a purchase agreement with the real estate developer regarding a condo apartment being built and makes a down payment. To finance the purchase, he assigns the claim under the purchase contract to delivery of the apartment upon completion to a bank and the bank is obligated to pay the remaining purchase price. Strictly speaking, the underlying right to secure the bank’s claim is not an existing title in rem but a right of expectation to the future title to the condominium apartment. For details, see Cui Lingzhi, ‘Analysis of the Nature of Mortgage as Atypical Security Rights In Rem’, Inquiry (Qiusuo) 9 (2009): 145–147.

11In China, the Law on Trusts tries to avoid doctrinal delineation of trust property and stipulates instead concrete rules regarding the legal relationship between the trustee and beneficiary. Wang Yong, ‘On the Connections between Trusts Law and Real Rights Law’, Journal of Peking University (Philosophy & Social Sciences) 6 (2008): 96.

12Ibid., 95.

1008

rights in movables require delivery. To implement the principle of disclosure, several administrative regulations such as Registration Measures of Mortgage in Movables,13 Registration Measures for Pledges on Accounts Receivable,14 and the SAIC’s Registration Measures for Pledges on Shares15 were ratified shortly after the LoP entered into force. Local land registries and house registries are also reinforced or established. Disclosure is also deemed crucial to property law because it is associated with the protection of third parties. The modified disclosure principle has been incorporated after the German model: Brevi manu traditio (Article 25 LoP; BGB 929(2)), constitutum possessorium (Article 27 LoP; BGB 930), and assignment of claim for possession (Article 26 LoP; BGB 931).

The principle of separation has been subject to what is by far the most extensive debate since property law was revived after China adopted a policy of greater openness and embarked on the economic reforms of 1978. The debate has continued even after the adoption of the LoP. In essence, this principle deals with the question whether the obligation (Verpflichtung) is separate from the disposal of rights (Verfügung), which normally constitutes the result of performing the obligation. The opposite of the principle of separation is that of unity, as adopted by the French Code Civil. However, the principle of separation has acquired another meaning in the Chinese context. It does not refer to the separation of two legal transactions – agreement in rem and agreement to create obligation – but to the separation between the validity of the contract that creates a property right, on the one hand, and the registration or delivery in performance of this contract on the other. As simple and natural as could be the notion that a contract remains valid, even if it has not been performed, considerable confusion on this subject has persisted in Chinese law over years. This has resulted in judgments that have held contracts establishing security rights to be void just because the provider of the security had breached the contract and refused to register the security. Applying the principle of separation, within the meaning that this term has acquired in the Chinese context, to real security rights, this means that the contract remains valid, even if the provider has failed to complete the registration formality through which the mortgage is created. For European lawyers, this clarification appears to be redundant and a principle of separation within this meaning would make no sense, while in China the incorporation of this principle in Article 9 LoP is claimed as one of the major contributions to be made by this statute.16

13Dongchan Diya Dengji Banfa, promulgated by the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) on 17 Oct. 2007.

14Yingshou Zhangkuan Zhiya Dengji Banfa, promulgated by the Central Bank on 26 Sep. 2007.

15Gongshang Guanli Jiguan Guquan Chuzhi Dengji Banfa, promulgated by the SAIC on 4 Sep. 2008.

16Article 9 reads: The contract between parties regarding the creation, alteration, transfer, and extinguishment of rights on immovables in rem enters into force upon conclusion of the contract, unless otherwise stipulated by laws or agreed by the parties; the failure to register the rights in rem does not affect the validity of the contract.

1009

In contrast, the genuine principle of separation as understood by Europeans has not yet been recognized in Chinese law. The reason for this is that the majority of legal scholars continue to reject the notion that a separate legal transaction is required for the disposal of rights.

3.Real Security Rights in General

3.1Type, Creation, and Transfer of Security Rights

Chinese law stipulates the following types of security rights: mortgage (Hypothek), pledge (Pfandrecht), lien (Zurückbehaltungsrecht), and retention of title (Eigentumsvorbehalt). Movables, real estate, and rights are available as collateral assets to be encumbered in order to secure claims. Mortgages, being non-possessory security interests, represent the most widely used security right in China, in particular mortgages on real estate. In China, a mortgage may also be created in movable property and differs from a pledge only as to the requirement that possession should be taken of the item in question. The fixing of a mortgage consists of the conclusion of a mortgage agreement and, normally, the registration of the mortgage. The registration procedure is governed by the Registration Measures for Houses17 and the Registration Measures for Land.18

A pledge is defined as a possessory security interest in movables or in rights. Consequently, the creation of a pledge requires transfer of possession in addition to a contract of pledge. A pledge is created only upon the pledgee taking possession.19 Compared to pledges in rights, pledges in movables are less useful because of the requirement that possession be transferred. To create a pledge on rights, it is necessary either to supply the document evidencing the right or to register the pledge with the relevant authority after the pledge agreement has been concluded.20

Under Chinese law, the transfer of security rights is only possible in conjunction with the transfer of the secured claims. This is due to the strictly accessory nature of security rights. If the transfer of a secured claim turns out to be void, the transfer of the associated security rights will also automatically be void. Some leading writers draw the conclusion from Article 192 LoP that a separate assignment of mortgage is permissible. This Article states: ‘A mortgage cannot be transferred alone in separation from the creditor’s claim or serve to secure other creditors’ claims. In case of a transfer of the claim, the mortgage securing that claim is transferred simultaneously, unless otherwise stipulated by laws or agreed by the parties’. The first sentence of Article 192, on the one hand, confirms the accessory nature of security

17Fangwu Dengji Banfa, ratified by the Ministry of Construction on 25 Feb. 2008 and entered into force on 1 Jul. 2008.

18Tudi Dengji Banfa, ratified by the Ministry of Land Resources on 30 Dec. 2007 and entered into force on 1 Feb. 2008.

19Article 212 LoP.

20Article 224 LoP.

1010

rights established by Article 172 LoP, whereas, on the other hand, it excludes the possibility of creating pledges in mortgages.21 The question now is whether the second sentence of this provision can be construed in the aforementioned way. In the author’s opinion, Article 192(2) refers to the exceptional rule that the transfer of the creditor’s claim should not bring about the transfer of the ancillary mortgage, rather than to the opposite.

That being so, it remains to be clarified what happens to the ancillary mortgage if the parties did indeed agree to such an exception. A natural response to this question would be that such a mortgage would become extinguished at the time at which the transfer of the creditor’s claim takes place. According to some scholarly interpretation, the mortgage may still be valid and secure the remaining creditor’s claim if only part of the claim is being transferred or in the event of securitization.22

3.2Opposabilité aux tiers

For the creation of mortgages, registration is the rule. In those cases that are laid down by statute, failure to register does not result in the invalidity of the mortgage but only in its invalidity in relation to third parties acting in good faith. This exception, coined by the term opposabilité aux tiers, is applicable to the creation of mortgages on movables and motor vehicles,23 mortgages on vessels and aircraft under construction,24 and to floating charges. Often, even where the facts of the case are relatively straightforward, the meaning of this notion of ‘invalidity in relation to third parties acting in good faith’ is ambiguous.25 This is illustrated by what can happen in the case of mortgages on motor vehicles.

Under the first scenario, the owner of a car creates an unregistered mortgage on this vehicle and then defaults. If the mortgagor has unsecured creditors other than the mortgagee creditor, is the mortgage enforceable against such unsecured creditors? If we rely solely on the plain wording of the Law, other unsecured creditors could be classified as bona fide third persons if they were unaware of the mortgage.26 As a result, the mortgage would be unenforceable against such unsecured creditors, which means that the mortgagee would be denied the benefit of the

21Wang Liming, ‘The Development and Improvement of Secured Transactions in Our Country by the Property Act’, <www.civillaw.com.cn/wqf/weizhang.asp?id=36636>.

22Ibid., 22.

23Articles 24 and 188 LoP.

24Article 188 LoP.

25For a detailed discussion, see Wang Rongzhen, ‘On the Scope of Bona Fide Third Party against Whom the Alteration of Property Rights Cannot Be Held’, Pacific Journal (Taipingyang Xuekan) 5 (2009): 52–61.

26Same opinion: Liu Yujie, ‘Analysis of the Effect of Unregistered Mortgage in Movables’, Journal of Law Application (Falü Shiyong) 10 (2009): 37.

1011

mortgage. The question that may reasonably be asked is what the purpose of such a partially unenforceable mortgage could be if its effect is redundant even in this straightforward scenario.27 Furthermore, it is impossible to identify any difference between such a partially unenforceable mortgage and a completely unenforceable mortgage. For this reason, some scholars propose that ordinary unsecured creditors be excluded from the category of bona fide third parties from the perspective of the opposabilité aux tiers rule.28 Only a person having rights in rem in the same property may qualify as bona fide third party, provided that he was unaware of the existence of the unregistered right and his right has been registered. One leading writer takes the even more restrictive approach of opining that the term ‘bona fide third party’ refers only to the acquirer of the same property.29

Under the second scenario as set out below, the owner of a car creates an unregistered mortgage on this vehicle and then sells it to a purchaser. The question is whether the mortgagee may enforce the mortgage if the mortgagor defaults. The answer to this question depends on the following factors: (1) does the purchaser know about the mortgage? If yes, the mortgage is enforceable against the purchaser, meaning that the mortgagee is allowed to sell the car and obtain preferential payment from the proceeds. If not, then (2) it needs to be established whether the purchase has been registered with the local car registry. If this is indeed the case, the mortgage is probably unenforceable against the purchaser; if not, the mortgage is probably enforceable against the latter. The enforceability of the mortgage depends on the question of how to weigh the interest of the purchaser against that of the mortgagee, because not only the unregistered mortgage but also the unregistered purchase itself is unenforceable against a bona fide third party such as the unregistered mortgagee. What remains unclear is the following question: (3) did the mortgagee consent to the sale? If the mortgagee did not, the disposal of the original owner may be regarded as a disposal without entitlement (Article 191 LoP). In such a case, the purchaser may acquire title to the car only when acting in good faith, which means that registration does not make the title indefeasible against anyone if the purchaser was aware of the mortgage. If the mortgagee consented to the purchase, the mortgage would become extinguished through such consent, so that the question as to whose right prevails becomes obsolete.30 In the literature on the subject, there is another approach to the third question, which holds that the restriction on disposal does not even apply

27Under the UCC, an attached but unperfected security interest is at least enforceable in this scenario outside bankruptcy proceeding.

28Wang Hongliang, ‘The Analysis of Independence of the Rules Regarding the Effect of Mortgage Registration in Movables’, Legal Science (Faxue) 11 (2009): 96; Rongzhen Wang, supra n. 25, 57–58 with further references.

29Wang Hongliang, ibid., 96.

30Cf. infra s. 4.3.

1012

where the mortgage has not yet been registered.31 Following this approach, the third question becomes obsolete.

Under the third scenario, the owner of a car first creates an unregistered mortgage for the benefit of A on the car, then creates another unregistered mortgage for the benefit of B as well as a registered mortgage for the benefit of C. The question which arises is what will be the order of priority of the three parties in the event of the owner defaulting. According to one interpretation, this order of priority is determined solely on the basis of the sequence of registration as stipulated by Article 199 LoP,32 regardless of whether good faith was present or not. Otherwise, the outcome would be incompatible with Article 199. For instance, if C was aware of the existence of the first two unregistered mortgages, C would be denied priority despite his mortgage having been registered because of the bad faith factor. Under Article 199, however, C’s priority would always prevail over that of A and B, because his mortgage is registered and those of the other two are not. However, why does Article 199 regard the good faith factor as irrelevant in spite of the enforceability of an unperfected mortgage against bona fide third parties? No plausible answer can be found here. Some assume that this could be the result of confusion between the effect of registration for real estate and that which applies in relation to movables.33

In short, the meaning of opposabilité aux tiers is often entangled with the question of bona fide acquisition in the Chinese context and is therefore judged in a legal setting in which it was not designed to operate. Bona fide acquisition is linked to power of disposal (Verfügungsmacht) in Chinese law, as is the case in German law, and comes into play where the power of disposal does not apply. The effect of opposabilité aux tiers is not supposed to be construed in the light of the power of disposal and bona fide acquisition. To allege that both concepts are totally incompatible is probably premature. However, without detailed rules – as is currently the case in the LoP – such a combination ultimately produces unsolvable confusion and, inevitably, arbitrariness in the application of the law. There could not possibly be a more undesirable result in relation to property law, which requires a high degree of predictability and certainty.

Thus far, various legal systems have been faced with the same problem after they adopted the term opposabilité aux tiers as it applies in France, Japan, or Taiwan or have made a practical distinction between attachment and perfection as happens

31Liu Yujie, supra n. 26, 37.

32Wang Hongliang, supra n. 28, 96.

33According to Liu Yujie, supra n. 26, 37.

1013

in the United States. Accordingly, a huge amount of literature has been generated to deal with such cases. In Japan, this has prompted a debate which has lasted for almost a century.34 Why did China decide to follow the same ‘detour’? In the author’s view, the effect of applying opposabilité aux tiers in conjunction with the registration requirement is frequently praised for its flexibility35 and this is likely to be the reason why this notion appealed to certain commentators as well as to the Chinese legislature. This positive outcome cannot simply be ignored, but at the same time, it needs to be pointed out that, without a clear and precise set of rules which determine who is regarded as such a third party, this apparent advantage will only lead to chaos before the advantage of flexibility has even become discernible – a fact that is often ignored or forgotten in China.

3.3No Non-accessor y Security Rights

Article 172(1) LoP provides that:

To create a security right in property, a security contract shall be concluded in accordance with this Law and other laws. A security contract is an ancillary contract of the principal contract. If the principal contract is null and void, the security contract shall be null and void accordingly, unless otherwise stipulated by laws.

There is consensus among Chinese scholars that the rule that security rights are accessory by nature has been laid down by this clause. What is controversial is the precise meaning of the exception mentioned towards the end of Article 172 and the admissibility of independent security rights. Under current practice, the validity of security rights in property has never been confirmed and only in international contracts are independent guarantee contracts allowed by way of exception.36 Nevertheless, Article 172 can be deemed having provided some leeway for a non-accessory security right for future needs.

It should be noted, however, that, strictly speaking, the LoP does not use the term ‘accessory nature of the security rights to the secured claim’ but rather refers to the validity of the contract establishing the security rights being dependent on that of the principal contract. This distinction has also resulted from confusion among the leading writers.37

In a European context, there has, ever since the publication of the Segré Report in 1966, been an ongoing discussion on the introduction of a unified,

34Hans-Peter Marutschke, Übertragung dinglicher Rechte und gutgläubiger Erwerb im japanischen Immobiliarsachenrecht (1997), 136 et seq.

35Gao Shengping, ‘System of the Registration of Mortgage in Movables under the Doctrine of Registration Setting-Up against Others’, Jurist (Faxuejia) 6 (2007): 119.

36For further details, see Tu Changfeng, supra n. 5, 4.

37Ibid., 3.

1014