Clearwise Company v. Leung Kam Hock
(Case of Dispute over the Contract on Boat Mortgage Transfer)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Hong Kong Clearwise Company.@#
Legal Representative: Woo Kang Wai, a resident of Hong Kong.@#
Authorized Agent: Liang Shan and Shen Hongwei, attorneys-at-law of Guangzhou Jinglun Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Leung Kam Hock, a citizen of Hong Kong.@#
Authorized Agent: Ye Bo, attorney-at-law of Sanya Nantian Law Firm in Hainan.@#
Authorized Agent: Wang Zhengfu, attorney-at-law of Hainan Lingao Law Firm.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
On November 6, 1996, upon application of Hong Kong Clearwise Company (hereinafter referred to as Clearwise Company), the Haikou Maritime Court of the People's Republic of China seized two fishing boats of Xingfa No.1 and Xingfa No.2 owned by Leung Kam Hock (hereinafter referred to as Leung) at the Sanya Port in Hainan. Afterwards, Clearwise Company lodged a lawsuit to the Haikou Maritime Court for the dispute over the contract on boat mortgage transfer.@#
Clearwise Company complained that: Leung borrowed loans from Australian Credit Finance Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong) (hereinafter referred to as Finance Company) by taking two fishing boats of Xingfa No.1 and Xingfa No.2 as well as the equipment on the boats as the mortgage. Leung failed to repay the loans within the time limit. After the court of Hong Kong rendered the judgment, Clearwise Company fulfilled the repayment obligation on behalf of Leung, and simultaneously obtained the right to mortgage of the two fishing boats and the equipment on the boat. Clearwise Company pleaded the court to order Leung to repay the 1,933,163.26 HKD of principal as well as the 2,217,475.48 HKD of interests, and to compensate 255,198.6 HKD for the losses it suffered from recovering the said loans.@#
．．．．．．

镜威公司诉梁金福船舶抵押债权转让合同纠纷案@#
@#
原告：香港镜威公司。@#
法定代表人：吴镜威，香港居民。@#
委托代理人：梁山、沈宏伟，广州市经纶律师事务所律师。@#
被告：梁金福，香港公民。@#
委托代理人：叶波，海南省三亚市南天律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：王正郛，海南省临高县律师事务所律师。@#
@#
１９９６年１１月６日，根据原告镜威公司的申请，中华人民共和国海口海事法院依法将被告梁金福所属的兴发１号和兴发２号两条渔船扣押于海南省三亚港。镜威公司随后向海口海事法院提起船舶抵押债权转让合同纠纷诉讼。@#
原告诉称；被告梁金福以兴发１号和兴发２号两条渔船及船上设备作抵押向澳洲信用财务（香港）有限公司（下称财务公司）借款。梁金福届期不能还款，经香港法院判决，原告已经代其履行了还款义务，同时从财务公司取得了对这两条渔船及船上设备的抵押权。请求判令梁金福偿还欠款本金ＨＫ￥（港币）１９３３１６３．２６元和利息ＨＫ￥２２１７４７５．４８元，以及赔偿原告追讨该笔欠款遭受的损失ＨＫ￥２５５１９８．６０元。@#
被告辩称：被告向财务公司的借款ＨＫ￥３１０万元，已经部分还本付息，尚欠ＨＫ￥１４０６３２７元，香港法院就此作出判决。由于被告经营不善，无力偿还上述债务及执行香港法院的判决。但被告未欠原告债务，原告称已替被告履行还款义务，财务公司已将船舶抵押权及债权转让给原告，缺乏足够的证据。法院应当驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
海口海事法院经审理查明：１９８８年４月２３日和１９８９年１月２３日，被告梁金福分别向财务公司借款ＨＫ￥１１０万元、ＨＫ￥１７０万元，用于购买兴发１号和兴发２号两条渔船，并将这两条渔船作借款抵押。其中，以兴发１号渔船作抵押的首笔借款ＨＫ￥１１０万元，年利率按１１％计算，每月还ＨＫ￥２８４１７元，约定６０个月还清，从１９８８年５月２３日起支付；以兴发２号渔船作抵押的第二笔借款ＨＫ￥１７０万元，年利率按１２％计算，每月还ＨＫ￥４５３３３元，也约定６０个月还清，从１９８９年２月２３日起支付。此外，梁金福还于１９９０年１月２４日与财务公司签订了一份以租赁方式购买价值ＨＫ￥４０７９８８元的捕鱼设备的协议。约定梁金福从１９９０年２月２４日起的３６个月内，每月２４日向财务公司付租金ＨＫ￥１１３３３元，最后再付ＨＫ￥２０元获得捕鱼设备的所有权。梁金福以兴发１号和兴发２号设定的抵押，在香港海事处有记载，抵押权人是财务公司。@#
其后，由于被告梁金福未能按协议清偿贷款，经财务公司申请，香港最高法院分别于１９９３年９月２９日和１０月１３日作出判决，判令梁金福及其贷款担保人梁树基偿付财务公司款项共计ＨＫ￥１９３３１６３．２６元及其利息，梁金福对此无异议。@#
由于被告梁金福未执行香港法院判决并外出作业不归香港，致使财务公司的债权无法实现，财务公司于１９９５年１１月２１日与原告镜威公司签订了一份抵押债权出售协议和执行该协议的抵押债权转让书。该协议约定，财务公司将列入协议附件１中的所有尚未偿还的抵押债权ＨＫ￥９０１１６６６元转让给镜威公司，其中包括梁金福以兴发１号以及兴发２号作抵押的欠款ＨＫ￥１２９２９９７元及租购捕鱼设备一套的欠款ＨＫ￥１１３３３０元，两项共计ＨＫ￥１４０６３２７元；镜威公司为此项权益转让给财务公司支付ＨＫ￥２８０万元。１９９６年１２月１８日，镜威公司已经将上述款项支付完毕。财务公司也已经将上述债权转让文件向梁金福在香港的住所送达并通知香港海事处。@#
．．．．．．