|
|
|
China Hi-tech Wealth Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd. v. Guangsheng Investment and Development Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Jade Bird Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Case of Dispute over Loan Contract and Guarantee Contract)
|
|
中国恒基伟业集团有限公司、北京北大青鸟有限责任公司与广晟投资发展有限公司、香港青鸟科技发展有限公司借款担保合同纠纷案
|
|
|
|
China Hi-tech Wealth Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd. v. Guangsheng Investment and Development Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Jade Bird Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Case of Dispute over Loan Contract and Guarantee Contract)
(Case of Dispute over Loan Contract and Guarantee Contract)
中国恒基伟业集团有限公司、北京北大青鸟有限责任公司与广晟投资发展有限公司、香港青鸟科技发展有限公司借款担保合同纠纷案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
China Hi-tech Wealth Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd. v. Guangsheng Investment and Development Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Jade Bird Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd.
(Case of Dispute over Loan Contract and Guarantee Contract) | | 中国恒基伟业集团有限公司、北京北大青鸟有限责任公司与广晟投资发展有限公司、香港青鸟科技发展有限公司借款担保合同纠纷案 |
[Judgment Abstract] | |
【裁判摘要】 |
| |
最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第十六条规定：“对涉外仲裁协议的效力审查，适用当事人约定的法律；当事人没有约定适用的法律但约定了仲裁地的，适用仲裁地法律；没有约定适用的法律也没有约定仲裁地或者仲裁地约定不明的，适用法院地法律。”据此，在涉外合同纠纷案件中，当事人在合同中约定有仲裁条款的，可以同时对确定该仲裁条款效力的准据法作出明确约定。因仲裁条款的独立性，故合同中约定的适用于解决合同争议的准据法，不能用以判定该仲裁条款的效力。如果当事人在合同中没有约定确定仲裁条款效力的准据法，也没有约定仲裁地或者对仲裁地约定不明，应当适用法院地法律审查仲裁协议的效力。 |
Article 16 the Interpretation
of Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application
of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China provides that,
“with respect to the review of the effectiveness of a foreign-related
arbitration agreement, the law chosen by both parties shall be applied;
where the parties did not chose an applicable law but agreed upon the
seat of arbitration, laws of the seat of arbitration shall be applied;
where no applicable law or seat of arbitration had been chosen or the
agreement on the seat of arbitration is not clear, lex fori shall be
applied”. Thereby, in the trial of a foreign-related contract dispute,
where the parties included an arbitration clause in the contract, they
may also reach a clear agreement on the governing law regarding the
effectiveness of such arbitration clause in the meantime. Given the
independence of the arbitration clause, the governing law chosen in the
contract for settling disputes concerning the contract may not be used
to determine the effectiveness of the arbitration clause. If the parties
did not agree upon the governing law for determining the effectiveness
of the arbitration clause or upon the seat of arbitration, or failed to
reach a clear agreement on the seat of arbitration, lex fori shall be
applied in review of the effectiveness of the arbitration
agreement.Article 16 of the Interpretation of Supreme People's Court on
Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the
People's Republic of China provides that, “with respect to the review of
the effectiveness of a foreign-related arbitration agreement, the law
chosen by both parties shall be applied; where the parties did not chose
an applicable law but agreed upon the seat of arbitration, laws of the
seat of arbitration shall be applied; where no applicable law or seat of
arbitration had been chosen or the agreement on the seat of arbitration
is not clear, lex fori shall be applied”. Thereby, in the trial of a
foreign-related contract dispute, where the parties included an
arbitration clause in the contract, they may also reach a clear
agreement on the governing law regarding the effectiveness of such
arbitration clause in the meantime. Given the independence of the
arbitration clause, the governing law chosen in the contract for
settling disputes concerning the contract may not be used to determine
the effectiveness of the arbitration clause. If the parties did not
agree upon the governing law for determining the effectiveness of the
arbitration clause or upon the seat of arbitration, or failed to reach a
clear agreement on the seat of arbitration, lex fori shall be applied
in review of the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement. | |
最高人民法院 |
Civil Ruling Paper of the Supreme People's Court | |
民事裁定书 |
| |
(2006)民四终字第28号 |
(No.28 [2006]) | |
|
BASIC FACTS | |
上诉人(原审被告)：中国恒基伟业集团有限公司。住所地：香港特别行政区铜锣湾告示大道255-257信和广场1503室。 |
Appellant (Defendant in the Original Instance): China Hi-tech Wealth Group Co., Ltd., located at Room 1503, Sino Plaze, No.255-257 of Gloucester Road, Causeway Bay of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. | |
法定代表人：李明，该公司董事长。 |
Legal Representative: Li Ming, president of the company. | |
委托代理人：杨天胜，北京市铭泰律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Yang Tiansheng, lawyer from Beijing Mingtai Law Firm. | |
委托代理人：李朝霞，该公司职员。 |
Authorized Proxy: Li Zhaoxia, employee of the company. | |
上诉人(原审被告)：北京北大青鸟有限责任公司。住所地：北京市海淀区成府路 207号北大青鸟楼。 |
Appellant (Defendant in the Original Instance): Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd., located at Jade Bird Building, No.207, Chengfu Road of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality. | |
法定代表人：许振东，该公司董事长。 |
Legal Representative: Xu Zhendong, president of the company. | |
委托代理人：高悦，北京金杜律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Gao Yue, lawyer from Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. | |
委托代理人：续光，北京金杜律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Xu Guang, lawyer from Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. | |
被上诉人(原审原告)：广晟投资发展有限公司。住所地：香港特别行政区金钟夏悫道12号美国银行中心12楼1219室。 |
Appellee (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Guangsheng Investment and Development Co., Ltd., located at Room 1219, 12/F of Bank of America Center, No.12 Harcourt Rd, Admiralty of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. | |
法定代表人：李进明，该公司董事长。 |
Legal Representative: Li Jinming, president of the company. | |
委托代理人：王宏喜，北京市德恒律师事务所广州分所律师。 |
Attorney: Wang Hongxi, lawyer from Guangzhou Office of Beijing Deheng Law Firm. | |
委托代理人：周林彬，北京市德恒律师事务所广州分所律师。 |
Attorney: Zhou Linbin, lawyer from Guangzhou Office of Beijing Deheng Law Firm. | |
原审被告：香港青鸟科技发展有限公司。住所地：香港特别行政区中环云咸街8号亚洲太平洋中心702室。 |
Defendant in the Original Instance: Hong Kong Jade Bird Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., located at Room 702, Asia-Pacific Center, No.8 Wyndham Street, Central of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. | |
法定代表人：许振东，该公司董事。 |
Legal Representative: Xu Zhendong, president of the company. | |
委托代理人：王风利，北京金杜律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Wang Fengli, lawyer from Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. | |
委托代理人：蒋硕，北京金杜律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Jiang Shuo, lawyer from Beijing King & Wood Law Firm. | |
上诉人中国恒基伟业集团有限公司 (以下简称恒基公司)、北京北大青鸟有限责任公司(以下简称北京青鸟公司)为与广晟投资发展有限公司(以下简称广晟公司)、原审被告香港青鸟科技发展有限公司 (以下简称香港青鸟公司)借款、担保合同纠纷一案，不服广东省高级人民法院 (2006)粤高法民四初字第1号民事裁定书，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员陈百灵担任审判长，代理审判员任雪峰、高晓力参加的合议庭，对本案进行了审理。书记员许英林担任记录。本案现已审理终结。 |
For the dispute with Guangsheng Investment and Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangsheng Company) and Hong Kong Jade Bird Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HK Jade Bird Company) over loan and guarantee contracts, China Hi-tech Wealth Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wealth Company) and Beijing Beida Jade Bird Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Jade Bird Company) refused to accept the civil ruling paper No.1 [2006] of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, and appealed to this Court. This Court formed a collegial panel according to law with justice Chen Bailing acting as the chief justice and acting justice Ren Xuefeng and Gao Xiaoli participating in, and heard this case. Clerk Xu Yinglin acted as the recorder of the case. This case has been finalized now. | |
原审中，广晟公司以借款合同纠纷起诉恒基公司、香港青鸟公司、北京青鸟公司还款，恒基公司和北京青鸟公司在提交答辩状期间对管辖权提出异议，认为《可转换债发行协议》约定有仲裁条款，法院无管辖权，请求驳回起诉。 |
In the original instance, for the dispute over loan contract, Guangsheng Company brought a lawsuit against Wealth Company, HK Jade Bird Company and Beijing Jade Bird Company, and Wealth Company and Beijing Jade Bird Company made an objection to jurisdiction during the period for submitting the bill of defense, holding that since the Agreement on Issuance of Convertible Bonds has stipulated an arbitral clause, the court has no jurisdiction over the case, thus the court shall dismiss the lawsuit. | |
|
PROCEDURAL POSTURE | |
原审法院经审查认为，本案中广晟公司起诉的主要依据是《可转换债发行协议》及其相关担保协议，《可转换债发行协议》第十条约定：“四方应妥善解决履行中发生的争议，协商解决不成的，提交仲裁解决。本协议适用中华人民共和国香港特别行政区法律。”该条款体现了双方当事人将争议提交仲裁的意思表示，同时约定了解决协议争议的准据法。但由于当事人没有约定仲裁条款效力的准据法，也因当事人没有约定仲裁地，无法确定仲裁地的法律，在此情形下，应适用法院地法即我国内地法律作为确认该仲裁条款效力的准据法。根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十六条第二款的规定，仲裁协议应具有选定的仲裁委员会的内容，而本案所涉仲裁条款中，当事人仅有仲裁的意思表示，没有确定的仲裁机构名称，当事人也没有就仲裁机构达成补充协议。根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十八条的规定，该仲裁条款应被确认为无效。由于仲裁条款无效，广晟公司有权向法院提起诉讼。从当事人的诉请和主要表面证据来看，《可转换债发行协议》为双务合同，双方当事人履行义务的地点都可以作为合同履行地。本案中，广晟公司委托关联公司从广州的银行划款到恒基公司在北京的关联公司，因此，广州市应为合同履行地之一。参照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百四十三条的规定，原审法院对广晟公司诉恒基公司的可转换债发行协议纠纷有管辖权。 |
Upon examination, the court of the original instance held that: the major basis on which Guangsheng Company brought the lawsuit is the Agreement on Issuance of Convertible Bonds and the related guarantee agreement. It is stipulated in Article 10 of the Agreement on Issuance of Convertible Bonds that “Four parties shall properly settle disputes occurred in execution of this Agreement, and any disputes that can't be settled upon negotiations shall be settled by arbitration. This Agreement shall be governed by laws of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.” This article has declared the will of both parties of having disputes settled by arbitration, and has stipulated the applicable law to the settlement of such disputes. However, as the parties concerned failed to stipulate the applicable law to the effectiveness of the arbitration clause, nor did they stipulate the place of arbitration, the applicable law shall be the lex fori, which is the law of the mainland of China. Pursuant to the provision of Article 16 (2) of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, an arbitration agreement shall specify the selected arbitration committee, but the arbitration clause concerned in this case only declared the will of arbitration and did not specify any arbitration agency, moreover, the parties concerned did not reach any supplementary agreement on the arbitration agency issue. According to the provision of Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, this arbitration clause shall be determined as invalid. Since the arbitration clause is invalid, Guangsheng Company has the right to bring a lawsuit to the court. Judging from the appeal and the prima facie evidence, the Agreement on Issuance of Convertible Bonds is a bilateral contract, so all places for both parties to fulfill obligations could be the place of execution of the contract. In this case, Guangsheng Company entrusted an affiliated company to transfer money from a Guangzhou-located bank to a Beijing-located affiliated company of Wealth Company, so Guangzhou should be a place of contract performance. According to the provision of Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of the original instance has jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought by Guangsheng Company against Wealth Company for the dispute over the agreement on issuance of convertible bonds.
．．．．．． | |
香港青鸟公司和北京青鸟公司因《可转换债发行协议》向广晟公司提供担保，因此，《可转换债发行协议》为主合同，担保协议和担保函为从合同。在广晟公司就主合同和从合同一并提起诉讼时，从合同的管辖应依主合同确定。该院对可转换债发行协议纠纷有管辖权，故对广晟公司诉香港青鸟公司和北京青鸟公司的担保纠纷亦享有管辖权。综上所述，恒基公司和北京青鸟公司的管辖权异议理由不充分，应予驳回。该院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条的规定，裁定：驳回恒基公司和北京青鸟公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥500.00】 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|