{"created":"2023-06-20T13:51:18.587439+00:00","id":795,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"eb741363-2476-4bb4-8e7c-dfb2f531137e"},"_deposit":{"created_by":3,"id":"795","owners":[3],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"795"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:oiu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000795","sets":[]},"author_link":["3243"],"item_3_biblio_info_12":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"2018-03-31","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"3","bibliographicPageEnd":"40","bibliographicPageStart":"23","bibliographicVolumeNumber":"31","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"国際研究論叢 : 大阪国際大学紀要"},{"bibliographic_title":"OIU journal of international studies","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_3_description_11":{"attribute_name":"抄録(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"　On 1 June 2015, the Supreme Court issued an important decision. This was on the interpretation of the Civil Code 468, paragraph 1. The content of this judgment deliberated on breaking of the defense. The Supreme Court made an important decision on the requirements for those who are subject to claims. Many lawyers have discussed this issue for a long time. Because I had a strong interest in this ruling, I studied a number of past decisions and theories relevant to this judgment.","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_description_15":{"attribute_name":"表示順","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"2","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_description_2":{"attribute_name":"ページ属性","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"P","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_description_8":{"attribute_name":"記事種別(日)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"論文","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_description_9":{"attribute_name":"記事種別(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"Article","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_3_source_id_1":{"attribute_name":"雑誌書誌ID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN10110523","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_3_source_id_19":{"attribute_name":"ISSN","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"09153586","subitem_source_identifier_type":"ISSN"}]},"item_creator":{"attribute_name":"著者","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"中山, 実郎"},{"creatorName":"ナカヤマ, ジツロウ","creatorNameLang":"ja-Kana"},{"creatorName":"Jitsuro, Nakayama","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"3243","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"2018-06-06"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"31-3-023.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"462.7 kB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_note","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"31-3-023.pdf","url":"https://oiu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/795/files/31-3-023.pdf"},"version_id":"b23322cf-5ce4-4f99-a4a9-ab6cdc568fce"}]},"item_keyword":{"attribute_name":"キーワード","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_subject":"債務者が異議をとどめないでした承諾","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"抗弁切断の効果","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"観念の通知","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"禁反言公信力説","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"譲受人の主観的要件","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"譲受人の善意無過失","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"抗弁事由の存在","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"利息制限法違反","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"旧貸金業法43条1項","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"みなし弁済規定の適用","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"債権取引の安全","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"債務者の保護","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"債務者の帰責性","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"},{"subitem_subject":"譲受人・債務者間における利益の均衡","subitem_subject_scheme":"Other"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"債務者が異議をとどめないでした指名債権譲渡の承諾と譲受人の主観的要件","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"債務者が異議をとどめないでした指名債権譲渡の承諾と譲受人の主観的要件"},{"subitem_title":"A Study on the Supreme Court Judgment of June 1, 2015","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"3","owner":"3","path":["159"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"2018-06-06"},"publish_date":"2018-06-06","publish_status":"0","recid":"795","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["債務者が異議をとどめないでした指名債権譲渡の承諾と譲受人の主観的要件"],"weko_creator_id":"3","weko_shared_id":3},"updated":"2023-06-20T14:00:35.559394+00:00"}