for instanceの部分一致の例文一覧と使い方
該当件数 : 5872件
In Japan, isobutane is used as a refrigerant instead of fluorocarbon refrigerants. Isobutane is flammable, and so there are many precautions taken to prevent accidents. For instance, refrigerator piping which used to be welded, has been changed to a seamless pipe to prevent gas leakages. Moreover, defroster heaters, which used to be in singlelayer tubes, are now in double-layer tubes, so that surface temperatures never get higher than the combustion point. These forward technologies support the use of nonfluorocarbon. For other refrigeration equipment, such as convenience store show cases, non-fluorocarbon products using carbon dioxide are already in practical use. Also, non-fluorocarbon, energy-efficient automatic vending machines are now in use on the street all over this country. Most of these non-fluorocarbon equipment are recently put in practical use, so they are not wide-spread yet. However, the government is promoting the technical development and installation of non-fluorocarbon facilities and equipment with financial incentives. 例文帳に追加
日本では冷媒フロンの替わりにイソブタンを使用。可燃性ガスのイソブタンは、漏れると発火する危険性があるため、安全性を確保するための様々な工夫を行ってきました。従来溶接していた冷却器の配管は、イソブタンの漏洩を防ぐため繋ぎ目を無くしました。更に、１枚のガラス管に入れていた霜取りヒーターを二重のガラス管の中に入れることによって、表面温度をイソブタンの発火点より低く抑え発火を防ぐなど、高い技術力を駆使しノンフロン化に成功したのです。他の冷凍空調機器では、コンビニにおけるショーケースでも、二酸化炭素を冷媒としたノンフロン製品が実用化されており、また、自動販売機にも、ノンフロン・省エネ機があります。これらのノンフロン機器は、まだ一部が実用化されたばかりでその普及はこれからですが、国の補助を用い、ノンフロンの施設や設備の技術開発や導入等の促進がされています。 - 経済産業省
The registration of a trade mark may be revoked on any of the following grounds: that, up to the date 1 month before the date of the application for the revocation of the registration of the trade mark, a continuous period of 3 years or more elapsed following the actual date of registration during which the trade mark was not put to genuine use in the course of trade in New Zealand, by any owner for the time being, in relation to the goods or services in respect of which it is registered: except as provided in subsection (3), that the use of the trade mark has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of 3 years: that, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the owner, the trade mark has become a common name in general public use for a product or service in respect of which it is registered: that the article or substance was formerly manufactured under a patent or the service was formerly a patented process; and a period of 2 years or more has elapsed since the expiry of the patent; and the word is or the words are the only practicable name or description of the article, substance, or service: that, in consequence of the trade mark's use by the owner or with the owner's consent in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, the trade mark is likely to deceive or confuse the public, for instance as to the nature, quality, or geographical origin of those goods or services.例文帳に追加
商標登録は，次に掲げる理由の何れかを基にして取り消すことができる。商標登録に係る取消申請日の1月前までに，商標がそのときの所有者によりその登録に係る商品又はサービスについてニュージーランドにおいて業として真正の使用がされなかった期間が，実際の登録日後，連続して3年以上経過していること(3)に定める場合を除き，商標の使用が中断なく3年間停止していること所有者の行為又は無為の結果，商標がその登録に係る商品又はサービスについて一般公衆に使用される普通名称になっていること 次に掲げる事情があること，すなわち，それに係る物品若しくは物質が以前は特許に基づいて製造されていたか，又はそれに係るサービスが以前は特許方法であったこと，及び特許の満了から2年以上の期間が経過していること，及びそれに係る文言が物品，物質又はサービスについての単なる実用的な名称又は説明であること商標登録に係る商品又はサービスについての所有者による又は所有者の同意を得た商標の使用の結果，商標が例えば，その商品又はサービスの性質，品質又は原産地等に関して公衆に誤認又は混同を生じさせる虞があること - 特許庁
Article 163 The provisions of Article 824 (Dissolution Order for a Company), Article 826 (Duty of a Government Agency, etc. to Give Notice to the Minister of Justice), Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (xiii)) (Hearing of Statements), the main clause of Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), the main clause of Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), Article 876 (Supreme Court Rule), Article 904 (Participation of the Minister of Justice), and Article 937(1) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iii)(b)) (Commissioning of Registration by Juridical Decision) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the dissolution order for a Specific Purpose Company, and the provisions of Article 825 (Temporary Restraining Order Concerning Property of a Company), Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Hearing of Statements), Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (i) and item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 874 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii) and item (iii)) (Restrictions on Appeal), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), Article 876 (Supreme Court Rule), Article 905 (Special Provisions on a Temporary Restraining Order Concerning Property of a Company), and Article 906 of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the preservation of properties of a Specific Purpose Company in cases where a petition under Article 824(1) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to this Article has been filed. In this case, any necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
第百六十三条 会社法第八百二十四条（会社の解散命令）、第八百二十六条（官庁等の法務大臣に対する通知義務）、第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十条（第十三号に係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条本文（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条本文（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）、第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）、第九百四条（法務大臣の関与）及び第九百三十七条第一項（第三号ロに係る部分に限る。）（裁判による登記の嘱託）の規定は特定目的会社の解散の命令について、同法第八百二十五条（会社の財産に関する保全処分）、第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十条（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第一号及び第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十四条（第二号及び第三号に係る部分に限る。）（不服申立ての制限）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）、第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）並びに第九百五条及び第九百六条（会社の財産に関する保全処分についての特則）の規定はこの条において準用する同法第八百二十四条第一項の申立てがあった場合における特定目的会社の財産の保全について、それぞれ準用する。この場合において、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
(2) In patent litigation, provisional measures ?until the contrary is rendered probable ? shall be considered necessary to protect the plaintiff's rights deserving special appreciation if the plaintiff proves that the invention is patented, and he is the patentee or an exploiter entitled to institute proceedings for infringement in his own name. In rendering the contrary probable, all circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration, in particular that the patent was revoked by the Hungarian Patent Office or by the court of first instance, or the European patent effective also in the Republic of Hungary was revoked by an opposition division of the European Patent Office or in another Member State of the European Patent Organisation. The provision relating to the presumption substantiating the necessity of protecting the plaintiff's rights deserving special appreciation shall not apply where six months have already elapsed from the beginning of patent infringement or sixty days from the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the infringement and of the identity of the infringer.例文帳に追加
(2) 特許訴訟においては，原告が，当該発明は特許されていること及び自己が特許権者又は自己の名義で侵害手続を提起することができる実施者であることを証明した場合は，別段のことが示されるまでの暫定措置が，特別の評価に値する原告の権利を保護するために必要とみなされる。別段のことを示す際は，事件のすべての事情，特に，特許がハンガリー特許庁若しくは第1審裁判所により取り消されたこと，又はハンガリー共和国においても有効な欧州特許が欧州特許庁若しくは欧州特許機構の他の加盟国の異議申立部により取り消された事情が考慮に入れられる。特許侵害の開始から6月，又は原告が侵害及び侵害者の身元を認識した日から60日を既に経過している場合は，特別の評価に値する原告の権利を保護する必要性を立証する推定に関する規定は適用しない。 - 特許庁
(4) The provisions of Article 116(3), (4), (6), and (7) (Dissenting Shareholders' Share Purchase Demand), Article 117(2) to (6) inclusive (Determination of Price of Shares), Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Hearing of Statements), the main clause of Article 871 (Appending of a Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), the main clause of Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), and Article 876 (Supreme Court Rule) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Demands for the Purchase of Preferred Equity made by the Preferred Equity Members of a Specific Purpose Company. In this case, the phrase "act in any item of paragraph (1)" in Article 116(3) and (7) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "change to the Asset Securitization Plan," the phrases "the day when such act becomes effective," "of the shares provided for in each item of that paragraph," and "such act" in Article 116(3) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "the day of the Resolution for Changing the Plan set forth in Article 153(2) of the Asset Securitization Act," "thereof," and "changes to the Asset Securitization Plan," respectively, the phrases "of the shares" in Article 117(2) and (6) of the Companies Act and "for such shares" in paragraph (5) of that Article shall be deemed to be replaced with "of the Preferred Equity," the term "share certificates" in Article 117(6) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Preferred Equity Securities," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
４ 会社法第百十六条第三項、第四項、第六項及び第七項（反対株主の株式買取請求）、第百十七条第二項から第六項まで（株式の価格の決定等）、第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条本文（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条本文（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）並びに第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）の規定は、特定目的会社の優先出資社員による優先出資買取請求について準用する。この場合において、同法第百十六条第三項及び第七項中「第一項各号の行為」とあるのは「資産流動化計画の変更」と、同条第三項中「当該行為が効力を生ずる日」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百五十三条第二項に規定する計画変更決議の日」と、「同項各号に定める株式の」とあるのは「その」と、「当該行為を」とあるのは「当該資産流動化計画の変更を」と、同法第百十七条第二項、第五項及び第六項中「株式の」とあるのは「優先出資の」と、同項中「、株券」とあるのは「、優先出資証券」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
(1) A trademark or application therefor may belong pro indiviso to two or more persons. The resulting common property shall be governed by the terms of agreement between the parties, failing that by the provisions of this section and, in the final instance, by the provisions of common law on common ownership of property. The granting of licenses and the independent use of the trademark by each participant shall be agreed in accordance with Article 398 of the Civil Code. Each participant may by his own means take civil and criminal action to protect a trademark but shall make appropriate notification to the other joint owners so that they may be party to such action and contribute to the payment of the expenses incurred. In the case of transfer of a trademark or a share, a participant may exercise his right of prior purchase within a period of one month from the time when he was notified of the purpose of and conditions for the implementation of the transfer. Where prior notification is not given or if a transfer is made in a manner different from that provided for in such notification, a participant may exercise his right to withhold his share, within the same period, from the time of publication of the recording of the transfer in the Register of Trademarks. Such absolute and unjustified opposition of a participant to the use of a trademark as might cause the trademark to be declared lapsed shall be deemed, for all purposes, to constitute renunciation of his right.例文帳に追加
(1) 商標又はその出願は，2以上の者に共通して帰属することができる。結果としての共通財産は，当事者間の契約条件により，また当該契約が存在しない場合は本項の規定に従い，かつ最終的には財産の共通所有に関するコモンローの規定に従い，管理される。各参加者による商標のライセンス付与及び個別使用は，民法第398条に従い合意されるものとする。各参加者は独自の手段によって，商標を保護するための民事訴訟及び刑事訴訟を提起することができるが，他の共同所有者に適切な通知を行って，それらの者が当該訴訟の当事者となり，被った費用の支払に寄与することができるようにする。商標又は持分の譲渡の場合は，参加者は，当該譲渡の目的及び実施条件について通知されたときから1月以内に自己の先買権を行使することができる。事前通知が行われなかった場合又は譲渡が当該通知に定めるものとは異なる態様で行われた場合は，参加者は，商標登録簿への譲渡の記録の公告時点から同一期間内に，自己の持分を保留する権利を行使することができる。ある参加者が商標の使用に対して，当該商標の失効宣言に至りかねない程絶対的かつ不当に異議を申し立てた場合は，すべての目的について自己の権利を放棄したとみなされる。 - 特許庁
The subject of the financial regulatory reforms has already been a significant discussion topic in the past as well. I heard that during the Financial Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting held from October 22 to 23 in Gyeongju, the proposed capital adequacy requirement for banks and a new liquidity framework, which were drawn up in a recent meeting of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, were welcomed along with the commitment to having them come into full force by the prescribed due date, and an endorsement was given to the policy framework, work processes and timelines proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking, one of the subordinate organs of the Financial Stability Board, with respect to the issue of addressing systematically important financial institutions (SIFIs) that you have just raised. The meeting accordingly agreed to give priority to this initiative as an agenda item of the G20 Summit. In that sense, implementing international financial regulatory reforms will contribute to an enhanced financial system and improved soundness of financial institutions in the medium to long term. In the meantime, it is also extremely important to, among other things, make the set of requirements a well-balanced one that fully takes into account differences between countries in terms of the actual operation of their financial systems and to implement it over time by, for instance, allowing an ample planning time in adequate consideration of any impact on the real economy - this is also an approach that Japan applies in attending the ongoing Summit meeting. 例文帳に追加
金融規制改革に関しましては、以前にも大きな話題になりました10月22日から23日は慶州でありました財務大臣・中央銀行総裁会議において、先般の中央銀行総裁・銀行監督当局長官との会合で作成された銀行の自己資本、それから流動性の新たな枠組みを歓迎し、期限内に完全に実施することにコミットすること、また今お話がございましたシステム上重要な金融機関（SIFIs）については、FSB（金融安定理事会）、この下部機関の一つにバーゼル銀行監督委員会がありますが、これが提案する政策の枠組み及び作業手順及び日程を承認することを聞いておりまして、G20サミットの議題として、そのことを優先することを合意したところでございまして、そういった意味で国際的な金融規制の改革については、中長期的に金融システムの強化及び金融機関の健全性の向上に資するものとなる一方、各国の金融システムの実情の違いを十分に踏まえたバランスのとれたものにすること、実体経済への影響に十分配慮し、十分な計画期間を設けるなど、時間をかけて実施していくことなどが極めて重要であり、今回のサミットにおいてもこうした姿勢で臨んでいます。 - 金融庁
(8) The provisions of Article 142(1) and (2) (Designated Purchaser's Notice to Purchase) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a Designated Purchaser, the provisions of Article 143(2) (Withdrawal of Requests for Approval of Transfer) of that Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a Requester for Approval of Transfer who makes the request set forth in paragraph (4)(i)(c) or paragraph (4)(ii)(c), and the provisions of Article 144(1) to (6) inclusive (Determination of Sale Price), Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (vi)) (Hearing of Statements), the main clause of Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), the main clause of Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), and Article 876 (Supreme Court Rules) of that Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a notice has been given under the provisions of Article 142(1) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to this paragraph. In this case, the term "Article 140(4)" in Article 142(1) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 31(7) of the Asset Securitization Act," the terms "per share" and "Stock Company" in Article 142(2) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "per unit" and "Specific Purpose Company," respectively, the terms "Subject Shares" and "Article 140(1)(ii)" in Article 144(1) and (4) to (6) inclusive of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Specified Equity prescribed in Article 31(7) of the Asset Securitization Act" and "Article 142(1)(ii)," respectively, the term "Stock Company" in Article 144(1), (2), and (6) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Designated Purchaser," the term "per share" in paragraph (5) of that Article shall be deemed to be replaced with "per unit," the term "Article 141(2)" in Article 144(6) of that Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 142(2)," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
８ 会社法第百四十二条第一項及び第二項（指定買取人による買取りの通知）の規定は指定買取人について、同法第百四十三条第二項（譲渡等承認請求の撤回）の規定は第四項第一号ハ又は第二号ハの請求をした譲渡等承認請求者について、同法第百四十四条第一項から第六項まで（売買価格の決定）、第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十条（第六号に係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条本文（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条本文（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）及び第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）の規定はこの項において準用する同法第百四十二条第一項の規定による通知があった場合について、それぞれ準用する。この場合において、同法第百四十二条第一項中「第百四十条第四項」とあるのは「資産流動化法第三十一条第七項」と、同条第二項中「一株」とあるのは「一口」と、「株式会社」とあるのは「特定目的会社」と、同法第百四十四条第一項及び第四項から第六項までの規定中「対象株式」とあるのは「資産流動化法第三十一条第七項に規定する特定出資」と、「第百四十条第一項第二号」とあるのは「第百四十二条第一項第二号」と、同条第一項、第二項及び第六項中「株式会社」とあるのは「指定買取人」と、同条第五項中「一株」とあるのは「一口」と、同条第六項中「第百四十一条第二項」とあるのは「第百四十二条第二項」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
(8) The provisions of Article 828(1) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) and (2) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Actions Seeking Invalidation of Acts Concerning the Organization of a Company), Article 834 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Defendant), Article 835(1) (Jurisdiction over and Transfer of an Action), Article 836(1) and (3) (Order to Provide Security), Articles 837 to 840 inclusive (Mandatory Consolidation of Oral Arguments, etc.; Persons Affected by an Upholding Judgment; Effects of a Judgment of Invalidation, Revocation or Rescission; Effects of a Judgment of Invalidation of New Share Issue), Article 846 (Liability for Damages in Cases Where the Plaintiff Is Defeated), and Article 937(1) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (i)(b)) (Commissioning of Registration by a Judicial Decision) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an action seeking invalidation of issuance of Specified Equity by a Specific Purpose Company after the formation thereof, and the provisions of Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), the main clause of Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Immediate Appeal), the main clause of Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Articles 875 to 877 inclusive (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act; Supreme Court Rules; Mandatory Consolidation of Hearings, etc.) and Article 878(1) (Effects of a Judicial Decision) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a petition under Article 840(2) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to this paragraph. In this case, the phrase "within six months from the day on which the share issue became effective (or, for a Stock Company which is not a Public Company, within one year from the day on which the share issue became effective)" in Article 828(1)(ii) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "within one year," the term "Shareholder, etc." in paragraph (2)(ii) of that Article shall be deemed to be replaced with "member, director, company auditor, or liquidator," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
８ 会社法第八百二十八条第一項（第二号に係る部分に限る。）及び第二項（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（会社の組織に関する行為の無効の訴え）、第八百三十四条（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（被告）、第八百三十五条第一項（訴えの管轄及び移送）、第八百三十六条第一項及び第三項（担保提供命令）、第八百三十七条から第八百四十条まで（弁論等の必要的併合、認容判決の効力が及ぶ者の範囲、無効又は取消しの判決の効力、新株発行の無効判決の効力）、第八百四十六条（原告が敗訴した場合の損害賠償責任）並びに第九百三十七条第一項（第一号ロに係る部分に限る。）（裁判による登記の嘱託）の規定は特定目的会社の成立後における特定出資の発行の無効の訴えについて、同法第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十一条本文（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条本文（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十五条から第八百七十七条まで（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外、最高裁判所規則、審問等の必要的併合）及び第八百七十八条第一項（裁判の効力）の規定はこの項において準用する同法第八百四十条第二項の申立てについて、それぞれ準用する。この場合において、同法第八百二十八条第一項第二号中「六箇月以内（公開会社でない株式会社にあっては、株式の発行の効力が生じた日から一年以内）」とあるのは「一年以内」と、同条第二項第二号中「株主等」とあるのは「社員、取締役、監査役又は清算人」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
(6) The provisions of Article 828(1) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) and (2) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Actions Seeking Invalidation of Acts Concerning the Organization of a Company), Article 834 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Defendant), Article 835(1) (Jurisdiction over and Transfer of an Action), Article 836(1) and (3) (Order to Provide Security), Articles 837 to 840 inclusive (Mandatory Consolidation of Oral Arguments, etc.; Persons Affected by an Upholding Judgment; Effects of a Judgment of Invalidation, Revocation or Rescission; Effects of a Judgment of Invalidation of New Share Issue), Article 846 (Liability for Damages in Cases Where the Plaintiff Is Defeated), and Article 937(1) (limited to the portion pertaining to item (i)(b)) (Commissioning of Registration by a Judicial Decision) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an action seeking invalidation of issuance of Preferred Equity by a Specific Purpose Company, and the provisions of Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), the main clause of Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (ii)) (Immediate Appeal), the main clause of Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Articles 875 to 877 inclusive (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act; Supreme Court Rules; Mandatory Consolidation of Hearings, etc.), and Article 878(1) (Effects of a Judicial Decision) of that Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a petition under Article 840(2) of that Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to this paragraph. In this case, the phrase "within six months from the day on which the share issue became effective (or, for a Stock Company which is not a Public Company, within one year from the day on which the share issue became effective)" in Article 828(1)(ii) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "within one year," the term "Shareholder, etc." in paragraph 2(ii) of that Article shall be deemed to be replaced with "member, director, company auditor, or liquidator," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
６ 会社法第八百二十八条第一項（第二号に係る部分に限る。）及び第二項（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（会社の組織に関する行為の無効の訴え）、第八百三十四条（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（被告）、第八百三十五条第一項（訴えの管轄及び移送）、第八百三十六条第一項及び第三項（担保提供命令）、第八百三十七条から第八百四十条まで（弁論等の必要的併合、認容判決の効力が及ぶ者の範囲、無効又は取消しの判決の効力、新株発行の無効判決の効力）、第八百四十六条（原告が敗訴した場合の損害賠償責任）並びに第九百三十七条第一項（第一号ロに係る部分に限る。）（裁判による登記の嘱託）の規定は特定目的会社の優先出資の発行の無効の訴えについて、同法第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百七十一条本文（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第二号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条本文（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十五条から第八百七十七条まで（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外、最高裁判所規則、審問等の必要的併合）及び第八百七十八条第一項（裁判の効力）の規定はこの項において準用する同法第八百四十条第二項の申立てについて、それぞれ準用する。この場合において、同法第八百二十八条第一項第二号中「六箇月以内（公開会社でない株式会社にあっては、株式の発行の効力が生じた日から一年以内）」とあるのは「一年以内」と、同条第二項第二号中「株主等」とあるのは「社員、取締役、監査役又は清算人」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
Article 179 (1) The provisions of Article 499 to Article 503 inclusive (Public Notices to Creditors; Restrictions on Performance of Obligations; Performance of Obligations Relating to Conditional Claims; Restrictions on Distribution of Residual Assets Before Performance of Obligations; Exclusion from Liquidation), Article 507(1), (3), and (4) (Conclusion of Liquidation), Article 508 (Retention of Accounting Materials), Article 868(1) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 869 (Prima Facie Showing), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to items (ii), (iii), (viii), and (ix)) (Hearing of Statements), Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 874 (limited to the portion pertaining to items (i) and (iv)) (Restrictions on Appeal), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), Article 876 (Supreme Court Rule), Article 928(1) and (3) (Registration of a liquidator), and Article 929 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (i)) (Registration of Completion of Liquidation) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the liquidation of a Specific Purpose Company. In this case, the phrase "the settlement of accounts (or, in cases where the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply, the settlement of accounts approved under that paragraph) to the shareholders meeting" in Article 507(3) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "the settlement of accounts (those audited as prescribed in Article 177(2) of the Asset Securitization Act) at the general meeting of members," the phrase "A Liquidator (or, for a Company with Board of Liquidators, the liquidators listed in each item of paragraph (7) of Article 489)" in Article 508(1) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "A liquidator," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
第百七十九条 会社法第四百九十九条から第五百三条まで（債権者に対する公告等、債務の弁済の制限、条件付債権等に係る債務の弁済、債務の弁済前における残余財産の分配の制限、清算からの除斥）、第五百七条第一項、第三項及び第四項（清算事務の終了等）、第五百八条（帳簿資料の保存）、第八百六十八条第一項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百六十九条（疎明）、第八百七十条（第二号、第三号、第八号及び第九号に係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十四条（第一号及び第四号に係る部分に限る。）（不服申立ての制限）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）、第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）、第九百二十八条第一項及び第三項（清算人の登記）並びに第九百二十九条（第一号に係る部分に限る。）（清算結了の登記）の規定は、特定目的会社の清算について準用する。この場合において、同法第五百七条第三項中「決算報告（前項の規定の適用がある場合にあっては、同項の承認を受けたもの）を株主総会」とあるのは「決算報告（資産流動化法第百七十七条第二項に規定する監査を受けたもの）を社員総会」と、同法第五百八条第一項中「清算人（清算人会設置会社にあっては、第四百八十九条第七項各号に掲げる清算人）」とあるのは「清算人」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
(2) The provisions of Part IV, Chapter III (excluding Article 715) (Bondholders' Meeting), the provisions of Part VII, Chapter II, Section 7 (Action Seeking Rescission of Performance, etc. of a Bond-issuing Company), Article 868(3) (Jurisdiction over Non-Contentious Cases), Article 869 (Prima Facie Showing), Article 870 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (x) to item (xii) inclusive) (Hearing of Statements), Article 871 (Appending of the Reason), Article 872 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Immediate Appeal), Article 873 (Stay of Execution of the Judicial Decision of the Prior Instance), Article 874 (limited to the portion pertaining to item (iv)) (Restrictions on Appeal), Article 875 (Exclusion from Application of the Provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedures Act), and Article 876 (Supreme Court Rule) of the Companies Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to Specified Bonds, Specified Bondholders, Specified Bond Certificates, Specified Bond Administrators, Specified Bonds registries, and Specified Bondholders Meetings in cases where a Specific Purpose Company issues Specified Bonds. In this case, the terms "Bond-issuing Company," "bearer bonds," and "representative bondholder" in said provisions shall be deemed to be replaced with "Company Issuing Specified Bonds," "Specified Bonds in bearer form," and "representative Specified Bondholder," the phrase "this Act" in Article 716 of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "the Asset Securitization Act or the Asset Securitization Plan," the term "electromagnetic public notice" in Article 720(5) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Electronic Public Notice (meaning electronic public notice as prescribed in Article 194(1)(iii) of the Asset Securitization Act)," the phrase "Bondholders' Meeting Reference Documents" in Article 721 of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Reference Documents for a Specified Bondholders Meeting," the phrase "each item of Article 706(1)" in Article 724(2)(i) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "the items of Article 127(4) of the Asset Securitization Act," the phrase "paragraph (1) of Article 706" in Article 724(2)(ii) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 127(4) of the Asset Securitization Act," the term "Article 707" in Article 729(1) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 707 as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 127(8) of the Asset Securitization Act," the term "Article 676" in Article 733(i) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 122(1) of the Asset Securitization Act," the phrase "paragraphs (1) through (3) of Article 705, and under Articles 708 and 709" in Article 737(2) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 127(1) to (3) inclusive of the Asset Securitization Act and the provisions of Article 708 and Article 709 of the Companies Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 127(8) of the Asset Securitization Act," the term "Article 449" in Article 740(1) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 111 of the Asset Securitization Act," the term "Article 702" in Article 740(2) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 126 of the Asset Securitization Act," the phrase "paragraph (1) of Article 705 (including cases where that paragraph is applied mutatis mutandis under paragraph (2) of Article 737)" in Article 741(3) of the Companies Act shall be deemed to be replaced with "Article 127(1) (including the cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 737(2) of the Companies Act as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 129(2) of the Asset Securitization Act) of the Asset Securitization Act," and any other necessary technical replacement of terms shall be specified by a Cabinet Order. 例文帳に追加
２ 会社法第四編第三章（第七百十五条を除く。）（社債権者集会）、第七編第二章第七節（社債発行会社の弁済等の取消しの訴え）、第八百六十八条第三項（非訟事件の管轄）、第八百六十九条（疎明）、第八百七十条（第十号から第十二号までに係る部分に限る。）（陳述の聴取）、第八百七十一条（理由の付記）、第八百七十二条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（即時抗告）、第八百七十三条（原裁判の執行停止）、第八百七十四条（第四号に係る部分に限る。）（不服申立ての制限）、第八百七十五条（非訟事件手続法の規定の適用除外）及び第八百七十六条（最高裁判所規則）の規定は、特定目的会社が特定社債を発行する場合における特定社債、特定社債権者、特定社債券、特定社債管理者、特定社債原簿又は特定社債権者集会について準用する。この場合において、これらの規定中「社債発行会社」とあるのは「特定社債発行会社」と、「無記名社債」とあるのは「無記名特定社債」と、「代表社債権者」とあるのは「代表特定社債権者」と、同法第七百十六条中「この法律」とあるのは「資産流動化法又は資産流動化計画」と、同法第七百二十条第五項中「電子公告」とあるのは「電子公告（資産流動化法第百九十四条第一項第三号に規定する電子公告をいう。）」と、同法第七百二十一条中「社債権者集会参考書類」とあるのは「特定社債権者集会参考書類」と、同法第七百二十四条第二項第一号中「第七百六条第一項各号」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十七条第四項各号」と、同項第二号中「第七百六条第一項」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十七条第四項」と、同法第七百二十九条第一項中「第七百七条」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十七条第八項において準用する第七百七条」と、同法第七百三十三条第一号中「第六百七十六条」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十二条第一項」と、同法第七百三十七条第二項中「第七百五条第一項から第三項まで、第七百八条及び第七百九条」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十七条第一項から第三項まで並びに同条第八項において準用する第七百八条及び第七百九条」と、同法第七百四十条第一項中「第四百四十九条」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百十一条」と、同条第二項中「第七百二条」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十六条」と、同法第七百四十一条第三項中「第七百五条第一項（第七百三十七条第二項」とあるのは「資産流動化法第百二十七条第一項（資産流動化法第百二十九条第二項において準用する第七百三十七条第二項」と読み替えるものとするほか、必要な技術的読替えは、政令で定める。 - 日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム
 | ※この記事は「日本法令外国語訳データベースシステム」の2010年9月現在の情報を転載しております。 |
| Copyright © Japan Patent office. All Rights Reserved. |
| Copyright Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. All Rights Reserved. |
| Copyright(C) 2026 金融庁 All Rights Reserved. |
ログイン |
Weblio会員(無料)になると
|
検索履歴を保存できる！
|
ログイン |
Weblio会員(無料)になると
|
