SokoChiKen -- Landowner's right in leased property
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Ray Roman
Jan 22, 2008, 12:39:48 AM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Drawing a blank on the right of a lessor in land when it is leased --
底地権
Murdoch MacPhee
Jan 22, 2008, 12:46:52 AM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
>Drawing a blank on the right of a lessor in?land when it is leased -- ?
底地権
底地権
和英不動産用語辞典 terms it "ownership of (a) leased land".
FWIW,
Murdoch MacPhee
Vince Coleman
Jan 22, 2008, 1:46:27 AM1/22/08
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
In an internet double check on the 和英不動産用語辞典 listing, I could not seem
to find a corresponding English term through google (even the
"ownership of (a) leased land" did not produce a match), but several
websites list Japanese definitions that support "ownership of (a)
leased land."
It seems that 底地 is the actual physical land that goes along with a
land lease right (借地権), and 底地権 is the right to that land, or
ownership of that land. Thus "ownership of (a) leased land."
from the livedoor online dictionary:
底地: 借地権の付いている土地。借地人が居住している宅地。
from enjyuku
http://www.enjyuku.com/d2/so_005.html
底地権: ある土地に借地権が設定されているとき、この土地の所有者が持っている土地所有権のことを「底地権（そこちけん）」と呼ぶことがある。
etc.
So I concur that "ownership of (a) leased land" seems to be correct.
to find a corresponding English term through google (even the
"ownership of (a) leased land" did not produce a match), but several
websites list Japanese definitions that support "ownership of (a)
leased land."
It seems that 底地 is the actual physical land that goes along with a
land lease right (借地権), and 底地権 is the right to that land, or
ownership of that land. Thus "ownership of (a) leased land."
from the livedoor online dictionary:
底地: 借地権の付いている土地。借地人が居住している宅地。
from enjyuku
http://www.enjyuku.com/d2/so_005.html
底地権: ある土地に借地権が設定されているとき、この土地の所有者が持っている土地所有権のことを「底地権（そこちけん）」と呼ぶことがある。
etc.
So I concur that "ownership of (a) leased land" seems to be correct.
Fred Uleman
Jan 22, 2008, 2:01:31 AM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Why is it important, if indeed it is, that the land be leased?
How is this 底地権 different from 底地の所有権?
How is this 底地権 different from 底地の所有権?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Fred Uleman
Vince Coleman
Jan 22, 2008, 2:05:22 AM1/22/08
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
Are 底地権 and 底地の所有権 basically the same meaning?
Eric Tschetter
Jan 22, 2008, 2:21:19 AM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
> Why is it important, if indeed it is, that the land be leased?
> How is this 底地権 different from 底地の所有権?
> How is this 底地権 different from 底地の所有権?
My guess, and this is no more than speculation, is that 底地権 refers to the
rights to the land and not necessarily the rights to do anything with the
land. Those rights (to actually build things on the land and stuff) are a
part of the 借地権. Perhaps saying 底地権 implies the separation of rights
as would be normal in a lease agreement.
--Eric Tschetter, procrastinating...
er...@nii.ac.jp
Murdoch MacPhee
Jan 22, 2008, 2:34:59 AM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
I don't think it is, but then definitions such as the following suggest
that the concept of 底地 is inextricably tied up with leases:
底地とは借地権の付着している宅地です。
底地とは、借地権などの地上権が設定されている土地のこと。
I usually see it in the context of real estate appraisals, for example:
底地割合は（100％－借地権割合）で求めることができます。
底地の価格は、更地の時価から借地権価格を引いた金額となり、底地に見合う価格
は底地価格といわれる。更地価格に対する底地価格の割合を底地割合といい、一般
的には、商業地域では低く、住宅地では商業地域より高めになっている。
Murdoch MacPhee
that the concept of 底地 is inextricably tied up with leases:
底地とは借地権の付着している宅地です。
底地とは、借地権などの地上権が設定されている土地のこと。
I usually see it in the context of real estate appraisals, for example:
底地割合は（100％－借地権割合）で求めることができます。
底地の価格は、更地の時価から借地権価格を引いた金額となり、底地に見合う価格
は底地価格といわれる。更地価格に対する底地価格の割合を底地割合といい、一般
的には、商業地域では低く、住宅地では商業地域より高めになっている。
Murdoch MacPhee
Ray Roman
Jan 22, 2008, 12:17:15 PM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
Folks,
My question assumed a background that may not be familiar. In Anglo-American law at least, although we speak loosely of "ownership," we consider ownership specifically as a "bundle of rights." So when A leases land from B, A has the right to possess and use the land in certain ways for a certain time. During the lease, B has other rights -- the right to enter as needed to maintain the land, the right to possess after the lease terminates (reversion), the right to convey ownership and so on. Meanwhile, Neighbor C might have a right to cross the land on his way to the river for water (easement). . .
底地権 seems to be a "loose" reference to the bundle of remaining (non-possessory) interests of the landlord in leased land.
底地権 seems to be a "loose" reference to the bundle of remaining (non-possessory) interests of the landlord in leased land.
So, "ownership of leased land" (since we don't speak of owning "a land") will have to suffice for now.
2008/1/21 Murdoch MacPhee <murdoch...@gmail.com>:
Michael Santone
Jan 22, 2008, 7:40:49 PM1/22/08
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
In Japan, the owner of land and the owner of a building on the land
may be different people. The owner of the building rents the land
from the owner of the land. The owner of the land has no rights with
respect to the building, and the owner of the building has to pay rent
to the owner of the land for the term of the lease. In Tokyo, at
least, I believe that the owner of a building has the right to rent
the land for the service-life of the building. When you see a
dilapidated building, it usually means that the owner of the building
doesn't want to give up the right to rent the land.
It sounds like 底地権 refers to the rights of the owner of the land
(charging rent, etc) separate from the owner of the structures on the
land. The opposite is 借地権, the rights of the person who rents the
land from the owner, among the rights being the right to build a
building, etc.
Michael
may be different people. The owner of the building rents the land
from the owner of the land. The owner of the land has no rights with
respect to the building, and the owner of the building has to pay rent
to the owner of the land for the term of the lease. In Tokyo, at
least, I believe that the owner of a building has the right to rent
the land for the service-life of the building. When you see a
dilapidated building, it usually means that the owner of the building
doesn't want to give up the right to rent the land.
It sounds like 底地権 refers to the rights of the owner of the land
(charging rent, etc) separate from the owner of the structures on the
land. The opposite is 借地権, the rights of the person who rents the
land from the owner, among the rights being the right to build a
building, etc.
Michael
Michael Santone
Jan 22, 2008, 7:49:53 PM1/22/08
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
I forgot to add, for what it's worth, at least in Tokyo, it seems well
known that in courts the rights of the lessee 借地権 are much stronger
than the rights of the lessor 底地権 (also called所有権). Don't know why.
Michael
known that in courts the rights of the lessee 借地権 are much stronger
than the rights of the lessor 底地権 (also called所有権). Don't know why.
Michael
minoru
Jan 22, 2008, 8:05:09 PM1/22/08
to Honyaku E<>J translation list
There are two kinds of rights on a piece of land: (A) the owner
(lessor)'s right and (B) the leaseholder's right.
The total right on the property (C) = (A) + (B)
If the land is not leased, i.e., B = 0, then C = A.
Under the Japanese law, B can be substantial. See the annecdote
below.
Once I was leasing a tiny land on which I built our first house of
our marriage in 1962. It was a sublet from my wife's father. The
owner should have asked my father-in-law to terminate the lease
sooner. However, because it is owned among a group of people
and their relations were complicated, and my father-in-law had a
forsight, keeping it by paying the rent duely without any delay
each month although it was not used for years. The size of the
lot is just about enough to build a two car garage in the U.S.
Years later (1986? when I was living in US), a local bus company
wanted to purchase the lot in addition to other neighboring
properties
in order to build a dormitory for its employees. The owner agreed
to sell so that the bus company came to me asking me to give up
the leaseholder's right on the land on which a tiny house was built.
After negotiation through a lawyer, I agreed to give up the
leaseholder's
right. The house was of no practical value by then, so it was torn
down.
The leaseholder's right amounted to over 20 million yen. I don't know
how much was the land owner's right, i.e., 底地権. I believe that there
is a rule of thumb, like A:B = 60:40.
Minoru Mochizuki
> japanesele...@gmail.com
(lessor)'s right and (B) the leaseholder's right.
The total right on the property (C) = (A) + (B)
If the land is not leased, i.e., B = 0, then C = A.
Under the Japanese law, B can be substantial. See the annecdote
below.
Once I was leasing a tiny land on which I built our first house of
our marriage in 1962. It was a sublet from my wife's father. The
owner should have asked my father-in-law to terminate the lease
sooner. However, because it is owned among a group of people
and their relations were complicated, and my father-in-law had a
forsight, keeping it by paying the rent duely without any delay
each month although it was not used for years. The size of the
lot is just about enough to build a two car garage in the U.S.
Years later (1986? when I was living in US), a local bus company
wanted to purchase the lot in addition to other neighboring
properties
in order to build a dormitory for its employees. The owner agreed
to sell so that the bus company came to me asking me to give up
the leaseholder's right on the land on which a tiny house was built.
After negotiation through a lawyer, I agreed to give up the
leaseholder's
right. The house was of no practical value by then, so it was torn
down.
The leaseholder's right amounted to over 20 million yen. I don't know
how much was the land owner's right, i.e., 底地権. I believe that there
is a rule of thumb, like A:B = 60:40.
Minoru Mochizuki
Fred Uleman
Jan 22, 2008, 9:32:40 PM1/22/08
to hon...@googlegroups.com
It might be worth mentioning that the leaseholder's rights to the land
are not some set ratio nationwide. This varies depending upon the
location.
At the same time, the fact that the person renting/leasing the
land from the owner traditionally had, in effect, eternal rights (one
exception being when he might foolishly tear down the building to
rebuild without the landowner's consent, in which case the landowner
could repossess) was sometimes cited as a disincentive to renting out
land and hence a barrier to efficient use, with the result that the
law was changed several years ago to provide for 定期借地, which are
fixed-term contracts that are actually fixed term.
are not some set ratio nationwide. This varies depending upon the
location.
At the same time, the fact that the person renting/leasing the
land from the owner traditionally had, in effect, eternal rights (one
exception being when he might foolishly tear down the building to
rebuild without the landowner's consent, in which case the landowner
could repossess) was sometimes cited as a disincentive to renting out
land and hence a barrier to efficient use, with the result that the
law was changed several years ago to provide for 定期借地, which are
fixed-term contracts that are actually fixed term.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages