CITIC Industrial Bank v. Beijing Jinggong Real Estate Development Company
(Dispute over Suretyship Contract)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: CITIC Industrial Bank, domiciled at Chaoyangmen Beidajie, Dongcheng District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Dou Jianzhong, president of the Bank.@#
Authorized Agent: Xu Meng, lawyer of Beijing Lauseed Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Beijing Jinggong Real Estate Development Company, domiciled at Gantang Industrial Zone, Tongzhou District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Feng Changhui, general manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Jiang Li, lawyer of Beijing Beidou Law Firm.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
CITIC Industrial Bank (hereinafter referred to as CITIC Bank), the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit with No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court) against Beijing Jinggong Real Estate Development Company (hereinafter referred to as Jinggong Company) due to the dispute over a suretyship contract.@#
CITIC Bank claimed: We lent Beijing Jinhui Lamp Decoration Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Jinhui Company) USD 500,000, and Jinggong Company was the surety of the sum of loans, who agreed to, when Jinhui Company breached the contract, repay all the money payable on behalf of Jinhui Company. After the term of loan expired, Jinhui Company did not repay the principal and interest of the loans on time, nor did Jinggong Company perform the suretyship liability. At that time, Jinhui Company's business license of enterprise legal person had been revoked, and its assets and staff were missing. Jinggong Company should bear the suretyship liability according to law. Therefore, CITIC Bank pleaded the court to order Jinggong Company to repay the USD 500,000 of loans, the interest thereof, and the interest penalty, and to bear the litigation costs of the present case.@#
Jinggong Company argued: 1. Although Jinhui Company's business license of enterprise legal person was revoked, it was still a qualified subject to litigation, and thus it should be added as a defendant in the present case. 2. CITIC Bank provided Jinhui Company with loans and opened a foreign exchange account, which violated the laws and regulations on foreign exchange administration, and the loan agreement should be ineffective. 3. The facts on the loans in question had been placed by Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau on file for examination, thus the present case should be suspended from trial. 4. The present case was placed on file on July 8, 1996. According to legal provisions, the time of examination by the court of a case to be placed on file shall be 7 days, so the earliest date for CITIC Bank to bring a lawsuit with the court should be July 1, 1996. As a matter of fact, Jinggong Company sent a letter to CITIC Bank on May 23, 1996, requiring it to assert litigation rights. However, it was not until 1 month later that CITIC Bank brought the lawsuit with the court. In accordance with a relevant provision in Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning Suretyship in the Trial of Cases on Disputes over Economic Contracts (No. 8 [1994], hereinafter referred to as the “Provisions on Suretyship”), i.e., “Where the creditor fails to exercise the right to litigation claim within 1 month after receipt of the surety's request, the surety shall no longer bear the suretyship liability”, Jinggong Company should no longer bear the suretyship liability under the law. 5. The term of suretyship prescribed in the law shall be 6 months as of expiry of the time limit for performance of the principal debt. CITIC Bank brought the lawsuit after expiry of 6-month term of suretyship, so Jinggong Company should no longer bear the suretyship liability under the law, either.@#
．．．．．．

中信实业银行诉北京市京工房地产开发总公司保证合同纠纷案@#
@#
原告：中信实业银行。住所地：北京市东城区朝阳门北大街。@#
法定代表人：窦建中，该行行长。@#
委托代理人：徐猛，北京市劳赛德律师事务所律师。@#
被告：北京市京工房地产开发总公司。住所地：北京市通州区甘棠工业区。@#
法定代表人：冯长辉，该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人：蒋历，北京市北斗律师事务所律师。@#
@#
原告中信实业银行(以下简称中信银行)因与被告北京市京工房地产开发总公司(以下简称京工公司)发生保证合同纠纷．向北京市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：原告贷给北京金辉灯饰工程有限公司(以下简称金辉公司)50万美元，被告是这笔贷款的保证人，同意当金辉公司违约时，代金辉公司偿还全部应付款项。借款期限届满后，金辉公司未按期偿还借款本金及利息，被告也未履行保证责任。现金辉公司已被吊销企业法人营业执照，其资产、人员均不知去向，被告应依法承担保证责任。故请求判令被告偿还借款50万美元及利息、罚息，并负担本案的诉讼费用。@#
被告辨称：1、金辉公司虽被吊销企业法人营业执照，但仍具备诉讼主体资格，故应追加其为本案被告。2、原告给金辉公司提供贷款并开立外汇账户，违反了外汇管理的法律法规，该贷款协议应属无效。3、本案所诉贷款事实已被北京市公安局立案审查，故本案应中止审理。4、本案的立案时间为1996年7月8日，根据法律规定，法院审查立案的时间为7天，故原告向法院起诉的最早时间应是1996年7月1日。被告早于1996年5月23日就致函原告，要求其主张诉讼权利。而原告于1个月后才向法院起诉。依照最高人民法院在《关于审理经济合同纠纷案件有关保证的若干问题的规定》(法发[1994]8号，以下简称“有关保证的规定”)第11条中关于“债权人在收到保证人的书面请求后1个月内未行使诉讼请求权的，保证人不再承担保证责任”的规定，被告依法不再承担保证责任。5、法律规定的保证期间是主债务履行期届满之日起6个月。原告超过了6个月的保证期间以后才起诉，被告依法也不再承担保证责任。@#
北京市第二中级人民法院经审理查明：@#
1994年11月10日，原告中信银行与金辉公司、被告京工公司签订[94]银贷字第305号贷款协议(以下简称“305协议”)，约定：中信银行向金辉公司提供贷款50万美元，用于购买原材料；本贷款采用浮动利率，年利率为每次提款日前两个银行工作日中国银行公布的一年期六个月浮动美元贷款利率上浮5％，以后每年6月20日与12月20日各调整一次；金辉公司应自第一次提款之日起，每年6月20日与12月20日用美元现汇向中信银行支付应付利息；本贷款自签约之日起至1995年11月10日期满；金辉公司未能按本协议约定的时间还本付息，中信银行有权加收相当于原定利率20％的罚息；京工公司作为担保方，同意当金辉公司违约时，在接到中信银行书面索偿通知15天内，代金辉公司用现金或现汇偿还全部应付款项。@#
“305协议”签订后，原告中信银行按约履行了放贷义务。1995年11月10日借款期限届满，金辉公司未按期偿还借款本金及利息，被告京工公司亦未履行保证义务。1996年5月13日，中信银行致函京工公司，要求京工公司履行保证责任。同年5月23日，京工公司回函称：贵行致我司的函件收悉，我司的责任已解除，请贵行主张诉讼权利。@#
另查明，原告中信银行是于1996年6月21日向法院起诉。@#
北京市第二中级人民法院认为：@#
原告中信银行与金辉公司、被告京工公司签订的“305协议”，不违反国家法律、法规的规定，是当事人的真实意思表示，应当认定有效。最高人民法院在《关于适用＜中华人民共和国担保法＞若干问题的解释》(以下简称“担保法解释”)第一百三十三条第一款规定：“担保法施行以前发生的担保行为，适用担保行为发生时的法律、法规和有关司法解释。”第三款规定：“担保法施行以后因担保行为发生的纠纷案件，在本解释公布施行后尚在一审或二审阶段的，适用担保法和本解释。”《中华人民共和国担保法》自1995年10月1日起施行，京工公司的担保行为发生在“担保法”施行前，应当适用当时有效的、最高人民法院发布的《关于审理经济合同纠纷案件有关保证的若干问题的规定》(以下简称“有关保证的规定”)。@#
“有关保证的规定”第7条规定：“保证合同没有约定保证人承担何种保证责任，或者约定不明确的，视为保证人承担赔偿责任。当被保证人不履行合同时，债权人应当首先请求被保证人清偿债务。强制执行被保证人的财产仍不足以清偿其债务的，由保证人承担赔偿责任。”“担保法”第十七条第一款也规定：“当事人在保证合同中约定，债务人不能履行债务时，由保证人承担保证责任的，为一般保证。”“305协议”中没有约定保证责任，因此被告京工公司应当承担一般保证责任。@#
．．．．．．