>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Huajian Electronic Co., Ltd., Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd. and Canton Venture Capital Co., Ltd. v. Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao (case of disputes over cooperation agreement)
华建电子有限责任公司、华建机器翻译有限公司与广州科技风险投资有限公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩合作协议纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Huajian Electronic Co., Ltd., Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd. and Canton Venture Capital Co., Ltd. v. Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao (case of disputes over cooperation agreement)
(case of disputes over cooperation agreement)
华建电子有限责任公司、华建机器翻译有限公司与广州科技风险投资有限公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩合作协议纠纷案

Huajian Electronic Co., Ltd., Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd. and Canton Venture Capital Co., Ltd. v. Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao
(A Case of Disputes over Cooperation Agreement)

 

华建电子有限责任公司、华建机器翻译有限公司与广州科技风险投资有限公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩合作协议纠纷案

[Abstract] [裁判摘要]
Where, the parties concerned signed many contracts for purposes of cooperation, but there is an arbitration clause in only one of the contracts, and after the arbitral award involving this Contract came into force, an action was brought for the disputes over another contract which does not have an arbitration clause, one party claims that the people's court has no jurisdiction on the ground that the arbitral award has come into force, the people's court shall not support such claim. Where, under the circumstances that a contract which serves as the basis of an effective arbitral award is not that serving as the basis for the people's court to handle a dispute, and the contents heard by the people's court do not involve the matters stipulated in the arbitration clauses, one party claims that the people's court shall not handle the case again on the ground of “non bis in idem”, the people's court shall not support such claim. 为达成合作目的,当事人签订多个合同,但仅在一个合同中约定了仲裁条款,涉及该合同的仲裁裁决生效后,又因其他未约定仲裁条款的合同的争议形成诉讼,一方当事人仅以仲裁裁决已生效为由主张人民法院无管辖权的,人民法院不予支持。在生效仲裁裁决依据的合同与人民法院处理争议案件依据的合同不同,人民法院审理的内容也不涉及仲裁条款约定事项的情形下,一方当事人以“一事不再理”为由主张人民法院不应重复处理的,人民法院不予支持。
Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
Civil Judgment 民事判决书
(No.10 [2010], Civil Retrial) (2010)民提字第10号
BASIC FACTS 
Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial of the first instance and appellee in the trial of the second instance): Huajian Electronic Co., Ltd., domiciled at Kequn Mansion, No.30 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing. 申请再审人(一审原告、二审被上诉人):华建电子有限责任公司。
Legal representative: Hong Lin, general manager of this Company. 法定代表人:洪琳,该公司总经理。
Attorney: Wang Yushuang, lawyer of Beijing Huicheng Law Group. 委托代理人:王玉双,北京市惠诚律师事务所律师。
Petitioner (plaintiff in the trial of the first instance and appellee in the trial of the second instance): Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd., domiciled at Kequn Mansion (W), No.257 North 4th Ring Road, Haidian District, Beijing. 申请再审人(一审原告、二审被上诉人):华建机器翻译有限公司。
Legal representative: Hong Lin, general manager of this Company. 法定代表人:洪琳,该公司总经理。
Attorney: Wang Yushuang, lawyer of Beijing Huicheng Law Group. 委托代理人:王玉双,北京市惠诚律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in the trial of the first instance and appellant in the trial of the second instance): Canton Venture Capital Co., Ltd., domiciled at C204, Guangzhou International Business Incubator, Science City, High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. 被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人):广州科技风险投资有限公司。
Legal representative: Feng Mengjue, chairman of the board of directors this Company. 法定代表人:冯梦觉,该公司董事长。
Attorney: Liu Jicheng, lawyer of Guangdong Sino-win Law Firm. 委托代理人:刘继承,广东胜伦律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Lu Yuxing, intern lawyer of Guangdong Sino-win Law Firm. 委托代理人:陆宇星,广东胜伦律师事务所实习律师。
Respondent (defendant in the trial of the first instance and appellant in the trial of the second instance): Xie Xiongping, male, of the Han ethnic group, born on March 8, 1967, residing at Room 402, No.60 Changleyuan, Yuancun Street, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province. 被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人):谢雄平。
Attorney: Huang Lisheng, lawyer of Guangdong Global Kingway Law Firm. 委托代理人:黄立胜,广东环球经纬律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in the trial of the first instance and appellant in the trial of the second instance): Zhang Heping, male, of the Han ethnic group, born on March 15, 1966, permanent residence registered at Room 1104, No.184 Xujing West Street, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, residing at the dormitory of Huabao Electronics Factory, Shunfeng Mountain, Daliang, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. 被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人):张贺平。
Attorney: Huang Lisheng, lawyer of Guangdong Global Kingway Law Firm. 委托代理人:黄立胜,广东环球经纬律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in the trial of the first instance and appellant in the trial of the second instance): Qiu Shaoming, male, of the Han ethnic group, born on September 12, 1961, permanent residence registered at Room 602, No.49 Lujing East Road, Dengfeng Street, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, residing at C204, Guangzhou International Business Incubator, Science City, High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. 被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人):仇绍明。
Respondent (defendant in the trial of the first instance): Huang Ruohao, male, of the Han ethnic group, born on May 25, 1962, permanent residence registered at the collective household of Tianhe High-tech Industrial Development Zone, Shipai Street, Zhongshan Avenue, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, residing at Room 304, Building 22, No.108 Shuangbai Alley, Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province. 被申请人(一审被告):黄若浩。
For the disputes over cooperation agreements between the petitioner, Huajian Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Huajian Electronic Company”) and Huajian Machine Translation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Huajian Translation Company”) and the respondents, Canton Venture Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Venture Capital Company”), Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province rendered a Civil Ruling (No.315 [2007], Final, Civil Division I, HPC Guangdong) on June 3, 2008, which has taken legal effect. On July 20, 2009, this Court rendered a Civil Ruling (No.833 [2008], Civil Petition) to retry this case. This Court legally formed a collegial panel to hear the case on May 13, 2010. Wang Yushuang, attorney of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, Liu Jicheng and Lu Yuxing, attorneys of Venture Capital Company and Huang Lisheng, attorney of Xie Xiongping and Zhang Heping appeared in court and participated in the court proceedings. Upon summons by this Court, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao failed to appear in the court proceedings. So far, the trial of this case has been concluded. 申请再审人华建电子有限责任公司 (以下简称华建电子公司)、华建机器翻译有限公司(以下简称华建翻译公司)与被申请人广州科技风险投资有限公司(以下简称科技公司)、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩合作协议纠纷一案,广东省高级人民法院于2008年6月3日作出(2007)粤高法民一终字第315号民事裁定,已经发生法律效力。本院于2009年7月20日作出 (2008)民申字第833号民事裁定,提审本案。本院依法组成合议庭,于2010年5月13日开庭审理了本案。华建电子公司和华建翻译公司的委托代理人王玉双,科技公司的委托代理人刘继承、陆宇星,谢雄平和张贺平的委托代理人黄立胜到庭参加诉讼。仇绍明、黄若浩经本院依法传唤,未到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
On August 8, 2006, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company brought a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, alleging that: in the second half of 2004, due to the unsatisfactory performance of Guangzhou Kuangshi Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Kuangshi Company”), the downturn of Hong Kong stock market and other reasons, the IPO of the overseas subsidiary of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company came to a deadlock. Out of various considerations, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company reached a consensus with Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao at the beginning of 2005, believing that it was difficult for the subsidiary to be listed in the near future, and they agreed to, according to the stipulations of the Cooperation Agreement, terminate the three agreements that have been signed, i.e. the Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and Framework Agreement on the introduction of venture capital providers by Huajian Electronic Company and restore the original state of Kuangshi Company. Nevertheless, Venture Capital Company delayed for many times the handling of industrial and commercial registration modification formalities on restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company under various pretexts. At the end of 2005, in spite of the consensus reached on terminating cooperation and restoring equity structure, Venture Capital Company solely applied for arbitration on the basis of the Equity Transfer Agreement by taking advantage of the industrial and commercial registration of equities of Kuangshi Company which had not been restored. Since arbitration clauses are included in the Equity Transfer Agreement only, and Venture Capital Company refused to reach a consensus on arbitration under the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement, which is a constituent part of the cooperative project, it finally led to the adverse consequences that Beijing Arbitration Commission ruled to order Huajian Electronic Company to assume the liability for paying equity transfer fees and interest. According to the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company and Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao, the Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and Framework Agreement should be terminated if Huajian Electronic Company failed to be restructured and listed on the stock market due to any reason. For the part of the agreement which had been fulfilled, both parties agreed to restore the original state as much as possible, including (but not limited to) refunding the agreement price, restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, handling again the corresponding industrial and commercial registration modification formalities, and respectively bear the losses caused to them under the principle of fairness. Venture Capital Company severed the integration between the Cooperation Agreement, Framework Agreement and Equity Transfer Agreement, concealed the true background of equity transfer, and its application for arbitration seriously violated the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, which directly led to the lawsuit filed by Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company so as to find out the truth and protect their legitimate rights and interests, which has caused serious economic losses to them. They requested the people's court to: (1) confirm the Cooperation Agreement as legal and effective; (2) rule to terminate the Cooperation Agreement, modify the registration of 90% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company under the name of Huajian Electronic Company, of which 36.11% was held by Xie Xiongping, 14.33% held by Huang Ruohao, 14.31% by Zhang Heping, 0.25% by Qiu Shaoming, 25% by Venture Capital Company, and modify the registration of 10% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company under the name of Huajian Translation Company as held by Xie Xiongping; (3) rule to order Venture Capital Company to pay 166,435.3 yuan as a compensation to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company for the extra economic losses caused to the latter due to its breach of contract, including the attorney's fees for arbitration 50,000 yuan, the funds that had been transferred by the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality in the enforcement of the arbitral award (48,000 yuan), the arbitration fees assumed by Huajian Electronic Company (51,630 yuan), and the expenses for investigation and taking evidence in the round trip to Guangzhou (16,805.3 yuan); and (4) the litigation cost of this case should be borne by Venture Capital Company. 2006年8月8日,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司起诉至广东省广州市中级人民法院称,2004年下半年,由于广州市旷世科技发展有限公司(以下简称旷世公司)业绩不理想及香港股市低迷等原因,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的海外子公司上市进程搁浅。经多方面考虑,2005年初华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩达成了共识,认为短期内上市存在困难,同意根据《合作协议》的约定,终止已经签署的三份协议,即《合作协议》、《股权转让协议》及华建电子公司引进风险投资者的《框架协议》,将旷世公司恢复原状。但是科技公司借口种种理由屡次拖延办理旷世公司股权恢复原状的工商变更手续。2005年底,科技公司更是不顾已经达成的关于终止合作,恢复股权架构的合意,利用尚未恢复原状的旷世公司的股权工商登记现状,单独以《股权转让协议》为依据,申请仲裁。由于仲裁条款仅仅在《股权转让协议》中进行了约定,而科技公司又拒绝对作为一个整体合作项目下的《合作协议》、《框架协议》达成仲裁合意,最终导致北京仲裁委员会裁决华建电子公司承担支付股权转让金及利息责任的不利后果。根据华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩签订的《合作协议》第三条第15项的约定,如因各种原因华建电子公司重组上市未果,则终止本协议、《股权转让协议》和《框架协议》。对已经履行的部分,双方同意尽可能回复原状,包括(但不限于)返还协议价格,恢复旷世公司股权架构,重新进行相应工商变更等,对由此给双方造成的损失,双方同意按照公平原则各自承担。科技公司割裂《合作协议》、《框架协议》和《股权转让协议》的整体关系,隐瞒股权转让的真实背景,申请仲裁的行为严重违反了《合作协议》第三条第15项的约定,该行为直接导致华建电子公司、华建翻译公司为还原事实真相、维护自身合法权益,不得不提起本案诉讼,给华建电子公司、华建翻译公司造成了严重的经济损失。请求人民法院:1.确认《合作协议》合法有效;2.判令终止《合作协议》,将华建电子公司名义上的90%的旷世公司股权分别变更登记由谢雄平持有 36.11%、黄若浩持有14.33%、张贺平持有 14.31%、仇绍明持有0.25%、科技公司持有 25%,将华建翻译公司名义上的10%的旷世公司股权变更登记由谢雄平持有;3.判令科技公司赔偿因其违约给华建电子公司、华建翻译公司造成的额外经济损失 166435.3元,包括仲裁律师费5万元,北京市海淀区人民法院执行仲裁裁决已扣划的款项48 000元,华建电子公司承担的仲裁费51 630元,往返广州调查取证的费用 16 805.3元;4.本案诉讼费用由科技公司承担。
Venture Capital Company pleaded that: though the Cooperation Agreement represented the true intention of both parties and was legal and effective, it had not been actually performed; it was only the intention of both parties to cooperate with each other and had no specific binding force upon them. Venture Capital Company disagreed on the second claim of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, hence, it did not request for terminating the Cooperation Agreement. Therefore, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company had no basis to require Venture Capital Company to implement item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, and the second claim was untenable under the premise that the Equity Transfer Agreement was not terminated. 科技公司答辩称,《合作协议》是双方的真实意思表示,合法有效,但是《合作协议》并没有实际履行,这只是双方合作的意向,对双方没有具体的约束力;科技公司不同意华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的第二项诉讼请求,其并没有请求终止《合作协议》,所以华建电子公司、华建翻译公司没有依据请求科技公司按照《合作协议》第三条第15项履行,在没有终止《股权转让协议》的前提下,其提出的第二项诉讼请求不能成立。
In the court proceedings of the first instance, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping and Qiu Shaoming jointly argued that: they agreed with Venture Capital Company in that the Cooperation Agreement was only a letter of intent between both parties, which had not been actually performed. Both parties actually implemented the Equity Transfer Agreement, whether the Cooperation Agreement was legal and effective had nothing to do with the change of the equity structure. Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company argued that they did not participate in business operations and planning, but the directors of Kuangshi Company were all appointed by Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. 谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明一审共同答辩称,同意科技公司的答辩意见,即《合作协议》只是双方的意向书,双方并没有实际履行,真正履行的是《股权转让协议》,《合作协议》无论是否合法有效,与变更股权架构没有联系,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司诉称没有参加经营策划,但旷世公司的董事都是由华建电子公司、华建翻译公司任命。
The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province found that, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, jointly as Party A, and Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company, jointly as Party B, entered into a Cooperation Agreement on December 25, 2003, stipulating that Party A and Party B reached a letter of intent on equity transfer and investment matters, Party A intended to purchase all the equity shares of Kuangshi Company held by Party B, and Party B intended to be the venture capital provider of the company of Party A which was planned for IPO overseas. Party A promised that the affiliated company of Party B may, according to the articles of the Framework Agreement, obtain the shares of the subsidiary company of Party A that was to be listed on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market. To meet the requirements for Party A's listing, Party B agreed to modify the industrial and commercial registration of the equity structure of Kuangshi Company as required by Party A after the conclusion of the said Agreement, but Party A promised that the actual controller of Kuangshi Company would still be Party B and its rights and interests would not be changed before Party A's IPO. The Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and Framework Agreement should be terminated if Party A failed to be restructured and if the IPO failed due to any reason. For the part of the agreement which had been fulfilled, both parties agreed to restore the original state as far as possible, including (but not limited to) refunding the agreement price, restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, handling again the corresponding industrial and commercial registration modification formalities, and sharing the losses caused to them under the principle of fairness. 广东省广州市中级人民法院查明, 2003年12月25日,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司共同作为甲方与谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明及科技公司共同作为乙方签订一份《合作协议》约定,甲、乙双方就股权转让和投资事宜达成合作意向,甲方拟收购乙方持有的旷世公司的全部股权,同时,乙方拟作为甲方之海外拟上市公司的风险投资者;甲方承诺乙方关联公司可以按照《框架协议》的条款,获得甲方拟在香港创业板上市的子公司股份;为了甲方有关上市工作需要,乙方同意在此协议签订后,开始按甲方要求对旷世公司进行工商变更,但甲方承诺,至上市前旷世公司的实际控制人仍为乙方,其实际所有者权益在上市前不作任何改变;如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果,则终止本协议、《股权转让协议》和《框架协议》。对已经履行部分,双方同意尽可能地回复原状,包括(但不限于)返还协议价格,恢复旷世公司股权架构,重新进行相应工商变更登记等,对由此给双方造成的损失,双方同意按照公平原则各自承担。
On the same day when the aforesaid agreement was signed, Huajian Electronic Company, as Party A, and Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Huang Ruohao, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company, collectively as Party B, signed a Framework Agreement on the introduction of venture capital into Huajian Electronic Company, stipulating that: Party A intends to restructure its business and be listed on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market, Party A promises to Party B that it will conduct equity swap after equity transfer, namely, Party B will obtain 8% of the equity shares of Cayman Huajian after equity swap, but the equity shares of Cayman Huajian finally owned by Party B will be determined on the basis of the aggregate market value of Cayman Huajian at the time of issuance and the market value to be subscribed by Party B as finally confirmed by both Party A and Party B; the price of each share transferred from Party A to Party B should be the issue price when Cayman Huajian is listed on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market. Party A guaranteed that Cayman Huajian would be listed on the Hong Kong Growth Enterprise Market, and if it failed, the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Party A and Party B should be terminated, and all payments which had been made by Party B should be refunded in the way prescribed in the Cooperation Agreement. 上述协议签订的同一天,华建电子公司作为甲方与谢雄平、张贺平、黄若浩、仇绍明、科技公司作为乙方签订一份华建电子公司引进风险投资者的《框架协议》约定,甲方拟将业务重组并在香港创业板上市,甲方保证乙方在股份转让后要进行股权置换,即股权置换后乙方要拥有开曼华建8%的股权,但最终乙方拥有开曼华建的股权比例由该公司在发行招股时的总市值及经甲乙双方最终确认的可供乙方认购的市值数来确定;甲乙双方每股转让价格为开曼华建于香港创业板上市时的发行价格;甲方保证以开曼华建在香港创业板上市,如因各种原因而上市未果,则终止甲、乙双方签订的《合作协议》,并按《合作协议》中规定的方式返回乙方业已支付的全部款项等条款。
On the very day when the aforesaid two agreements were signed, Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company, jointly as Party A, and Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, jointly as Party B, entered into an Equity Transfer Agreement, stipulating that: Party A shall transfer 95% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company it holds to Party B, and Venture Capital Company shall transfer all its 25% of the equity of Kuangshi Company to Huajian Electronic Company, and all disputes, if any, shall be brought to Beijing Arbitration Commission for settlement. As the registered capital of Kuangshi Company was 12 million yuan, Venture Capital Company transferred the registered capital 3 million yuan to Huajian Electronic Company. After such equity transfer, the equity structure of Kuangshi Company was: the capital contribution of Xie Xiongping was 600,000 yuan, accounting for 5% of the registered capital, the capital contribution of Huajian Electronic Company was 10.8 million yuan, accounting for 90%, and Huajian Translation Company made a capital contribution of 600,000 yuan, accounting for 5%, and both parties underwent equity registration modification formalities according to law. On February 2, 2004, Huajian Electronic Company, Huajian Translation Company and Xie Xiongping held a shareholders' meeting at which Xie agreed to transfer his 5% shares (totaling 600,000 yuan) to Huajian Translation Company, and industrial and commercial registration modification formalities were handled thereafter. 上述两份协议签订的当天,谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明及科技公司共同作为甲方与华建电子公司、华建翻译公司共同作为乙方签订一份《股权转让协议》,约定甲方持有旷世公司的股权95%转让给乙方,其中科技公司将其所持有的旷世公司 25%的股权全部转让给华建电子公司;如有争议,提请北京仲裁委员会解决。鉴于旷世公司注册资本为1200万元,科技公司向华建电子公司转让的注册资本额为300万元。以上股权转让后,旷世公司的股本结构是,谢雄平的出资金额为60万元,占注册资本5%,华建电子公司的出资金额为 1080万元,占90%,华建翻译公司的出资金额为60万元,占5%,双方依法办理了股权变更登记。2004年2月2日,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司及谢雄平召开股东会,决定同意谢雄平将其5%共60万元的出资转让给华建翻译公司,并办理了工商变更登记手续。
On February 5, 2003, China Securities Regulatory Commission approved to accept the application of Huajian Electronic Company for restructuring and IPO overseas by Letter No.112 [2001] of the Department of International Cooperation of China Securities Regulatory Commission, and required it to waste no time in making all preparations and handle the relevant examination and approval formalities according to the requirements of the relevant laws, regulations and rules. 2003年2月5日,中国证券监督管理委员会以国合函[2001]112号批准同意受理华建电子公司重组境外上市申请,并要求该公司按照有关法律、法规和规则的要求,抓紧各项准备工作,履行有关审批手续。
In the second half of 2004, in view of the various aspects, including business performance and the time for IPO,, the IPO was postponed to a certain extent. At the beginning of 2005, due to various considerations, Huajian Electronic Company reached a consensus with the original shareholders of Kuangshi Company, believing that it was difficult to make the IPO successful in the near future, and they unanimously agreed to terminate the agreement they had signed and sign a corresponding termination agreement so as to restore the status quo ante of Kuangshi Company. In the middle of March 2005, Kuangshi Company held a meeting of the board of directors (i.e. the original shareholders and shareholders' representatives) to collectively discuss the matters on the equity structure of Kuangshi Company. The representatives of Venture Capital Company, Yang Lin and Shen Kun, also attended the meeting. Upon negotiation, all parties agreed to restore the status quo ante of the equity structure of Kuangshi Company. It was decided that Kuangshi Company should send a letter to Huajian Electronic Company, requiring the latter to handle industrial and commercial registration modification formalities. On April 30, 2005, Huajian Electronic Company sent by E-mail the termination agreement it drafted and the corresponding documents to Huang Ruohao. On February 13, 2006, Huang Ruohao and Zhang Heping issued a declaration and a written promise to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, declaring that: the Cooperation Agreement, Framework Agreement and Equity Transfer Agreement (transferring 95%, 100% and 5% equities) concluded in December 2003 between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company and Xie Xiongping, Venture Capital Company, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping and Qiu Shaoming shall be terminated on February 13, 2006 in disregard of their effectiveness, and promised not to claim against Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company for the fulfillment of any obligation as prescribed in the three agreements. Xie Xiongping also issued a written promise to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, promising that he would not claim against Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company for the fulfillment of any obligation prescribed in these three agreements. 2004年下半年,由于公司业绩、上市时机等多方面的考虑,上市进程出现一定程度的推后。2005年初,经多方面考虑后,华建电子公司与旷世公司的原股东达成了共识,认为短期内上市存在困难,同意解除已经签署的协议,并签署相应的终止协议,将旷世公司恢复原状。2005年3月中旬,旷世公司召开董事会(即原股东及股东代表),集体讨论恢复旷世公司股权架构事宜,当时,科技公司代表杨林、沈堃也出席了会议,经协商一致,全体同意恢复事宜,并决定由旷世公司向华建电子公司发函,要求配合办理工商变更手续。2005年4月 30日,华建电子公司将其起草的终止协议及相应文件通过电子邮件发给黄若浩。 2006年2月13日,黄若浩、张贺平向华建电子公司、华建翻译公司出具一份声明及保证书称,2003年12月,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与谢雄平、科技公司、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明签订的《合作协议》、《框架协议》及《股权转让协议》(含95%、 100%、5%股权转让)不论是否有效,我们声明自2006年2月13日起终止履行该三份协议,同时,我们保证不依据该三份协议向华建电子公司和华建翻译公司主张履行该三份协议所约定的任何义务。谢雄平亦向华建电子公司、华建翻译公司出具保证书称,我们保证不依据该三份协议向华建电子公司、华建翻译公司主张履行该三份协议所约定的任何义务。
On December 12, 2005, Venture Capital Company, according to the arbitration clauses of the Equity Transfer Agreement, applied to the Beijing Arbitration Commission for arbitration, claiming against Huajian Electronic Company for the payment of equity transfer fees (3 million yuan) and the corresponding interest. After hearing the case, the arbitral tribunal held that, since the Framework Agreement and Cooperation Agreement did not agree on the settlement of the relevant disputes through arbitration by Beijing Arbitration Commission, the arbitral tribunal advised that the disputes under the Framework Agreement and Cooperation Agreement be heard concurrently by the arbitral tribunal, on which both parties failed to reach a consensus. In view of this fact, the arbitral tribunal refused to hear the disputes under the Framework Agreement and Cooperation Agreement. The arbitral tribunal also pointed out that the contractual purposes should be taken into consideration when interpreting a contract according to Article 125 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract Law”), but under the arbitration rules as agreed to by both parties, the arbitral tribunal has no right to make an award beyond its power according to the contractual purposes independently, even though it found that both parties signed the Equity Transfer Agreement for some other complicated business purposes. It rendered the arbitral award No.0474 [2006] on May 16, 2006, ruling that: (1) Huajian Electronic Company should pay equity transfer fees of 3 million yuan to Venture Capital Company; and (2) Huajian Electronic Company should pay Venture Capital Company an interest of 440,000 yuan for overdue payment calculated (on the basis of 0.21‰ per day) from December 1, 2005 to the date when equity transfer fees are paid off. Venture Capital Company, according to the arbitral award No.0474 [2006] of the Beijing Arbitration Commission, applied to the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality for compulsory enforcement, and the court legally transferred 48,000 yuan from Huajian Electronic Company. 2005年12月12日,科技公司根据《股权转让协议》中的仲裁条款,向北京仲裁委员会申请仲裁,请求裁决华建电子公司支付股权转让款300万元及利息。仲裁庭经审理认为,鉴于《框架协议》和《合作协议》没有约定由北京仲裁委员会仲裁解决双方相关争议,仲裁庭曾建议双方当事人考虑将《框架协议》和《合作协议》项下纠纷交由仲裁庭一并审理,但双方当事人未能就此达成一致意见,据此,仲裁庭对双方基于《框架协议》和《合作协议》而可能存在的争议,不予审理。仲裁庭还指出,《中华人民共和国合同法》(以下简称《合同法》)第一百二十五条规定解释合同时应当考虑合同目的,但基于约定仲裁规则的存在,即使查知双方签订《股权转让协议》时还有其他复杂的商业目的,仲裁庭亦无权单独依据合同目的作出越权裁判。遂于2006年5月 16日作出(2006)京仲裁字第0474号裁决书,裁决内容:1.华建电子公司向科技公司支付股权转让费300万元;2.华建电子公司向科技公司支付逾期付款利息440 000元及从2005年12月1日起至股权转让款清偿完毕之日止的逾期付款利息(按日万分之二点一计算)。科技公司依据(2006)京仲裁字第0474号裁决,向北京市海淀区人民法院申请强制执行,北京市海淀区人民法院依法扣划了华建电子公司48 000元。
The Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province held that the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, collectively as one party, and Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company, collectively as the other, was effective because it represented the true intention of both parties, and there is no compulsory stipulation in violation of the relevant laws and regulations therein. All parties should strictly fulfill their respective obligations according to the agreement. The Cooperation Agreement prescribed that: “If Party A fails to be restructured and the IPO fails due to any reason, this Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and VC Investment Agreement concluded between both parties should be terminated. For the part of the agreement which have been fulfilled, both parties agree to restore the status quo ante to the greatest possible extent, including (but not limited to) refunding the agreement price, restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, undergoing the corresponding industrial and commercial registration modification formalities again, and share the losses caused to both parties under the principle of fairness.” After the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement, Huajian Electronic Company changed the ownership of 46.11% the equity shares of Kuangshi Company held by Xie Xiongping, 14.33% held by Huang Ruohao, 14.31% held by Zhang Heping, 0.25% held by Qiu Shaoming and 25% held by Venture Capital Company into 90% held by Huajian Electronic Company and 10% held by Huajian Translation Company. Huajian Electronic Company signed the aforesaid agreement and conducted equity modification registration for the purpose of meeting the requirements of China Securities Regulatory Commission, wasting no time in making all preparations and going through the relevant examination and approval formalities. Due to its business performance, time for IPO and other reasons, the indirect IPO of Huajian Electronic Company failed. Huajian Electronic Company notified the original shareholders of Kuangshi Company of the failure and required for terminating the Cooperation Agreement. Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao failed to assist Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company in handling the industrial and commercial registration modification formalities and restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company according to the agreement, their act had constituted a breach of contract and they should assume the corresponding liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the people's court should support the claim of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company for modifying the registration of 90% and 10% equities of Kuangshi Company respectively held by Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao as held by Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company on the ground that the former failed to fulfill the obligations prescribed in the Cooperation Agreement. 广东省广州市中级人民法院认为,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司签订的《合作协议》是各方当事人的真实意思表示,协议的内容没有违反法律法规的强制性规定,属有效协议。各方当事人应当严格依约履行各自义务。该协议约定,“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果,则终止本协议、双方签订的股权转让协议、VC投资协议。对已经履行的部分,双方同意尽可能地恢复原状,包括(但不限于)返还协议价格,恢复旷世公司股权架构、重新进行相应工商变更等,对由此给双方造成的损失,双方同意按照公平原则各自承担。”《合作协议》签订后,华建电子公司依约将谢雄平持有的旷世公司46.11%的股权,黄若浩持有的14.33%,张贺平持有的14.31%,仇绍明持有的 0.25%,科技公司持有的25%的股权全部变更登记为华建电子公司持有90%,华建翻译公司持有10%的股权。华建电子公司签订上述协议及进行股权变更登记,目的是为了履行中国证券监督管理委员会的要求,抓紧各项准备工作,履行有关审批手续。由于公司业绩、上市时机等多种原因,华建电子公司以间接方式在境外上市没有完成。对于上市未果,华建电子公司已通知旷世公司原股东,并要求终止《合作协议》。科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩没有依约协助华建电子公司、华建翻译公司履行工商变更登记义务,恢复旷世公司的股权原状,其行为已经构成违约,应当承担相应的违约责任。因此,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司以科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩没有履行《合作协议》约定的义务为由,要求将其各自持有旷世公司90%和10%的股权全部变更登记在谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司的名下,应予以支持。
The Equity Transfer Agreement concluded between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, collectively as one party, and Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao, collectively as the other, includes an arbitration clause, and the arbitral award rendered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission upon arbitration had taken into legal effect. Since Huajian Electronic Company should change the ownership of 25% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company it held into Venture Capital Company, there was no legal basis for Venture Capital Company to claim 48,000 yuan of transfer fees, and Venture Capital Company should refund it to Huajian Electronic Company. The grounds of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company to claim compensation for extra economic losses caused by the breach of contract of Venture Capital Company, including the attorney's fees for arbitration (50,000 yuan), the arbitration fee which should be assumed by Huajian Electronic Company (51,630 yuan), and the expenses for investigation and taking evidence in the round trip to Guangzhou (16,805.3 yuan), totaling 118,435.3 yuan, cannot stand and should not be supported because the aforesaid losses had no causal relationship with this case. On August 23, 2007, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City rendered the Civil Judgment (No.220 [2006], Civil Division II, First Instance, IPC Guangzhou): (1) Dissolving the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, collectively as one party, and Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company, collectively as the other party, in December 2003; (2) Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company should, within one month after the judgment comes into force, assist Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company to change the ownership of the 90% and 10% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company they held respectively into those held by Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao, i.e. 46.11% by Xie Xiongping, 14.33% by Huang Ruohao, 14.31% by Zhang Heping, 0.25% by Qiu Shaoming and 25% by Venture Capital Company; (3) Venture Capital Company should refund 48,000 yuan to Huajian Electronic Company within ten days after the judgment comes into force; and (4) dismiss all other claims of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. For the case acceptance fee of 70,842 yuan, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company should jointly pay 690 yuan, and Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company should pay 70,152 yuan according to their respective equity proportion. 华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩签订的《股权转让协议》约定了仲裁条款,且经过北京仲裁委员会的仲裁,该裁决已经发生法律效力。因华建电子公司须将其持有的25%旷世公司股权变更登记在科技公司名下,因此,科技公司取得股权转让款 48 000元,失去合法的依据,科技公司应将该款返还给华建电子公司。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司以科技公司违约给其造成的额外经济损失包括仲裁律师费5万元,华建电子公司应承担的仲裁费51 630元、往返广州调查取证费用16 805.3元,共计 118 435.3元,因上述损失与本案没有必然的因果关系,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司要求赔偿该损失的理由不能成立,不予支持。广州市中级人民法院于2007年8月 23日作出(2006)穗中法民二初字第220号民事判决:(一)解除华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司于2003年12月签订的《合作协议》。(二)谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司在判决发生法律效力之日起一个月内协助华建电子公司、华建翻译公司,将华建电子公司、华建翻译公司各自持有的90%和10%旷世公司股权变更登记在科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩名下,分别由谢雄平持有46.11%,黄若浩持有14.33%,张贺平持有14.31%,仇绍明持有0.25%,科技公司持有25%。(三)科技公司在判决发生法律效力之日起十日内返还48 000元给华建电子公司。(四)驳回华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的其他诉讼请求。案件受理费70 842元,由华建电子公司、华建翻译公司共同负担690元;由谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司按各自持股比例负担70 152元。
Venture Capital Company appealed the first-instance judgment, alleging that: (1) The conditions for terminating the contract as prescribed in the Cooperation Agreement did not occur, and the evidence proving that the conditions were satisfied as determined in the first-instance judgment was not sufficient, and it lacked factual basis for ruling the termination of the Cooperation Agreement; and (2) The original judgment seriously violated the principle of non bis in idem by ignoring the arbitral award which had come into force and directly adjudicated the award to restore the equity structure without rescinding or revoking the Equity Transfer Agreement or confirming it as invalid, and once this judgment comes into force, there would be serious consequences contrary to the arbitral award and judicial authority would be impaired. Terminating the Cooperation Agreement would not result in the legal effect of restoring the original equity structure, so there was no legal basis for the original court to rule to restore the equity structure. The arbitral award No.0474 [2006] rendered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission had confirmed the following facts: the legal and effective Equity Transfer Agreement (transferring 95% of the equity share) was actually implemented, and Venture Capital Company had the right to request for the continual performance of this Agreement, i.e. require Huajian Electronic Company to pay 3 million yuan of equity transfer fees and the corresponding penalty. The petition filed by Huajian Electronic Company with the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality for revoking this arbitral award had been dismissed. In this case, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company pleaded for terminating the Cooperation Agreement and restoring original equity structure, however, according to the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, equity proportion could only be restored if the Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and Framework Agreement were terminated at the same time, and the performance of the Cooperation Agreement could not result in such legal effect. The Cooperation Agreement did not prescribe the specific matters involving equity transfer and its termination would not result in the legal effect of restoring the original equity structure. The judgment made by the court of the first instance was completely wrong because it failed to mention the Equity Transfer Agreement (transferring 95% of the equity shares), or confirm the Agreement as invalid, but directly ruled to restore the original equity structure and require Venture Capital Company to refund the money obtained according to the effective arbitral award. 科技公司不服一审判决,上诉称,一、《合作协议》所约定的终止条件为非真正条件,原审判决认定条件成就的依据不足,判令解除《合作协议》没有事实依据。二、原审判决无视已生效的仲裁裁决,在《股权转让协议》没有解除、撤销或被确认无效的情况下,迳行裁决恢复股权,严重违反“一事不再理”的原则,该判决一旦生效将出现与仲裁裁决冲突的严重结果,有损司法的权威。终止《合作协议》无法产生恢复股权比例的法律后果,原审判决判令恢复股权没有法律依据。北京仲裁委员会作出的(2006)京仲裁字第0474号裁决已经认定了以下事实:实际履行的是《股权转让协议》(转让 95%的股权),该协议合法有效,科技公司有权要求继续履行即有权要求华建电子公司支付股权转让款300万元及违约金。华建电子公司向北京市第二中级人民法院申请撤销该仲裁裁决,已被驳回。而本案中,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司提出请求事项是终止《合作协议》并恢复股权,而根据《合作协议》第三条第15项之约定,只有同时终止《合作协议》、《股权转让协议》和《框架协议》的前提下,才产生股权恢复的法律后果,而不是履行《合作协议》的法律后果,《合作协议》本身并没有涉及股权转让的具体事宜,仅仅终止《合作协议》无法产生恢复股权比例的法律后果。而原审法院在一审判决中未涉及《股权转让协议》(转让 95%的股权),或确认该协议无效,却迳行判令恢复股权比例并要求科技公司返还依照生效仲裁裁决取得的款项是完全错误的判决。
Zhang Heping appealed the judgment of the first instance, claiming that: (1) The original judgment separated the relations among the Cooperation Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution. Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company pleaded for terminating the Cooperation Agreement and transferring 36.11% of the shares of Huajian Electronic Company and 10% shares of Huajian Translation Company to Zhang Heping, but Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company failed to plead for terminating the Equity Transfer Agreement and the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution, the Cooperation Agreement was only a letter of intent for cooperation between Zhang Heping and Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, whereas it is the Equity Transfer Agreement and the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution concluded between both parties that specify their rights and obligations. Both parties filed the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution instead of the Cooperation Agreement with the industrial and commercial administration. Zhang Heping transferred 46.11% of the shares of the company to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company according to the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution concluded with Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company in 2003 and 2004, respectively. However, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company did not plead for terminting the Equity Transfer Agreement and the Contract on Shareholders' Transfer of Capital Contribution, therefore, the equities should not be returned to Zhang Heping according to the Cooperation Agreement. (2) The application of law was improper in the judgment of the first instance and the applied legal provisions were contradictory one against another, and the contents of the judgment exceeded the claim of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company pleaded for terminating rather than dissolving the Cooperation Agreement, the judgment of the first instance exceeded the allegations of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. (3) The arbitral award No.0474 [2006] rendered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, which had come into force, ruled that Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company should pay 3 million yuan of equity transfer fees to Venture Capital Company. This award had come into force and been implemented, but the judgment of the first instance overthrew the aforesaid arbitral award, which severely violated the law. In conclusion, facts found were unclear and the application of law was improper in the judgment of the first instance, Zhang Heping pleaded with the court of the second instance to revoke items (1) and (2) of the original judgment and dismiss the claims of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. 张贺平不服一审判决,上诉称,一、原审判决割裂《合作协议》、《股权转让协议》及《股东转让出资合同书》之间的联系。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的诉讼请求为终止《合作协议》,将华建电子公司名下的 36.11%的股权及华建翻译公司的10%股权变更至张贺平名下,但华建电子公司、华建翻译公司并没有同时请求解除《股权转让协议》及《股东转让出资合同书》,而《合作协议》仅是张贺平与华建电子公司、华建翻译公司之间的一份合作意向书,具体明确双方权利义务的是双方签订的《股权转让协议》及《股东转让出资合同书》。双方在工商行政管理部门办理登记备案的是《股东转让出资合同书》,而不是《合作协议》。张贺平在2003年、2004年是依据与华建电子公司、华建翻译公司签订的《股东转让出资合同书》,将持有的涉案公司46.11%的股权转让给华建电子公司、华建翻译公司,而华建电子公司、华建翻译公司并没有要求解除《股权转让协议》和《股东转让出资合同书》,因此,自然不能根据《合作协议》将股权返还给张贺平。二、原审判决适用法律不当,引用法律自相矛盾,其判决内容超过华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的诉讼请求。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司请求终止《合作协议》而不是解除该协议,而原审判决超过了华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的诉讼请求。三、北京仲裁委员会作出并生效的(2006)京仲裁字第0474号仲裁书,裁决华建电子公司、华建翻译公司支付 300万元的股权转让款给科技公司,且该裁决已生效并已执行,但原审判决却以判决内容推翻上述仲裁裁决,严重违反法律。综上所述,原审判决认定事实不清,适用法律不当,请求二审法院撤销原审判决第一、第二项,驳回华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的诉讼请求。
Xie Xiongping and Qiu Shaoming also appealed the original-instance judgment with the same claims and grounds of Zhang Heping. 谢雄平、仇绍明也不服原审判决,提起上诉,其上诉请求和上诉理由与张贺平相同。
Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company jointly argued at the second instance: facts found were clear and the application of law was proper in the original judgment, and they requested the court of the second instance to dismiss the appeal of Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Zhang Heping because such appeal had no basis. 华建电子公司、华建翻译公司二审共同答辩称,原审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,科技公司、谢雄平、仇绍明、张贺平的上诉均没有依据,请求二审法院驳回其上诉请求。
Upon trial, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province confirmed the facts found by the court of the first instance. 广东省高级人民法院经审理查明,原审法院对本案所查明的事实基本属实,该院予以确认。
It was also found that: In December 2003, Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao signed an Equity Transfer Agreement with Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, stipulating that the former should transfer all their equity shares of Kuangshi Company to the latter, and the latter should pay 12 million yuan of equity transfer fees to the former. 另查明:2003年12月,科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩与华建电子公司、华建翻译公司签订了《股权转让协议》,约定科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩将旷世公司的全部股权转让给华建电子公司、华建翻译公司,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司支付股权转让费1200万元给科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平、仇绍明、黄若浩。
Huajian Electronic Company claimed that the arbitral award No.0474 [2006] rendered by the Beijing Arbitration Commission was wrong is in finding the facts, and filed a petition with the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality for revoking the arbitral award No.0474 [2006], and the Court rendered on October 27, 2006 Civil Ruling No.12426 [2006] to dismiss the petition of Huajian Electronic Company for revoking the arbitral award. 华建电子公司认为北京仲裁委员会作出的(2006)京仲裁字第0474号仲裁裁决认定事实错误,向北京市第二中级人民法院申请撤销(2006)京仲裁字第0474号仲裁裁决,北京市第二中级人民法院于2006年10月27日作出(2006)二中民特字第 12426号民事裁定,驳回华建电子公司的撤销仲裁裁决申请。
In view of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company signed the Cooperation Agreement, Framework Agreement and Equity Transfer Agreement with Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao on transferring the equity shares of Kuangshi Company. The aforesaid agreements represented the true intention of the parties concerned, and did not violate any compulsory provision of law or regulation, and the equity shares of Kuangshi Company had been transferred to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. Therefore, all the aforesaid agreements were effective and had legal binding force upon all parties concerned. 广东省高级人民法院认为,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司与科技公司、张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩就旷世公司的股份转让问题签订了《合作协议》、《框架协议》、《股权转让协议》。上述协议均是当事人之间的真实意思表示,没有违反法律、法规的强制性规定,旷世公司的股份也已经办理到华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的名下,因此,上述合同均为有效合同,对当事人各方具有法律上的约束力。
After the conclusion of the aforesaid agreements, Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao transferred their shares of Kuangshi Company to Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, and conducted equity registration as stipulated in the agreement. Venture Capital Company applied to the Beijing Arbitration Commission for arbitration on December 12, 2005 on the ground that Huajian Electronic Company violated the provisions of the Equity Transfer Agreement and failed to pay equity transfer fees to Venture Capital Company, and Beijing Arbitration Commission rendered the arbitral award No.0474 [2006] on May 16, 2006 to rule that Huajian Electronic Company should pay 3 million yuan of equity transfer fees to Venture Capital Company, 440,000 yuan of corresponding interest on the overdue payment and the interest on the overdue payment calculated from December 1, 2005 to the date when equity transfer fees are paid off. Huajian Electronic Company filed against this arbitral award with the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality for revoking the arbitral award, but was dismissed. According to the Cooperation Agreement, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company brought an action with the people's court against Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao, claiming for terminating the Cooperation Agreement and transferring the equity shares of Kuangshi Company to Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao. The arbitration commission failed to consider the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement though both parties stipulated in the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement that if the overseas subsidiary of Kuangshi Company failed to be listed in Hong Kong, the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement should be terminated and the equity shares of Kuangshi Company should be transferred to Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao. In this case, the Cooperation Agreement, Framework Agreement and Equity Transfer Agreement were an inseparable whole, so the people's court should try the aforesaid agreements together. Since the arbitration institution had ruled according to the provisions of the Equity Transfer Agreement that Huajian Electronic Company should pay 3 million yuan of equity transfer fees and interest on overdue payment to Venture Capital Company, it would be inevitable to consider the Equity Transfer Agreement if the people's court accepts the claim of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company for terminating the Cooperation Agreement and transferring the equity share of Kuangshi Company to Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao. However, the arbitral institution had rendered an award on the Equity Transfer Agreement, therefore, the claim of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company was bound to conflict with the arbitral award. The judgment of the court of the first instance on terminating the Cooperation Agreement and transferring the equity shares of Kuangshi Company under the name of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company to Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao conflicts with the arbitral award involved in the case, which in nature, was a retrial of the contents arbitrated by the arbitral institution against the principle of non bis in idem. It was improper for the court of the first instance to accept the lawsuit of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company and make a substantive award, and such act should be corrected according to law. On June 3, 2008, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province rendered a Civil Ruling (No.315 [2007], Final, Civil Division I, HPC Guangdong) to rescind the Civil Judgment (No.220 [2006], Civil Division II, First Instance, IPC Guangzhou) rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City and dismiss the lawsuit of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. The case acceptance fee 50 yuan respectively for the case of first instance and second instance should be paid by Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. 上述合同签订后,科技公司、张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩依照合同的约定将其在旷世公司的股份转让给华建电子公司、华建翻译公司并将相关股权登记到华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的名下。科技公司以华建电子公司违反《股权转让协议》约定,未向科技公司支付股权转让款为由于 2005年12月12日向北京仲裁委员会申请仲裁,北京仲裁委员会于2006年5月 16日作出(2006)京仲裁字第0474号裁决书,裁决华建电子公司向科技公司支付股权转让费300万元、逾期付款利息440000元及从2005年12月1日起到股权转让款清偿完毕之日止的逾期付款利息。华建电子公司不服该仲裁裁决,向北京市第二中级人民法院提起撤销该仲裁裁决的申请,被驳回。现华建电子公司、华建翻译公司依照《合作协议》向人民法院起诉科技公司、张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩,请求终止《合作协议》并将旷世公司的股份办理到科技公司及张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩的名下。尽管当事人在《合作协议》与《框架协议》约定如华建电子公司的海外子公司在香港上市未果,则应终止《合作协议》及《框架协议》并将旷世公司的股份恢复到科技公司及张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩的名下,但仲裁机构没有对《合作协议》和《框架协议》进行裁决。在本案中,《合作协议》、《框架协议》及《股权转让协议》属于不可分割的整体,人民法院应对上述协议一并审理,因仲裁机构已依据《股权转让协议》的约定裁决华建电子公司向科技公司支付股权转让费300万元及逾期付款利息,因此人民法院受理华建电子公司、华建翻译公司要求终止《合作协议》并将旷世公司的股份办理到科技公司及张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩名下的起诉必然涉及《股权转让协议》,而仲裁机构对《股权转让协议》已做出裁决,因此华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的诉讼请求势必与仲裁裁决相冲突。原审法院判决解除《合作协议》并将旷世公司在华建电子公司、华建翻译公司名下的股份恢复办理到科技公司及张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩的名下与涉案仲裁裁决的内容相矛盾,实质上将仲裁机构所裁决的内容再次进行裁判,违反一事不再理的原则。原审法院受理华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的起诉并作出实体判决不当,依法予以纠正。广东省高级人民法院于2008年6月3日作出(2007)粤高法民一终字第315号民事裁定:撤销广州市中级人民法院(2006)穗中法民二初字第220号民事判决;驳回华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的起诉。一、二审案件受理费各50元,由华建电子公司、华建翻译公司负担。
Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company filed a retrial petition according to the provisions of Article 179 1.(6) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Procedure Law法小宝”), pleading for revoking the Civil Ruling (No.315 [2007], Final, Civil Division I, HPC Guangdong) rendered by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, and dismissing the Civil Judgment (No.220 [2006], Civil Division II, First Instance, IPC Guangzhou) rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province. The main grounds are: 华建电子公司、华建翻译公司根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(以下简称《民事诉讼法》)第一百七十九条我不休息我还能学第一款第(六)项的规定申请再审,请求撤销广东省高级人民法院(2007)粤高法民一终字第315号民事裁定书,维持广东省广州市中级人民法院(2006)穗中法民二初字第220号民事判决书。主要理由如下:
(1) Since the lawsuit of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company met the statutory conditions, and the two agreements, which served as the basis of lawsuit, did not have an arbitration clause, the people's court should accept the lawsuit and conduct substantive trial. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province dismissed the lawsuit of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company according to item (2) of Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law, and it was wrong in the application of law. (一)华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的起诉符合法律规定的条件,且提起诉讼所依据的两份合同均未约定仲裁条款,人民法院应予受理并进行实体审理。广东省高级人民法院依据《民事诉讼法》一百一十一条第(二)项的规定驳回华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的起诉,适用法律错误。
(2) The people's court's trial of this case was not contrary to the award of Beijing Arbitration Commission. The disputes of all parties involved on restoring the original equity structure of Kuangshi Company based on the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement and their disputes on the payment of fees for the transfer of the equity of Kuangshi Company based on the Equity Transfer Agreement involved different legal relations, and did not meet the circumstances as prescribed under the principle of non bis in idem. The application of this principle by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province in the ruling of the second instance was obviously wrong in terms of the application of law. (二)人民法院审理本案与北京仲裁委员会的裁决并不矛盾。各方根据《合作协议》和《框架协议》就旷世公司股权结构恢复原状的纠纷与各方根据《股权转让协议》就旷世公司股权转让款项支付的纠纷系不同法律关系,不符合“一事不再理”原则规定的情形,广东省高级人民法院在二审裁定书中适用该原则明显属于适用法律错误。
(3) The lawsuit brought by Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company according to the effective Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement was dismissed by the People's Court, and the arbitral tribunal tried the Equity Transfer Agreement without giving consideration to the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement, which failed to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company. (三)华建电子公司、华建翻译公司依有效的《合作协议》、《框架协议》起诉被人民法院驳回,仲裁庭在审理《股权转让协议》时又不涉及《合作协议》与《框架协议》,这就导致华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的合法权益没有途径得到保护。
Venture Capital Company argued that though the people's court did have the power to try the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement, the conditions for terminating the agreements as stipulated in the Cooperation Agreement in this case had not been met, hence, the People's Court should not determine based on such conditions that the Cooperation Agreement and the relevant agreements should be terminated, or even directly make the judgment of restoring the original equity structure. 科技公司答辩认为,人民法院确实有权审理《合作协议》及《框架协议》。然而,由于本案中《合作协议》中所约定的协议终止条件并不成就,人民法院不能据此认定《合作协议》及相关协议应当终止,更不能据此直接作出恢复股权结构的判决。
Xie Xiongping and Zhang Heping argued that though the people's court had jurisdiction over the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Investment Agreement, if the people's court determined item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement as effective, the judgment was bound to conflict with the effective arbitral award, and the principle of non bis in idem would be violated. 谢雄平、张贺平答辩认为,虽然人民法院对《合作协议》、《框架投资协议》拥有管辖权,但是如果人民法院认定《合作协议》第三条第15项为有效约定,那么判决结果必然和生效的仲裁裁决相冲突,违反“一事不再理”的原则。
The facts found by this Court upon retrial are the same with that found by the courts of first and second instance. 本院再审查明的事实与一、二审法院查明的事实相同。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
In the view of this Court, based on the grounds for the retrial petition of the parties concerned and the arguments, the focus of disputes of this case are as follows: 本院认为,根据当事人申请再审的理由以及答辩情况,本案争议的焦点如下:
DISPUTED ISSUES 
1. Whether this case is under the jurisdiction of the people's court. 一、关于本案是否归人民法院主管的问题。
The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province dismissed the lawsuit of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company according to item (2) of Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law. Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company filed a retrial petition, alleging that the two agreements, which serve as the basis of the lawsuit, do not have an arbitration clause, so the people's court shall accept the case and conduct substantive trial. After the open trial by this Court, the respondent Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping and Zhang Heping are also of the opinion that the people's court has jurisdiction over this case. 广东省高级人民法院依据《民事诉讼法》一百一十一条第(二)项的规定驳回华建电子公司、华建翻译公司的起诉。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司申请再审认为,其提起诉讼所依据的两份合同均未约定仲裁条款,人民法院应予受理并进行实体审理。本院开庭审理后,被申请人科技公司、谢雄平、张贺平也认为人民法院对本案具有管辖权。
In the opinion of this Court, Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company brought a lawsuit based on the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement which does not have an arbitration clause. The arbitral award clearly points out: “The arbitral tribunal should not handle the possible disputes between both parties based on the Framework Agreement and Cooperation Agreement.” On such basis, the case shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province was wrong in the application of law by holding that this case was not under the jurisdiction of the People's Court according to the provisions of item (2) of Article 111 of the Civil Procedure Law, and should be corrected by this Court according to law. 本院认为,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司提起本案诉讼的依据是《合作协议》、《框架协议》,这两份协议并没有仲裁条款。仲裁裁决书明确指出:“仲裁庭对双方基于《框架协议》和《合作协议》而可能存在的争议,不予审理。”据此,本案属人民法院主管。广东省高级人民法院依据《民事诉讼法》一百一十一条北大法宝,版权所有第(二)项的规定,认为本案不属于人民法院主管,适用法律错误,本院依法予以纠正。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
2. Whether the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement are invalid or not, and whether the stipulated termination conditions have been met. 二、关于《合作协议》第三条第15项的约定是否无效、其约定的终止条件是否成就的问题。
In the view of Venture Capital Company, the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, i.e., “if Party A fails to be restructured and the IPO fails due to any reason, this Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and Framework Agreement concluded between both parties should be terminated”, are the conditions for terminating the agreement, but the condition “if Party A fails to be restructured and the IPO fails due to any reason” did not occur, so these Provisions are invalid. In the opinion of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, these Provisions shall be effective since they do not violate any compulsory provision of a law. 科技公司认为,《合作协议》第三条第 15项关于“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果,则终止本协议、双方签订的股权转让协议和VC投资协议”的约定应属于附条件终止协议条款,但所附条件“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果”为非真正条件,该约定无效。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司认为,该约定不违反法律的强制性规定,应为有效。
This Court holds that whether a contract or the conditions prescribed in a contract are invalid or not shall be determined based on the provisions of Article 52 of the Contract Law. The conditions prescribed in item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement do not violate the provisions of Article 52 of the Contract Law on the invalidity of contract, so the agreement shall be determined as valid according to law, and the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement shall be strictly implemented. If the condition “if Party A fails to be restructured and the IPO fails due to any reason” is met, “this Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and VC Investment Agreement concluded between both parties should be terminated”. In this case, notwithstanding the series of operations carried out by both parties, esp. Huajian Electronic Company, it is an objective fact that the overseas subsidiary of Huajian Electronic Company failed to be listed in Hong Kong, so the condition as agreed to by both parties, i.e., “if Party A fails to be restructured and listed due to any reason”, had been met, and the conditions for terminating the Cooperation Agreement and other agreements had been met. Therefore, the ruling of the first-instance court that, “for the listing failure, Huajian Electronic Company had notified the original shareholders of Kuangshi Company and requested for terminating the cooperation agreement. Five defendants invariably failed to assist the two plaintiffs to fulfill the obligations of undergoing industrial and commercial registration modification formalities as stipulated in the contract so as to restore the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, such act had constituted a breach of contract and they shall assume the corresponding liabilities for breach of contract. Therefore, this Court supports the claim of the two plaintiffs on changing the ownership of 90% and 10% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company they held respectively into those held by Xie Xiongping, Huang Ruohao, Zhang Heping, Qiu Shaoming and Venture Capital Company on the ground of the failure of the five defendants to fulfill the Cooperation Agreement”, complies with the agreement of both parties and legal provisions, and this Court sustains it according to law. According to the stipulations of the Cooperation Agreement, both parties shall restore the equity structure of Kuangshi Company under the Equity Transfer Agreement. To this end, Huajian Electroni, c Company shall return 25% of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company it holds to Venture Capital Company and Venture Capital Company shall return the consideration it has obtained from equity transfer, including 48,000 yuan, to Huajian Electronic Company. 本院认为,认定合同或者合同约定的条件无效,其依据是《合同法》五十二条的规定。《合作协议》第三条第15项约定的条件,并不违反《合同法》五十二条关于合同无效的规定,依法应当认定为有效。既然合同有效,就应当严格按照《合作协议》第三条第15项的约定内容履行。“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果”这一条件如果已经成就,那么就应当“终止本协议、双方签订的股权转让协议和VC投资协议”。本案中,虽然经过双方当事人特别是华建电子公司的一系列运作,但是华建电子公司的海外子公司最终未在香港上市是客观事实,符合双方的约定即“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果”,故终止《合作协议》等合同的条件已经成就。因此,一审法院关于“对于上市未果,华建电子公司已通知旷世公司原股东,并要求终止合作协议。五被告没有依约协助两原告履行工商变更登记义务,恢复旷世公司的股权原状,其行为已经构成违约,应当承担相应的违约责任。因此,两原告以五被告没有履行合作协议约定的义务为由,要求将其各自持有旷世公司90%和10%的股权全部变更登记在被告谢雄平、黄若浩、张贺平、仇绍明、科技公司的名下,本院予以支持”的认定,符合双方的约定和法律规定,本院依法予以维持。根据《合作协议》的约定,双方对已履行的《股权转让协议》进行恢复原状,华建电子公司将其持有的25%旷世公司股权退还给科技公司,科技公司将取得转让该股权的对价,包括48 000元返还给华建电子公司。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
3. Whether the judgment of the first instance on restoring equity structure has violated the principle of non bis in idem, and whether it is contrary to the arbitral award. 三、关于一审法院股权恢复原状的判决是否违反了“一事不再理”的原则、是否与仲裁裁决矛盾的问题。
Venture Capital Company, Xie Xiongping and Zhang Heping are all of the opinion that the arbitral award had ruled that: (1) Huajian Electronic Company should pay 3 million yuan of equity transfer fees to Venture Capital Company; and (2) Huajian Electronic Company should pay Venture Capital Company 440,000 yuan of interest on overdue payment and the interest on the overdue payment calculated (on the basis of 0.21‰ per day) from December 1, 2005 to the date when equity transfer fees are paid off. If the people's court ruled to restore the original equity structure, it would violate the principle of non bis in idem and run contrary to the arbitral award. In the view of Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company, the disputes among all parties on the restoration of equity structure of Kuangshi Company on the basis of the Cooperation Agreement and Framework Agreement and t, he disputes of all parties on the payment of equity transfer fees of Kuangshi Company on the basis of the Equity Transfer Agreement involve different legal relations, and do not meet the circumstances as prescribed under the principle of non bis in idem, so the trial of this case by the people's court is not contrary to the award of the Beijing Arbitration Commission. 科技公司和谢雄平、张贺平都认为,仲裁裁决书已经裁决:1.华建电子公司向科技公司支付股权转让费300万元;2.华建电子公司向科技公司支付逾期付款利息 440 000元及从2005年12月1日起至股权转让款清偿完毕之日止的逾期付款利息 (按日万分之二点一计算)。如果人民法院再判决股权恢复原状,则违反了“一事不再理”的原则,与仲裁裁决矛盾。华建电子公司、华建翻译公司认为,各方根据《合作协议》和《框架协议》就旷世公司股权结构恢复原状的纠纷与各方根据《股权转让协议》就旷世公司股权转让款项支付的纠纷系不同法律关系,不符合“一事不再理”原则规定的情形,人民法院审理本案与北京仲裁委员会的裁决并不矛盾。
This Court holds that the judgment of the first instance on restoring the equity structure does not violate the principle of non bis in idem on the ground that: due to the “failure to be restructured and listed”, the disputes between Huajian Electronic Company and Huajian Translation Company on restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company according to item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement and the disputes of both parties on the payment of money for the transfer of the equity shares of Kuangshi Company involve different legal relations, and are different claims of the parties concerned filed based on different legal facts. According to the stipulations of the Cooperation Agreement, this Agreement shall be implemented in two stages: the first stage is to transfer the equity shares of Kuangshi Company and pay equity transfer fees for the purpose of successful restructuring and IPO of the overseas subsidiary of Huajian Electronic Company; the second stage is to restore the equity structure of Kuangshi Company and refund the transfer fees if “restructuring and IPO are not successful”. To implement the matters prescribed in the first stage, all parities signed the Equity Transfer Agreement, stipulated arbitration clauses and eliminated the jurisdiction of the people's court. Such disputes have been arbitrated by the Beijing Arbitration Commission. For the purpose of implementing the matters prescribed in the second stage, i.e. “If Party A fails to be restructured and the IPO fails due to any reason, this Agreement, Equity Transfer Agreement and VC Investment Agreement concluded between both parties should be terminated. For the part of the agreement which had been fulfilled, both parties agree to restore the original state as much as possible, including (but not limited to) refunding the agreement price, restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, undergoing again the corresponding industrial and commercial registration modification formalities, and respectively sharing the losses caused to both parties under the principle of fairness”, Huajian Electronic Company filed a lawsuit according to these Provisions, and this case is heard for the purpose of solving the disputes arising from the implementation of Cooperation Agreement during the second stage. Since the court of the first instance heard this case on the basis of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement rather than the Equity Transfer Agreement, and arbitration is based on the Equity Transfer Agreement rather than item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, the agreement, which is the basis of the arbitral award, is not identical with that which serves as the basis for the first-instance court to try this case, i.e. the first-instance court did not handle the disputes arising from the implementation of the Equity Transfer Agreement by both parties, and the arbitral award also clearly stated that the Cooperation Agreement is not included in the scope of arbitration, in other words, the people's court did not handle the disputes arising from the Equity Transfer Agreement settled in the arbitral award, so the judgment of the first-instance court on restoring the equity structure is not against the principle of non bis in idem, and under such circumstances, the judgment does not run contrary to the arbitral award. 本院认为,一审法院股权恢复原状的判决并没有违反“一事不再理”的原则。理由是:由于“重组上市未果”,华建电子公司、华建翻译公司请求根据《合作协议》第三条第15项的规定就旷世公司股权结构恢复原状的纠纷与双方根据《股权转让协议》就旷世公司股权转让款项支付的纠纷系不同法律关系,是各方基于不同的法律事实提出的不同请求。从《合作协议》的约定来看,该协议的履行分为两个阶段,第一阶段是为了华建电子公司的海外子公司重组上市成功,进行旷世公司股权转让并支付股权转让款;第二阶段是如果“重组上市未果”,则恢复旷世公司股权结构并返还转让款。为履行第一阶段的约定事项,各方又签订了《股权转让协议》,并约定了仲裁条款,排除了人民法院的管辖权。该纠纷已经过北京仲裁委员会仲裁。但为履行第二阶段的约定事项,即“如因各种原因甲方重组上市未果,则终止本协议、双方签订的股权转让协议和VC投资协议。对已经履行的部分,双方同意尽可能地恢复原状,包括 (但不限于)返还协议价格,恢复旷世科技股权架构、重新进行相应工商变更等,对由此给双方带来的损失,双方同意按照公平原则各自承担”,华建电子公司依据该约定提起诉讼,本案解决的正是履行《合作协议》第二阶段发生的纠纷。由于一审法院处理本案的依据并不是《股权转让协议》,而是《合作协议》第三条第15项,而仲裁所依据的是《股权转让协议》,并不是《合作协议》第三条第15项,基于仲裁裁决所依据的协议与一审法院处理本案所依据的协议不同,即一审法院并没有处理双方履行《股权转让协议》所发生的争议,仲裁裁决也明确表示不将《合作协议》纳入仲裁范围,也就是说,仲裁裁决所处理的“一事”即《股权转让协议》所发生的纠纷,人民法院并没有处理,所以一审法院股权恢复原状的判决并没有违反“一事不再理”的原则。
Since the judgment of the first instance on restoring the equity structure was not against the principle of non bis in idem, it is unnecessary to determine whether the judgment runs contrary to the arbitral award. Even though the arbitral award ruled to implement the Equity Transfer Agreement and the judgment ruled to restore the equity structure of Kuangshi Company, the judgment was made based on the stipulations of item (15) of Article 3 of the Cooperation Agreement, which represented the true intention of both parties, including Venture Capital Company, Zhang Heping, Xie Xiongping, Qiu Shaoming and Huang Ruohao. In other words, the first-instance judgment and the arbitral award were made according to the true intention of the parties concerned and the inevitable result of the implementation of the agreement between both parties by the parties concerned. The true intention of the parties concerned was that the equity structure of Kuangshi Company should be changed for the purpose of restructuring and IPO, and the equity structure was indeed changed. However, if the listing is not successful, the equity structure should be restored to the status quo ante. Since the IPO failed, the judgment of the first-instance court on restoring the equity structure of Kuangshi Company shall be sustained according to law. 在一审法院股权恢复原状的判决并没有违反“一事不再理”的原则的情况下,就谈不上判决与仲裁裁决是否矛盾的问题。即使仲裁裁决的结果是履行《股权转让协议》,而判决的结果是恢复旷世公司的股权结构,判决是根据《合作协议》第三条第15项的约定作出的,该约定仍然是双方当事人包括科技公司及张贺平、谢雄平、仇绍明、黄若浩的真实意思表示。也就是说,一审判决与仲裁裁决都是根据当事人的真实意思表示做出的,都是当事人履行双方协议的必然结果。换言之,当事人的真实意思表示就是,为了重组上市,先要进行旷世公司的股权变更,而且实际上也进行了股权变更。但是,如果上市未果,已经变更的股权就应恢复原状。在上市未果的情况下,一审法院判决恢复旷世公司的股权架构,依法应予维持。
In conclusion, according to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 186 and Article 153 1.(1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court renders a judgment as follows: 综上,依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百八十六条第一款、第一百五十三条第一款第(一)项之规定,判决如下:
JUDGMENT 
I. The Civil Ruling (No.315 [2007], Final, Civil Division I, HPC Guangdong) rendered by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province shall be revoked. 一、撤销广东省高级人民法院(2007)粤高法民一终字第315号民事裁定。
II. The Civil Judgment (No.220 [2006], Civil Division II, First Instance, IPC Guangzhou) rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province shall be sustained. 二、维持广东省广州市中级人民法院 (2006)穗中法民二初字第220号民事判决。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Presiding Judge: Feng Xiaoguang 审 判 长 冯小光
Judge: Yang Yongqing 审 判 员 杨永清
Judge: Xin Zhengyu 审 判 员 辛正郁
June 30, 2010 二0一0年六月三十日
Clerk: Liu Ning

 书 记 员 柳 凝
 

     
     
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