>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Model Cases on the Fair Trial of Major Trans-Provincial Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Cases Adjudicated by the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court [Effective]
最高人民法院第二巡回法庭关于公正审理跨省重大民商事和行政案件典型案例 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Model Cases on the Fair Trial of Major Trans-Provincial Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Cases Adjudicated by the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院第二巡回法庭关于公正审理跨省重大民商事和行政案件典型案例

(October 31, 2016) (2016年10月31日)

Table of Contents 目录
1. Huinan County Huifeng Coal Production Co., Ltd. v. Fushun Changshun Thermal Electricity Co., Ltd., Fushun Changshun Energy Co., Ltd., and Fushun Changshun Electric Power Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over creditor's subrogation) (No. 186 [2015], Civil Petition, Supreme People's Court) 1.辉南县汇丰煤炭生产有限公司与抚顺长顺热电有限公司、抚顺长顺能源有限公司、抚顺长顺电力有限公司债权人代位权纠纷案--(2015)民提字第186号
2. Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone Municipal Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Xinshi Pipeline Group Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Xinshi Pipeline Limited Liability Company (Case of disputes over a project construction contract) (No. 172 [2016], Civil Retrial, Supreme People's Court) 2.沈阳经济技术开发区市政建设工程有限公司与杭州新世管道集团有限公司、浙江新世管道股份有限公司建设工程施工合同纠纷案--(2016)最高法民再172号
3. Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning Trevi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Xie Tao (Case of disputes over commercial loans) (No. 324 [2015], Final, Civil DivisionII, Supreme People's Court) 3.上海欧宝生物科技有限公司与辽宁特莱维置业发展有限公司、谢涛企业借贷纠纷案--(2015)民二终字第324号
4. Qian'an Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China v. Jiangsu Sopo (Group) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Rushi Industrial Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over a guarantee contract) (No. 40 [2016], Final, Civil Division, Supreme People's Court) 4.江苏索普(集团)有限公司、上海儒仕实业有限公司与中国农业发展银行乾安县支行保证合同纠纷案--(2016)最高法民终40号
5. China Railway Materials (Shenyang) Co., Ltd. v. Tianjin Changlu Salt Corporation (Case of disputes over purchase and a sale contracts) (No. 335 [2015], Final, Civil DivisionII, Supreme People's Court) 5.中国铁路物资沈阳有限公司与天津市长芦盐业总公司买卖合同纠纷案--(2015)民二终字第335号
6. Shenzhen New Century Investment Development Co., Ltd. v. Northeast Petroleum University (Case of contract disputes) (No. 129 [2015], Final, Civil DivisionII, Supreme People's Court) 6.深圳市新世纪投资发展有限公司与东北石油大学合同纠纷案--(2015)民二终字第129号
7. Daqing Fumingda Transport Services Co., Ltd. v. Shanxi China Century Coal Co., Ltd. (Case of contract disputes) (No. 160 [2015], Civil Petition, Supreme People's Court) 7.大庆市福铭达运输服务有限公司与山西华瑞煤业有限公司合同纠纷案--(2015)民提字第160号
8. Zhou Yingqi and Yingkou Hengqi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Fu Xueling, Sha Modi, Wang Fengqin, and Yingkou Economic and Technological Development Zone Minghong Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over transfer of equities) (No. 222 [2016], Final, Civil Division, Supreme People's Court) 8.周盈岐、营口恒岐房地产开发有限公司与付学玲、沙沫迪、王凤琴、营口经济技术开发区明虹房地产开发有限公司股权转让纠纷案--(2016)最高法民终222号
9. Beijing Wanfangyuan Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Shenyang Office of China Great Wall Asset Management Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over an agreement on the swap of creditor's rights for equities) (No. 366 [2015], Final, Civil DivisionII, Supreme People's Court) 9.北京万方源房地产开发有限公司与中国长城资产管理公司沈阳办事处债权置换股份协议纠纷案--(2015)民二终字第366号
10. Ma Enben v. People's Government of Nenjiang County, Heilongjiang Province (Case of disputes over non-performance of statutory duty of providing resettlement compensation) (No. 33 [2015], Administrative Petition, Supreme People's Court) 10.马恩本诉黑龙江省嫩江县人民政府不履行发放安置补偿款法定职责纠纷案--(2015)行提字第33号
Huinan County Huifeng Coal Production Co., Ltd. v. Fushun Changshun Thermal Electricity Co., Ltd., Fushun Changshun Energy Co., Ltd., and Fushun Changshun Electric Power Co., Ltd.(Case of disputes over creditor's subrogation) 辉南县汇丰煤炭生产有限公司与抚顺长顺热电有限公司、抚顺长顺能源有限公司、抚顺长顺电力有限公司债权人代位权纠纷案
(No. 186 [2015], Civil Petition, Supreme People's Court) (2015)民提字第186号
1. Case Merits (一)基本案情
Huinan County Huifeng Coal Production Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huinan Company”) appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Fushun City, Liaoning Province, alleging that it was determined in a judgment rendered by the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province, which has taken effect, that Fushun Thermal Fuels Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Thermal Company”) should pay Huinan Company the principal and interest of the debt in an amount of over CNY 8 million, but Thermal Company was reluctant to perform the obligations as determined in the judgment. Thermal Company enjoyed mature creditor's rights of Fushun Changshun Thermal Electricity Co., Ltd., Fushun Changshun Energy Co., Ltd., and Fushun Changshun Electric Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “three companies”), but it was indolent to exercise such creditor's rights, causing damages to Huinan Company. Huinan Company requested that a judgment be made to acknowledge that Huinan Company shall have subrogation to claim rights from the three companies on behalf of Thermal Company and the three companies should pay Huinan Company the debt of over CNY 8 million it owed to Thermal Company. 辉南县汇丰煤炭生产有限公司(以下简称辉南公司)向辽宁省抚顺市中级人民法院提起诉讼称:辽宁省高级人民法院生效判决确认抚顺市热能燃料有限责任公司(以下简称热能公司)应给付辉南公司欠款本息800余万元,热能公司迟迟不予履行生效判决确定的义务。热能公司对抚顺长顺热电有限公司、抚顺长顺能源有限公司、抚顺长顺电力有限公司(以下合并简称三公司)享有到期债权,但是怠于行使,给辉南公司造成损害。请求依法判决辉南公司享有代热能公司向三公司主张权利的代位权,三公司向辉南公司支付欠热能公司的欠款800余万元。
2. Adjudication (二)裁判结果
The Intermediate People's Court of Fushun City, Liaoning Province ruled that the appeal of Huinan Company should not be accepted on the ground that the evidence provided by Huinan Company failed to prove whether the creditor's rights enjoyed by Thermal Company against the three companies were mature. The Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province rendered a ruling that the appeal should be rejected and the original ruling should be sustained on the same ground. Huinan Company still refused to accept the ruling and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. 辽宁省抚顺市中级人民法院以辉南公司提供的证据不能证明热能公司对三公司享有的债权是否到期为由,裁定对辉南公司的起诉不予受理。辽宁省高级人民法院以相同理由裁定驳回上诉,维持原裁定。辉南公司仍不服,向最高人民法院申请再审。
After a trial, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court held that, under the circumstance where the courts of the first and second instances neither placed the case on file nor carried out adversarial debate and trial, they rendered rulings that the claim of Huinan Company that the creditor's rights were mature lacked evidence and on this ground, they did not place the case on file, which was an excessively strict comprehension of Article 11 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and was adverse to the protection of the party's procedural rights. Therefore, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court rendered a ruling (No. 186 [2015], Civil Petition, Supreme People's Court), ordering that the rulings of first and second instances should be revoked and designated the court of the first instance to place the appeal raised by Huinan Company on file and accept it. 最高人民法院第二巡回法庭经审理认为,一、二审法院在对该案未予立案,未予开展诉辩交锋以及审理的情况下,即判定辉南公司主张债权到期缺乏证据证明,并据此不予立案,系对《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释(一)》第十一条规定的理解过于严格,不利于依法保护当事人的诉讼权利。遂作出(2015)民提字第186号裁定,撤销一、二审裁定,指令一审法院对辉南公司的起诉立案受理。
3. Significance (三)典型意义
The parties to this case were from Jilin Province and Liaoning Province and this case mainly concerned legal issue of the standards for the filing and examination of a case of disputes over the creditor's subrogation and the substantive judgment standards. In Article 11 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court of Several Issues concerning the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, although the expression “where a creditor files a subrogation lawsuit, the following conditions shall be met” was used, this article was mainly an interpretation on the comprehension and application of the Contract Law and it emphasized the substantive judgment standards. From the perspective of protecting the parties' procedural rights to the maximum extent and comprehensively promoting the reform of case-filing registration system, it was inappropriate to conduct unnecessarily strict filing and examination of this type of cases. The evidence provided by the creditor was sufficient to prove that it enjoyed the mature legal creditor's rights against the debtor and could preliminarily prove that the debtor also enjoyed the mature legal creditor's rights against the secondary debtor. Where the debtor was negligent in exercising the creditor's rights, the people's court may place the case on file and accept it. Where, upon trial, the creditor's claim of subrogation was untenable, the people's court should render a judgment that the creditor's claim should be rejected. In this way, the legitimate procedural rights of the creditor will be safeguarded and the interests of other parties will not be impaired. 本案当事人跨越吉林与辽宁两省,主要涉及债权人代位权纠纷案件的立案审查标准和实体裁判标准的法律尺度问题。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释(一)》第十一条规定虽然使用了“提起代位权诉讼,应当符合下列条件”的表述,但是该条文主要是对合同法的理解与适用作出的解释,偏重于实体裁判标准。从最大限度地保护当事人的诉权,全面推行立案登记制改革的角度出发,对此类案件的立案审查不宜过于严格。债权人提供的证据能够证明其对债务人享有合法到期债权,能够初步证明债务人对次债务人亦享有合法到期债权,债务人怠于行使其债权的,就可以立案受理。经过审理,债权人的代位权请求不能成立的,判决驳回其诉讼请求。这样,既保障了债权人的正当诉讼权利,又不会损害其他当事人的利益。
Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone Municipal Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Xinshi Pipeline Group Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Xinshi Pipeline Limited Liability Company (Case of disputes over a project construction contract) 沈阳经济技术开发区市政建设工程有限公司与杭州新世管道集团有限公司、浙江新世管道股份有限公司建设工程施工合同纠纷案
(No. 172 [2016], Civil Retrial, Supreme People's Court) (2016)最高法民再172号
1. Case Merits (一)基本案情
In 2012, Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone Municipal Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shenyang Municipal Company”) filed a lawsuit against Hangzhou Xinshi Pipeline Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hangzhou Xinshi Company”) and Zhejiang Xinshi Pipeline Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as “Zhejiang Xinshi Company”) and requested that the relevant agreements concluded by and between both parties and the payment of liquidated damages be terminated. The Intermediate People's Court of Shenyang City (hereinafter referred to as the “Intermediate Court of Shenyang”) held that the two agreements concluded by both parties were invalid and if Shenyang Municipal Company believed that there was any loss caused to it due to project quality problems, the payment may be concurrently deducted in the settlement of the project costs. Therefore, the People's Court of Shenyang rendered a judgment ordering that the claim of Shenyang Municipal Company should be rejected and after a trial of second instance, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province sustained the original judgment. 2012年沈阳市政公司起诉杭州新世公司、浙江新世公司,请求解除双方签订的相关协议并支付违约金。沈阳市中级人民法院(以下简称沈阳中院)认为,双方签订的两份协议无效,如沈阳市政公司认为存在因工程质量问题给其造成的损失,可在结算工程款时一并扣除,故判决驳回沈阳市政公司的诉讼请求,辽宁省高级人民法院二审维持原判。
On August 13, 2013, Hangzhou Xinshi Company filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Changxing County, Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Court of Changxing”) against Shenyang Municipal Company and requested the Court of Changxing to order Shenyang Municipal Company to pay the project costs. In the process of verifying the case merits, the Court of Changxing found that the case was being tried by the Intermediate Court of Shenyang, nonetheless, it rendered a judgment ordering Shenyang Municipal Company to pay the project costs. After Shenyang Municipal Company appealed, the court of second instance sustained the original judgment. 2013年8月13日,杭州新世公司在浙江省长兴县人民法院(以下简称长兴法院)对沈阳市政公司提起诉讼,请求判令沈阳市政公司支付工程款。长兴法院在查明事实中认定本案正在沈阳中院进行审理。长兴法院其后作出沈阳市政公司给付工程价款的判决。沈阳市政公司上诉后,二审维持原判。
On November 28, 2013, Shenyang Municipal Company filed this lawsuit with the Intermediate Court of Shenyang, alleged that there were quality problems in the project of Zhejiang Xinshi Company and Hangzhou Xinshi Company, and requested the Intermediate Court of Shenyang to order the defendants to compensate for its losses. Zhejiang Xinshi Company raised an objection to jurisdiction and contended that, since this case has been placed on file and tried by the Court of Changxing, it should be transferred to the Court of Changxing. 2013年11月28日,沈阳市政公司向沈阳中院提起本案诉讼,主张由于浙江新世公司、杭州新世公司工程存在质量问题,请求判令被告赔偿损失。浙江新世公司对管辖权提出异议,认为本案已由长兴法院立案审理,应移送长兴法院。
2. Adjudication (二)裁判结果
In the view of the Intermediate Court of Shenyang, the case placed on file and tried by the Court of Changxing and case at issue were not identical and the filing of a lawsuit by the plaintiff at the place of contract performance complied with the law. Therefore, the Intermediate Court of Shenyang rendered a ruling and declined the objection to jurisdiction as raised by Zhejiang Xinshi Company. After a trial of the second instance, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province held that the case in which Zhejiang Xinshi Company claimed project arrears and Shenyang Municipal Company's lawsuit based on project quality problems could not be separately tried by two different courts. Shenyang Municipal Company may concurrently claim its rights in the case tried by the Court of Changxing. Therefore, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province rendered a ruling that the ruling of first instance should be revoked and the appeal of Shenyang Municipal Company be rejected. Shenyang Municipal Company refused to accept the ruling and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. 沈阳中院认为:长兴法院立案审理的案件与本案不属于同一案件,原告在合同履行地起诉符合法律规定,故裁定驳回浙江新世公司的管辖权异议。辽宁省高级人民法院二审认为,浙江新世公司主张工程欠款,沈阳市政公司起诉工程质量问题,两案不能由两地法院分别审理。沈阳市政公司可在长兴法院审理的案件中一并主张权利。故裁定撤销一审裁定,驳回沈阳市政公司的起诉。沈阳市政公司不服,向最高人民法院申请再审。
After retrial, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court held that the lawsuit filed by Shenyang Municipal Company was not a repetitive suit and the Intermediate Court of Shenyang had jurisdiction. There were no conditions for the combined trial of this case and the case accepted by the Court of Changxing and the case at issue should be subject to the substantive trial by the court of the first instance. Therefore, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court rendered a ruling, stating that the rulings of the first and second instances should be revoked and instructed the Intermediate Court of Shenyang to try the case at issue. 最高人民法院第二巡回法庭再审认为,沈阳市政公司提起本案诉讼不属于重复诉讼,沈阳中院具有管辖权。本案与长兴法院受理的案件已不存在合并审理的条件,应由一审法院进行实体审理。故裁定撤销本案一、二审裁定,指令沈阳中院对本案进行审理。
3. Significance (三)典型意义
Although the case at issue was about disputes over objection to jurisdiction, it involved the application of laws in the determination of jurisdiction, repetitive lawsuits, and combined trial. The domiciles of both parties were in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province and Shenyang City, Liaoning Province, respectively, and it was a case that cover two administrative divisions. In order to contend for jurisdiction of the case, both parties filed three lawsuits based on the same case facts, causing failure to effectively settle contradictions and disputes for a long term. By so doing both parties were dragged into unnecessary lawsuits, the judicial resources were seriously wasted. After retrial, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court held that the Intermediate Court of Shenyang had jurisdiction over this case, the case accepted by the Court of Changxing and this case were independent lawsuits filed by the parties based on the same merits and the same legal relations, and the courts of the two places should have combined these two cases through such legal procedures as consultation and request for designated jurisdiction according to the law so as to avoid conflicting judgments and prevent the parties from unnecessary litigation. However, since the case accepted by the Court of Changxing has been tried by the courts of the first and second instances, and the judgments have become effective, there were no conditions for combining the two cases and the ruling of the second instance should be corrected according to law. In the trial of this case, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court not only pointed out the problems in the jurisdiction of this case as determined by the two courts, it also took into full account the realistic conditions for combining the two cases into one so as to safeguard the parties' procedural rights according to law. The outcome of this case was not only conducive to guiding the parties in instituting proceedings over jurisdiction in good faith, but was of great guiding significance for subordinate courts to settle conflicts over jurisdiction and make consultation or request for the designated jurisdiction in a timely manner. 本案虽然系一起管辖权异议纠纷,但涉及到管辖权的确定、重复起诉及合并审理三个方面的法律适用问题。双方当事人住所地分别在浙江杭州和辽宁沈阳,属于跨行政区划的案件,为争夺案件管辖权,双方就同一案件事实生成三起诉讼,矛盾纠纷长期无法得到有效化解,不仅造成双方当事人诉累,也严重浪费了司法资源。本案再审后认为,沈阳中院对本案具有管辖权,长兴法院受理的案件与本案属于当事人就同一事实和同一法律关系分别提起的诉讼,两地法院本应依法通过协商或报请指定管辖等法定程序,使得两案可以合并审理,以避免产生冲突判决,减少当事人诉累。但鉴于长兴法院受理的案件已经一、二审法院审理并作出生效判决,两案已不存在合并审理的条件,故对二审裁定依法予以纠正。在本案审理中,我们既指出了两地法院在本案管辖问题中存在的问题,又充分考虑到案件已经不具备合并审理的现实条件,依法保障当事人的诉权。本案的处理结果,有利于引导当事人在案件管辖问题上进行诚信诉讼,同时对于下级法院在处理管辖权冲突问题上,应当及时协商或报请指定管辖也具有重要指导意义。
Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning Trevi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Xie Tao (Case of disputes over a commercial loan) 上海欧宝生物科技有限公司与辽宁特莱维置业发展有限公司、谢涛企业借贷纠纷案
(No. 324 [2015], Final, Civil DivisionII, Supreme People's Court) (2015)民二终字第324号
1. Case Merits (一)基本案情
On June 13, 2010, Shanghai Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Oubao Company”) filed a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province and requested that Liaoning Trevi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Trevi Company”) should repay the loan of CNY 86.5 million and the interest thereof. On March 21, 2011, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 15 [2010], First, Civil DivisionII, HPC, Liaoning), ordering Trevi Company to repay Oubao Company CNY 86.5 million and the interest thereof at the loan interest rate of the bank for the same period. Since Xie Tao, a creditor of another case against Trevi Company, lodged an appeal, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province rendered a civil ruling (No. 8 [2012], Civil DivisionII, HPC, Liaoning) on January 4, 2012 to retry this case. After retrial, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province rendered a judgment to reject the claims of Oubao Company. Oubao Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. 上海欧宝生物科技有限公司(以下简称欧宝公司)于2010年6月13日向辽宁省高级人民法院提起诉讼,请求辽宁特莱维置业发展有限公司(以下简称特莱维公司)返还借款8650万元及利息,辽宁省高级人民法院经审理于2011年3月21日作出了(2010)辽民二初字第15号民事判决,判决特莱维公司支付欧宝公司8650万元,并按银行同期贷款利率支付利息。后因特莱维公司的另案债权人谢涛提出申诉,辽宁省高级人民法院于2012年1月4日作出了(2012)辽立二民监字第8号民事裁定再审本案。辽宁省高级人民法院经再审判决驳回欧宝公司的诉讼请求,欧宝公司不服,向最高人民法院提起上诉。
2. Adjudication (二)裁判结果
After trial, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court held that: The people's court should protect lawful debtor-creditor relationships and at the same time, it should crack down on the activities of false litigation through malicious collusion with the intention to impair other persons' lawful rights and interests. As far as the present case is concerned, Oubao Company and Trevi Company were both controlled by Wang Zuoxin and Qu Yeli (husband and wife), and these two companies were affiliated with Shaqi Company, Shanghai Trevi Company, and Shenyang Trevi Company. Under these circumstances, according to its authority, the people's court took such evidence as the industrial and commercial archives and bank account transaction statements of each affiliated company and found upon examination that the amount of loans claimed by Oubao Company were inconsistent; Oubao Company did not elaborate such details as the dates, places, and handling personnel of the loans; there were cyclic transfers among affiliated companies; the loan flows were contrary to the purposes as agreed on in the contracts; and many activities in the litigation and enforcement were contrary to common sense. Both Oubao Company and Trevi Company failed to make any reasonable explanation for the aforesaid inconsistencies and violations of common sense. In light of other documented evidence, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court believed that the creditor's rights claimed by Oubao Company were fabricated by intercepting the transfer funds with Trevi Company and its claim for Trevi Company's repayment of CNY 86.5 million and the interest thereof on the basis of the fabricated creditor's rights should not be upheld. Therefore, the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court rejected the appeal, sustained the original judgment, and decided to impose a fine of CNY 500,000 on Oubao Company and Trevi Company, respectively. 最高人民法院第二巡回法庭经审理认为:人民法院保护合法的借贷关系,同时,对于恶意串通进行虚假诉讼意图损害他人合法权益的行为,应当进行制裁。具体到本案而言,欧宝公司与特莱维公司由王作新、曲叶丽夫妻二人实际控制,两公司及沙琪公司、上海特莱维、沈阳特莱维之间存在关联关系。在这种情况下,人民法院依职权调取了各关联公司的工商档案及银行账户交易明细等证据,经审查发现欧宝公司主张借款数额前后矛盾;对借款时间、地点、经办人员等细节语焉不详;各关联公司之间存在循环转账;借款流向与合同约定用途相悖;诉讼及执行中的诸多行为违背常理等。对上述矛盾和违背常理之处,欧宝公司与特莱维公司并未作出合理解释。结合在案其他证据,本院认定欧宝公司诉请之债权系截取其与特莱维公司之间的往来款项虚构而成,其以虚构债权为基础请求特莱维公司返还8650万元借款及利息的请求,不应支持。因此,判决驳回上诉,维持原判,并决定对欧宝公司和特莱维公司各罚款50万元。
3. Significance (三)典型意义
The parties to this case were from Liaoning Province and Shanghai Municipality. It was the first case of false civil litigation determined by the Supreme People's Court, and also the first case in the “Campaign of Holding Court Trials in Law Schools” as organized by the No. 2 Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court. In this case, Hu Yunteng, Justice, served as the presiding judge and a judgment was made to the effect that Oubao Company and Trevi Company maliciously colluded in filing a false lawsuit, so they should be each imposed on a fine of CNY 500,000. The trial of the case has achieved desirable legal effects and social effects. The CCTV program, Legal Report, made a special coverage of this case and dozens of media and news websites, including www.xinhuanet.com, www.chinanews.com, Legal Daily, www.sina.com.cn, and www.ifeng.com, had comments on this case. According to such media and news websites, the judgment of this case has specified the judgment standards for false civil litigation, showed the resolution and confidence of the Supreme People's Court for maintaining judicial justice and good faith in litigation, and was conducive to establishing the awareness of good faith in litigation, maintaining litigation order, and safeguarding judicial justice and legal authority. Zhou Qiang, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, commented that “[T]his case was highly significant and it should be incorporated into the intensive publicity activities of building core values.” This case was awarded one of “Top 10 Lawsuits with Great Impacts in 2015,” “Top 10 Civil and Administrative Cases Tried by People's Courts in 2015,” and “Top 10 Cases in the Process of Promoting Rule of Law in 2015,” and it was included in the 14th group of guiding cases published by the Supreme People's Court. 本案当事人跨越辽宁与上海两省市,是最高人民法院认定的首例虚假民事诉讼案件,也是最高人民法院第二巡回法庭“庭审走进法学院活动”的第一案,由胡云腾大法官担任审判长,本案当庭裁判并对恶意串通进行虚假诉讼的欧宝公司和特莱维公司各罚款50万元,取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。中央电视台今日说法栏目对本案进行了专题报导,新华网、中国新闻网、法制日报、新浪网、凤凰网等数十家媒体和新闻网站也纷纷发表评论,认为本案裁判明确了虚假民事诉讼的裁判标准,表明了最高人民法院维护司法公正和诉讼诚信的决心和信心,有利于树立诉讼诚信意识,维护诉讼秩序,有利于维护司法公正及法制权威。周强院长作出批示“此案很有意义,请纳入建设核心价值集中宣传活动”。本案被评为“2015年十大影响性诉讼”、“2015年度人民法院十大民事行政案件”、“2015年推进法治进程十大案件”,并收入最高人民法院第14批指导性案例。
Qian'an Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China v. Jiangsu Sopo (Group) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Rushi Industrial Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over a guarantee contract) 中国农业发展银行乾安县支行与江苏索普(集团)有限公司、上海儒仕实业有限公司保证合同纠纷案
(No. 40 [2016], Final, Civil Division, Supreme People's Court) (2016)最高法民终40号
1. Case Merits (一)基本案情
On June 28, 2011, in order to repay the loan borrowed from Qian'an Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as “Qian'an Branch”), by means of repaying the old loan with a new loan, Songyuan Tian'an Biological Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tian'an Company”) concluded a Loan Contract on Working Capital with Qian'an Branch. It was stipulated in the Contract that Tian'an Company borrowed a loan of CNY 176.707 million from Qian'an Branch for repaying its previous debts, with the loan term from June 28, 2011 to June 26, 2019. On the same day, Qian'an Branch and Tian'an Company also concluded three loan restructuring contracts, with the amounts of restructuring loans of CNY 20 million, 80 million, and 30 million, respectively; Qian'an Branch concluded a Guarantee Contract with Jiangsu Sopo (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sopo Company”), Shanghai Rushi Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rushi Company”), and Jilin Alcohol Industry Co., Ltd.. It was stipulated in the Contract that Sopo Company, Rushi Company, and Jilin Alcohol Industry Co., Ltd. should provide joint and several guarantee for the Loan Contract on Working Capital at issue, the loan of CNY 30 million in another lawsuit, totaling CNY 206.707 million. On the same day, Qian'an Branch and the debtor, Tian'an Company, also concluded a Contract on Mortgage of the Maximum Amount, according to which the principal of the maximum guaranteed creditor's rights amounted to CNY 198.4 million. Qian'an Branch and a third party, Jilin Songyuan Ji'an Biochemistry Butanol Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Butanol Company”) concluded a Contract on Mortgage of the Maximum Amount, according to which the principal of the maximum guaranteed creditor's rights amounted to CNY 30 million. After the conclusion of the aforesaid contracts, for the new loan at issue, Tian'an Company only repaid CNY 2.41 million without repaying the rest loans. In February 2015, Qian'an Branch filed this lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province and requested that Sopo Company and Rushi Company should jointly assume the guarantee liabilities and repay the principal of the loan of CNY 174.297 million owed by Tian'an Company. 2011年6月28日,松原天安生物制品有限公司(以下简称天安公司)为归还原所欠乾安县支行贷款,以借新还旧方式与乾安县支行签订本案《流动资金借款合同》,约定天安公司向乾安县支行借款17670.7万元人民币,用于偿还天安公司原所欠债务,借款期限自2011年6月28日起至2019年6月26日止。同日,乾安县支行与天安公司还签订了三份贷款重组合同,重组贷款金额分别为2000万元、8000万元、3000万元。同日,乾安县支行与索普公司、儒仕公司以及吉林省酒精工业有限公司签订《保证合同》,约定索普公司、儒仕公司、吉林省酒精工业有限公司为本案借款合同以及另案3000万元借款总计20670.7万元的借款提供连带责任保证。同日,乾安县支行还与债务人天安公司签订《最高额抵押合同》,担保最高债权本金金额为19840万元;与第三人吉林松原吉安生化丁醇有限公司(以下简称丁醇公司)签订《最高额抵押合同》,担保最高债权本金金额为3000万元。以上合同签订后,对于本案新借贷款天安公司除偿还241万元外,其余均未偿还。2015年2月,乾安县支行向吉林省高级人民法院提起本案诉讼,请求索普公司、儒士公司共同连带承担保证责任,向乾安县支行偿还天安公司所欠借款本金17429.7万元。
2. Adjudiction (二)裁判结果
After trial of the first instance, the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province held that: Qian'an Branch had the right to declare the advanced maturity of the loan and Sopo Company and Rushi Company should assume guarantee liability. In addition, the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province did not uphold the claims of Sopo Company and Rushi Company that their guarantee liabilities should be exempted within other guarantee and mortgage guarantee scope. On these grounds, the Higher People's Court of Jilin Province rendered a judgment that Sopo Company and Rushi Company should jointly and severally pay Qian'an Branch the principal of the loan of CNY 174.297 million as well as the corresponding interest, the default interest, and the compound interest, and jointly pay Qian'an Branch the lawyer's fee of CNY 540,000. Sopo Company and Rushi Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
......
 吉林省高级人民法院一审认为,本案乾安县支行有权宣布借款提前到期,索普公司、儒仕公司应当承担保证责任,且对索普公司、儒仕公司关于应在其他保证和抵押担保范围内免除保证责任的主张不予支持,据此判决索普公司、儒仕公司共同连带偿还乾安县支行借款本金17429.7万元及利息、罚息和复利,并连带给付乾安县支行本案律师代理费54万元等。索普公司、儒仕公司不服,向最高人民法院提出上诉。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥1500.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese