>>>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
 
Jiangnan Branch of the Rural Credit Cooperatives Union of Meijiang District, Meizhou City v. Luo Yuanling (A case about disputes over savings contract)
梅州市梅江区农村信用合作联社江南信用社诉罗苑玲储蓄合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Jiangnan Branch of the Rural Credit Cooperatives Union of Meijiang District, Meizhou City v. Luo Yuanling (A case about disputes over savings contract)
(A case about disputes over savings contract)
梅州市梅江区农村信用合作联社江南信用社诉罗苑玲储蓄合同纠纷案

Jiangnan Branch of the Rural Credit Cooperatives Union of Meijiang District, Meizhou City v. Luo Yuanling
(A case about disputes over savings contract)@#
[Summary]@#
1. In accordance with Article 52, item 5, of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, a contract that violates any mandatory provision of any law or administrative regulation shall be invalid. Pursuant to Article 14 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Certain Issues Concerning the Application of The Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (II), the term “mandatory provisions” shall refer to mandatory provisions on validity. Provisions which only deal with the internal management of specific persons without involving any public interest are not mandatory provisions on validity; and contracts violating such provisions shall not be invalidated.@#
2. Banks, as professional financial institutions, are obligated to inform depositors of the internal service regulations which are of vital interest to them. If a bank fails to fulfill the obligation of informing so that ambiguity arises in interpreting relevant terms of the savings contract, such terms shall be interpreted based on common sense or general understanding rather than unilaterally in accordance with such internal service regulations of the bank.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Jiangnan Branch of the Rural Credit Cooperatives Union of Meijiang District, Meizhou City, domiciled at No. 2 Side Street, Jiangnan Sub-district, Meijiang District, Meizhou City, Guangdong Province.@#
Chief: Huang Yanxiu, head of the branch.@#
Defendant: Luo Yuanling, female, 51, domiciled at Fuqi Road, Meizhou City, Guangdong Province.@#
The plaintiff, Jiangnan Branch of the Rural Credit Cooperatives Union of Meijiang District, Meizhou City (hereinafter referred to as the “Jiangnan Branch”), filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Meijiang District, Meizhou City, Guangdong Province for a case between it and the defendant, Luo Yuanling, about disputes over savings contract.@#
Jiangnan Branch claimed that: On October 14, 2008, Luo Yuanling, the defendant, went to Jiangnan Branch to draw her fixed-term deposit and the corresponding accrued interest. The deposit certificate reads: “No.: 5700140234; Account No.: 59606090007409; Account Name: Luo Yuanling; Deposit Amount: 77,000 yuan; Deposit Date: 2000-07-06; Deposit Term: eight (8) years, Due Date: 2008-07-06; and Requirement for Withdrawal: password and ID card. Such items as “Interest Rate” and “Interest Due” were left blank in this deposit certificate. In accordance with relevant provisions of the People's Bank of China, the lump-sum deposit and withdrawal in a term of eight years has been cancelled since May 1, 1996. Therefore, the accrued interest of the defendant's deposit made on July 6, 2000 could only be paid at the interest rate specified by the People's Bank of China. Due to negligence, one cashier of the Jiangnan Branch paid the defendant the accrued interest at the interest rate for lump-sum deposit and withdrawal for a term of eight years, which is no longer in place. Thus, the defendant was overpaid 70,093.59 yuan of interest. Afterwards, the plaintiff communicated with the defendant for multiple times about returning the overpaid interest, but to no avail. In China, interest rates for deposits and loans in financial institutions must comply with those proposed by the People's Bank of China. This policy is mandatory and no agency or individual may change the interest rates unless they are changed through legal procedures. The defendant was overpaid 70,093.59 yuan of interest, which was deemed as unjustified enrichment and should be refunded pursuant to law. Thus, the plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to refund the said overpaid interest.@#
......

 

梅州市梅江区农村信用合作联社江南信用社诉罗苑玲储蓄合同纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
一、根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第五十二条第(五)项的规定,违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的合同无效。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(二)》第十四条规定,所谓强制性规定是指效力性强制性规定。仅是针对特定主体的对内管理行为、不涉及公共利益的规定,不属于效力性强制性规定,违反该规定不能导致合同无效。@#
二、银行作为专业金融机构,对于关乎储户切身利益的内部业务规定,负有告知储户的义务。如银行未向储户履行告知义务,当双方对于储蓄合同相关内容的理解产生分歧时,应当按照一般社会生活常识和普遍认知对合同相关内容作出解释,不能片面依照银行内部业务规定解释合同内容。@#
@#
原告:梅州市梅江区农村信用合作联社江南信用社。@#
负责人:黄艳秀,该社主任。@#
被告:罗苑玲。@#
原告梅州市梅江区农村信用合作联社江南信用社(以下简称江南信用社)因与被告罗苑玲发生储蓄合同纠纷,向广东省梅州市梅江区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告江南信用社诉称:2008年10月 14日,被告罗苑玲到原告处办理定期存单支取业务,其所持存单载明:编号为 5700140234,账号为59606090007409,户名为罗苑玲,存入金额为人民币77 000元整,存入日为2000年7月6日,存期8年,到期日为2008年7月6日,凭密码身份证支取。该存单上的“利率”及“到期利息”栏均为空白。根据中国人民银行的有关规定,从1996年5月1日起,取消八年期定期整存整取储蓄种类。被告于2000年7月6日存入的涉案存款,只能按照中国人民银行规定的利率支付利息,但由于原告工作人员的疏忽,在办理该笔业务时仍按已取消的八年期定期整存整取利率计付利息,因此多付被告利息70093.59元。事后原告与被告多次协商返还多付利息未果。我国实行严格的法定利率政策,金融机构的存贷款利息均需严格按照中国人民银行规定的利率执行,具有强制性,非依法定程序,任何单位和个人都无权变动。被告多得利息70 093.59元属于不当得利,依法应予返还。请求判令被告归还原告多付利息 70 093.59元。@#
原告江南信用社提交了如下证据:被告罗苑玲的定期储蓄存单、储蓄存款利息支付清单、利息计算表、历年储蓄存款利率表、《储蓄管理条例》等。@#
被告罗苑玲辩称:被告于2000年7月 6日与原告江南信用社签订涉案存单,此存单实质是双方自愿签订的储蓄合同。存单上的“利率”、“到期利息”栏虽然显示空白,但当时原告工作人员口头明确告知原告利率为17.1%,且始终未告知原告八年期定期整存整取储蓄种类已取消。存款合同到期后,被告到原告处支取存款本息,原告出具涉案存款利息清单1份交由被告签名确认后,原告按约支付存款本息,该存款合同已履行完毕。涉案存款合同是双方自愿签订,对双方均具有约束力,现原告要求被告返还利息没有事实依据和法律根据。综上,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
被告罗苑玲未提交相关证据。@#
梅州市梅江区人民法院一审查明:@#
2000年7月6日,被告罗苑玲在原告江南信用社处存入人民币77 000元,原告开具定期储蓄存单1份并交于被告收执,存单内容显示:种类栏为整存整取,存入日和起息日栏均为2000年7月6日,存期栏为8年,到期日栏为2008年7月6日,利率栏为空白,密码栏为密码身份证,到期利息栏为空白,户名栏为罗苑玲,账号栏为 59606090007409。原、被告均在相应栏目签名盖章确认。2008年10月14日,被告到原告处办理上述定期储蓄存单支取手续,原告按八年期储蓄存款利率将上述存款本息(扣除利息税)支付给被告,并开具储蓄存款利息支付清单1份交给被告收执。该清单内容显示:账号1015960070421200000051,户名罗苑玲,种类对私整整,期限8年,计息本金 77 000元,起息日期2000年7月6日,止息日期2008年10月14日,天数2978天,利率17.1%,利息金额105 486.92元.利息合计105486.92元.应纳税利息105486.92元,税率5%,代扣利息税款19 313.20元,实付利息86173.72元,实付本息163173.72元。清单由原、被告签名盖章确认后,被告将款支出并存入在原告处另行开立的账户。@#
庭审中,针对涉案存单上的“利率”栏和“到期利息”栏为空白的情况,原告江南信用社认为:被告罗苑玲在2000年存款时选择八年存期,而当时中国人民银行已明确规定取消八年期存款利率,所以涉案存单上的“利率”和“到期利息”栏目均为空白,应视为双方未约定利率和利息,对此应当根据“有约定按约定,无约定按法定”的原则处理。被告取款时因原告工作人员工作疏忽导致多付利息给被告。由于电脑程序及操作问题,存款当时原告无法复核存单内容,因此在取款后予以复核。原告一经发现多付利息给被告,即与被告交涉。对此被告则认为:被告存款时已与原告约定利率为17.1%,当时并未注意存单上未显示利率。存单到期后,被告已支取本息,双方各自履行了合同义务并均无异议。@#
另查明:原告江南信用社提交的《关于罗苑玲存款利息计算方法》表明:本金77000元按5年期定期计算利息为8870.4元(扣除利息税后),本息合计85 870.4元作本金按3年期定期计算利息至2008年7月6日,同年7月6日至同年10月14日按活期利率计付利息,被告罗苑玲应实得利息为16 080.12元(扣除利息税后)。@#
诉讼中,原告江南信用社向梅州市梅江区人民法院提出财产保全申请,梅州市梅江区人民法院作出(2008)梅区民初字第 543号民事裁定书,依法冻结被告罗苑玲在江南信用社1015960070121200037703账户内的存款,冻结金额以人民币73 000元为限。@#
@#
本案一审的争议焦点是:涉案储蓄存单关于八年存期的约定是否有效,如果无效,被告罗苑玲应否返还多付的利息。@#
@#
梅州市梅江区人民法院一审认为:@#
根据本案事实,被告罗苑玲于2000年 7月6日到原告江南信用社处存入人民币 77 000元,原告开具定期储蓄存单交于被告收执,原、被告之间的储蓄合同关系成立。@#
......


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 【¥800.00】 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