Sales Company of Qingdao Aucma Group vs. Bank of China, Lijin Branch
(Appealed Case on Dispute over Negotiable Bills Acceptance and Payment)@#
[Count Promulgation No. 26 (2000)]@#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China@#
[No. 72 (2000) of Final Judgment by the Economic Tribunal]@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Sales Company of Qingdao Aucma Group, located at Aucma Industrial Zone, Economic and Technical Development Area, Qingdao City, Shandong Province.@#
Legal representative:Yin Yanzeng, General Manager of the Company.@#
Represented by:Bian Yimin, attorney of Beijing Min Zheng Law Firm.@#
Appellee (defendant in the original trial):
Bank of China, Lijin Branch, located at Chengjin Second Road, Lijin County, Shandong Province.@#
Person liable:Zhang Jufen, President of the Branch.@#
Represented by: Guo Feng, attorney of Beijing Ding Ming Law Firm, and@#
Ding Wenshun, attorney of Shandong Min Shun Law Firm.@#
The appellant, Sales Company of Qingdao Aucma Group (hereinafter referred to as “Aucma Sales”), refuses to accept the first judgment No. 42 (1999) of the Economic Tribunal of Shandong Court which was made by Shandong Provincial High People's Court, and has filed an appeal at the Supreme People's Court against the Bank of China, Lijin Branch (hereinafter referred to as “Lijin Bank”) concerning their dispute over negotiable bills instrument acceptance and payment. The Supreme Court has formed a collegial panel and tried the case in accordance with the law, and has now concluded the trial.@#
As verified by the Supreme Court: On March 13, 1998, Aucma Sales signed a contract of sale of industrial and mineral products with Lijin County Supplemental Materials Company (hereinafter referred to as “Lijin Materials”). It was agreed upon by both parties that Aucma Sales would supply Lijin Materials with Aucma's series of products valuing in total 100 million RMB, and the account should be settled through a bank acceptance bill of exchange. Therefore, Lijin Materials and Lijin Bank signed 20 contracts on March 14, 1998 numbered from 98001-1 to 98001-20 constituting the bank acceptance bill of exchange. It was agreed upon in each contract that the amount of the each bill to be accepted was 5 million RMB; the applicant for the bank acceptance bill (Lijin Materials) shall fully deliver the payable money to the accepting bank (Lijin Bank) 7 days before the expiration of the bills of exchange; in case the applicant for acceptance failed to fully deliver the payable money before the expiration date, the accepting bank may convert the unpaid portion of money into overdue loans. Both Lijin Materials and Lijin Bank respectively affixed a seal on each of the 20 contracts of exchange. On the same day, Lijin Materials, Lijin Bank, Aucma Sales and Qingdao Aucma Electric Appliances Company (hereinafter referred to as “Aucma EA”) executed a guaranty agreement on the bank acceptance bill which stipulated that Aucma Sales and Aucma EA should bear joint guaranty liabilities for the contracts of bank acceptance bills numbered from 98001-1 to 98001-20 which were signed between Lijin Bank and Lijin Materials. In the case that Lijin Materials was in breach, Lijin Bank should have the right to directly demand the guarantors for repayment. Aucma Sales and Aucma EA guaranteed to discharge the debts within 5 business days after receiving the written repayment demand notice from Lijin Bank. In the case that the guarantors were in breach and failed to discharge the matured debts within the stipulated period, Lijin Bank shall have the right to entrust the guarantors' financial deposit institutions to directly deduct the amount of the matured debts from the guarantors' deposits or from their other property rights, and a penalty equivalent to 2% of the total guaranteed amount may be imposed on them based on the specific circumstances. Lijin Materials, Lijin Bank, Aucma Sales, and Aucma EA have respectively affixed a seal on the agreement.On March 28, 1998, the Notary Office of Lijin County, Shandong Province notarized the above-mentioned guaranty agreement on the bank acceptance bills.@#
．．．．．．

青岛澳柯玛集团销售公司与中国银行利津支行票据兑付纠纷上诉案@#
（法公布（２０００）２６号）@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事判决书@#
（２０００）经终字第７２号@#
@#
上诉人（原审原告）：青岛澳柯玛集团销售公司。住所地：山东省青岛市经济技术开发区澳柯玛工业园。@#
法定代表人：殷延增，该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人：卞宜民，北京市民正律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人（原审被告）：中国银行利津支行。住所地：山东省利津县城津二路。@#
负责人：张居芬，该行行长。@#
委托代理人：郭峰，北京市鼎铭律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：丁文顺，山东民顺律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人青岛澳柯玛集团销售公司（以下简称澳柯玛销售公司）为与被上诉人中国银行利津支行（以下简称利津中行）票据兑付纠纷一案，不服山东省高级人民法院（１９９９）鲁法经初字第４２号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审理，现已审理终结。@#
查明：１９９８年３月１３日，澳柯玛销售公司与利津县物资配套公司（以下简称利津物资公司）签订了一份工矿产品购销合同，双方约定：由澳柯玛销售公司向利津物资公司供应澳柯玛系列产品，供货总值１亿元人民币，结算方式为银行承兑汇票。为此，利津物资公司与利津中行于１９９８年３月１４日签订了编号为９８００１－１至９８００１－２０的２０份银行承兑契约，各份契约均约定：承兑汇票金额为５００万元；承兑申请人（利津物资公司）应于汇票到期７日前将应付票款足额交付承兑银行（利津中行），如到期日之前承兑申请人不能足额交付票款时，承兑银行对不足支付部分的票款转作逾期贷款。利津物资公司、利津中行分别在上述２０份承兑协议上签章。同日，利津物资公司、利津中行、澳柯玛销售公司及青岛澳柯玛电器公司（以下简称澳柯玛电器公司）四方签订了一份银行承兑保证协议，协议约定：澳柯玛销售公司和澳柯玛电器公司为利津中行与利津物资公司签订的合同编号为９８００１－１至９８００１－２０的银行承兑契约承担连带保证责任；如果利津物资公司违约，利津中行有权直接向保证人追偿，澳柯玛销售公司和澳柯玛电器公司保证在接到利津中行书面索款通知后５个营业日内清偿；保证人如违约未按期代为清偿到期债务，利津中行有权委托保证人的开户金融机构直接扣收其帐户中的存款或直接扣收保证人的其他财产权利，并可视情况按担保总额的２％向其收取违约金。利津物资公司、利津中行、澳柯玛销售公司、澳柯玛电器公司分别在合同上签章。１９９８年３月２８日，山东省利津县公证处对上述银行承兑保证协议进行公证。@#
协议签订后，利津中行如约对利津物资公司签发了２０张银行承兑汇票，编号为ＶＩＩ００１０３２７６至ＶＩＩ００１０３２９５。各张汇票上均载明：出票人利津物资公司，收款人澳柯玛销售公司，付款人利津中行，金额５００万元，出票日期为１９９８年３月１４日，到期日为１９９８年９月１４日，各张汇票的票面上均载明“不得转让”字样。利津中行在上述汇票的承兑上一栏签章承兑。同年９月５日和９月１０日，澳柯玛销售公司因未足额供货而将其中的１１张共计５５００万元的汇票分两次退回给利津中行。之后，澳柯玛销售公司于９月１０日和１１日将其余的编号为ＶＩＩ００１０３２７６至ＶＩＩ００１０３２８４的９张共计４５００万元银行承兑汇票分别委托其三家开户银行向利津中行提示付款。利津中行以“与澳柯玛销售公司有约定的债权债务关系、澳柯玛销售公司违约”为由拒绝付款，同时将汇票扣留，并于９月２３日开出拒付证明。１９９８年９月２８日，澳柯玛销售公司向利津中行并山东省中国银行信贷管理处出具了一份《退票说明》，具体内容是：“由于市场客观原因，我公司未能履行对你行所承兑的４５００万元银行承兑汇票之‘银行承兑保证协议'所应有的担保责任，而我公司与利津物资公司间的购销业务又在继续，鉴于上述情况，特将已到期的４５００万元银行承兑汇票退回。望报经上级批准后，另行办理相应的银行承兑汇票为盼”。利津中行遂在上述汇票上加盖“作废”印章，作废票处理。@#
１９９９年７月５日，澳柯玛销售公司向山东省高级人民法院提起诉讼，请求判令利津中行对上述４５００万元银行承兑汇票承担付款责任并赔偿相应损失。@#
．．．．．．