>>>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
 
Xin Lianhua v. Xingang Commercial Bank (Dispute over a Deposit Receipt)
信连华诉新港商业银行存单纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Xin Lianhua v. Xingang Commercial Bank (Dispute over a Deposit Receipt)
(Dispute over a Deposit Receipt)
信连华诉新港商业银行存单纠纷案

Xin Lianhua v. Xingang Commercial Bank
(Dispute over a Deposit Receipt)

 

信连华诉新港商业银行存单纠纷案


Judgment Abstract:

 
【裁判摘要】

Pursuant to Article 5 of Some Provisionsof the Supreme People's Court on Handling Disputes over Certificate of Deposit,where the certificate of deposit (“CD”) holder's copy contains contents thatare different from the copy kept by the financial institution, if the CD isauthentic and the financial institution only rely on the evidence unilaterally produced,the people's court shall acknowledge the CD relationship between the holder andthe financial institution, and hold that the financial institution shall honorthe obligation under the CD.
 
根据《最高人民法院关于审理存单纠纷案件的若干规定》第五条的规定,存单持有人的存单与金融机构的底单记载内容不符,如果存单是真实的,且金融机构只能提交单方制作的证据来抗辩存单,应当认定存单持有人与金融机构之间的存款关系成立,金融机构根据存单承担兑付款项的义务。

BASIC FACTS
 

Plaintiff: Xin Lianhua, male, 44, dwelling at Chaoyang New Village, Tanggu District, Tianjin City.
 
原告:信连华,男,44岁,住址:天津市塘沽区朝阳新村。

 
被告:天津市商业银行股份有限公司塘沽支行新港分理处,住所地:天津市塘沽区新港。


Defendant: Tianjin Commercial Bank Joint Stock Limited Company, Tanggu Sub-branch, Xingang Banking Office, domiciled at Xingang, Tanggu District, Tianjin City.

 
负责人:冯宝明,该分理处主任。

Person-in-charge: Feng Baoming, director general of the banking office.
 
原告信连华因与被告天津市商业银行股份有限公司塘沽支行新港分理处(以下简称新港商业银行)发生存单纠纷,向天津市塘沽区人民法院提起诉讼。

Xin Lianhua, the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Tanggu District, Tianjin Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Tanggu District Court) against Tianjin Commercial Bank Joint Stock Limited Company, Tanggu Sub-branch, Xingang Banking Office (hereinafter referred to as Xingang Commercial Bank) due to the dispute over a deposit receipt.
 
原告诉称:原告是被告的储户,有被告出具的储蓄存折为证。至2001年11月6日,原告存折上的存款余额为298 287.79元。被告以其内部底单上显示的原告存款余额为198 287.79元,两者相差10万元为由,要求收回原告所持的存折,并要用新存折记载他们认为的存款余额。经原告强烈反对,被告才在原告所持的存折上据实记载存款余额,但拒绝兑付该存折上余下的 10万元存款。存折是双方存款合同关系的有效凭证,其上记载的存款数额是客观真实的。被告要求按其内部底单的记载来确定原告存款余额,没有依据,应当按原告所持存折上的记载支付原告的存款。请求确认原告所持的储蓄存折有效,判令被告依此支付原告短少的10万元存款,并负担本案诉讼费。

Xin Lianhua claimed that,He was a depositor of Xingang Commercial Bank, which could be proved by the deposit bankbook issued by Xingang Commercial Bank. By November 6, 2001, the deposit balance on Xin Lianhua's bankbook had come up to 298,287.79 Yuan. Xingang Commercial Bank demanded to take back the bankbook Xin Lianhua held on the ground that the bank's internal reserved receipt indicated Xin Lianhua's deposit balance was 198,287.79 Yuan, 100,000 Yuan less than the amount indicated on the bankbook, and intended to record the smaller sum of deposit balance on a new bankbook. After being strongly opposed by Xin Lianhua, Xingang Commercial Bank recorded the same deposit balance on the bankbook held by Xin Lianhua, but still refused to make a payment of the remaining 100,000 Yuan of deposits on this bankbook. The bankbook was an effective document proving the deposit contract relationship between both parties, and the deposit recorded on it was objective and true. Xingang Commercial Bank had no basis to determine Xin Lianhua's deposit balance according to the amount recorded on the bank's internal reserved receipt, instead, it should pay Xin Lianhua according to the amount recorded on Xin Lianhua's bankbook. Xin Lianhua pleaded Tanggu District Court to confirm the deposit bankbook he held to be effective, and to order Xingang Commercial Bank to pay the remaining 100,000 Yuan of deposit to him, and to bear the litigation costs for this case, as well.
 
原告提交以下证据:

Xin Lianhua submitted the following evidence:
 

 1.2001年10月17日新港商业银行给信连华出具的天津市商业银行储蓄存折,以此证明双方当事人之间的存款合同是真实、有效的,且信连华的存款余额为 298 287.79元。
1. The deposit bankbook of Tianjin Commercial Bank issued by Xingang Commercial Bank to Xin Lianhua on October 17, 2001, which proves that the deposit contract between both parties was true and effective, and Xin Lianhua's deposit balance was 298,287.79 Yuan. 

 2.2001年11月7日由新港商业银行负责人冯宝明签字出具的说明,以此证明双方当事人因存款余额发生了纠纷。
2. An explanation issued by Feng Baoming, person-in-charge of Xingang Commercial Bank, on November 7, 2001, which proves that a dispute arose between both parties due to the deposit balance. 
被告辩称:原告在被告处开立的并非储蓄账户,而是个体工商户个人结算账户,目的是用于资金往来结算。根据银行结算记账规则,账户应与存折记载的金额相符。 2001年11月6日,被告工作人员在核对原告的账户与存折记载的余额时,发现相差10万元,当即要求原告提供所有的存折进行对账,但原告称以前的存折丢失,拒绝对账。原告的行为违反了个体工商户个人结算账户的工作程序。法院应当责令原告提供其开户以来的4本存折进行对账,并对原告在银行的往来账目进行审计,以查明原告的准确存款余额。否则,应驳回原告的诉讼请求,诉讼费由原告自负。

Xingang Commercial Bank argued that, it was not a deposit account that Xin Lianhua opened in Xingang Commercial Bank, but a settlement account of individual industrial and commercial household, which was used for settlement of inward and outward funds. In accordance with the Banking Settlement and Bookkeeping Rules, an account shall conform to the amount recorded in the bankbook. On November 6, 2001, when the employees of Xingang Commercial Bank checked Xin Lianhua's account against the balance recorded in the bankbook, they found a difference of 100,000 Yuan, and immediately demanded Xin Lianhua to provide all the bankbooks for check of the accounts, but Xin Lianhua said the previous bankbooks were lost, and refused have the accounts checked. Xin Lianhua's behavior violated the working procedures for settlement accounts of individual industrial and commercial households. The court should order Xin Lianhua to provide the 4 bankbooks since he opened the account in the bank for the check of accounts, and audit Xin Lianhua's current accounts in the bank, so as to find out Xin Lianhua's accurate deposit balance. Otherwise, Xin Lianhua's litigation claims should be rejected, and the litigation costs should be borne by Xin Lianhua himself.
 
被告提交以下证据:

Xingang Commercial Bank submitted the following evidence:
 

 1.信连华在新港商业银行设立账户后的存取款原始凭证,以此证明信连华的存款余额。
1. The original voucher on depositing and withdrawing money after Xin Lianhua opened an account in Xingang Commercial Bank, which proves Xin Lianhua's deposit balance. 

 2.信连华账户自开户至2001年11月 6日的存取款电脑记录,以此证明信连华所持存折上记载的存款余额错误。
2. The computer records on depositing and withdrawing money from the day when Xin Lianhua opened the account up to November 6, 2001, which prove that the deposit balance recorded on the bankbook held by Xin Lianhua was wrong. 

 3.活期存折和企业账户存折各一本,以此证明储蓄存折与个体工商户存折的区别。
3. A current bankbook and an enterprise account bankbook, which prove the differences between the deposit bankbook and the bankbook of individual industrial and commercial household. 

 4.信连华设立账户后使用并加盖了信连华印鉴的存折封皮(复印件),以此证明记载着存取款内容的存折内芯部分已由信连华自行留用。
4. The bankbook cover (photocopy) affixed with Xin Lianhua's seal and used by Xin Lianhua after the account was opened, which proves that the inner part of the bankbook which records the deposit and withdrawal of money was reserved by Xin Lianhua himself. 

 5.经新港商业银行申请,法院委托大方公信会计师事务所对信连华在新港商业银行设立的账户存取款情况进行审核后出具的报告,以此证明认定信连华账户内存款余额为198 287.79元是正确的。
5. A report issued by Dafang Gongxin Accounting Firm as entrusted by the court upon Xingang Commercial Bank's application to verify Xin Lianhua's depositing and withdrawing money after he opened an account in Xingang Commercial Bank, which proves that it was correct to ascertain the deposit balance in Xin Lianhua's account as 198,287.79 Yuan. 
法庭主持了质证、认证。经质证,被告新港商业银行认为:原告信连华提交证据的真实性无异议,只是证据1不是储蓄存折。信连华认为:新港商业银行提交的证据 1,不是该账户的全部传票,且这些证据全部由新港商业银行单方制作,不能认可;证据2,也是新港商业银行单方形成的电脑记录,不具有推翻双方认可存折的证明力;证据3,只是银行内部所作的区分,不能推翻双方之间存在的储蓄关系,对本案没有实质意义;证据4,只是对存折封皮进行复印后形成的复印件,其真实性不能确认,况且为办理结算业务,信连华的印鉴就留存在新港商业银行,因此这些有信连华印鉴的存折封皮复印件,不能证明以前换过的存折内芯被信连华自行留用;证据5,是会计师事务所对新港商业银行单方提供的材料进行审核后的结果,不能认可。根据质证结果,法庭认为:信连华提交的证据,其真实性、合法性、关联性应予确认;新港商业银行提交的证据1、2,是新港商业银行单方制作的传票和记载,在信连华提出异议的情况下,其证明效力不予确认;证据3与本案无关联性,不予确认;证据4是复印件,在信连华提出异议的情况下,其真实性、合法性、关联性不予确认;证据5是依据新港商业银行单方制作并提供的底单作出的审核报告,缺乏真实性,故不予确认。

The court presided over the cross-examination and confirmation of the evidence. After cross-examination of the evidence, Xingang Commercial Bank held that there was no objection on the authenticity of the evidence submitted by Xin Lianhua, provided that Evidence 1 was not a deposit bankbook. Xin Lianhua held that, Evidence 1 submitted by Xingang Commercial Bank was not the whole set of vouchers of this account, and all such evidence were unilaterally made by Xingang Commercial Bank, thus should not be recognized; Evidence 2 was also the computer record unilaterally formed by Xingang Commercial Bank, and had no probative force to reverse the bankbook recognized by both parties; Evidence 3 was merely the internal distinction made by the bank, and could not reverse the deposit relationship between both parties, thus was of no essential significance to this case; Evidence 4 was a photocopy of the bankbook cover, whose authenticity could not be confirmed. Moreover, Xin Lianhua had left the specimen of his seal in Xingang Commercial Bank for the settlement of business, thus such photocopies of the bankbook covers bearing Xin Lianhua's seal could not prove the previously changed inner part of the bankbook was reserved by Xin Lianhua himself; Evidence 5 was the result of the verification by the accounting firm of the materials unilaterally provided by Xingang Commercial Bank, which could not be recognized, either. According to the result of cross-examination of the evidence, the court held that, the authenticity, legality and relevancy of the evidence submitted by Xin Lianhua should be confirmed; Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 submitted by Xingang Commercial Bank were the vouchers and records unilaterally made by Xingang Commercial Bank, whose probative force should not be confirmed in the event that Xin Lianhua proposed his objection; Evidence 3 was irrelevant to this case, and should not be confirmed; Evidence 4 was a photocopy, whose authenticity, legality and relevancy should not be confirmed in the event that Xin Lianhua proposed his objection; Evidence 5 was the verification report made on the basis of the reserved receipt unilaterally made and provided by Xingang Commercial Bank, and should not be confirmed due to lack of authenticity.
 
经质证、认证,天津市塘沽区人民法院查明:

After cross-examination and confirmation of the evidence, it was verified by Tanggu District Court that:
 
1997年12月10日,原告信连华为办理业务结算,在被告新港商业银行处设立了账号为201080413835、户名为信连华的账户。账户设立后,新港商业银行向信连华提供了天津市商业银行存折,信连华以该存折办理业务结算。截止2001年11月6日,在新港商业银行向信连华提供的存折上,记载的账户余额为298 287.79元。新港商业银行提出,信连华账户内的存款余额应为198 287.79元,该存折的记载有误,双方为此发生纠纷。

On December 10, 1997, Xin Lianhua opened an account in Xingang Commercial Bank for the settlement of business. The account number was 201080413835, and the name was Xin Lianhua. After the account was opened, Xingang Commercial Bank provided Xin Lianhua with a bankbook, and Xin Lianhua used this bankbook to make settlement. Up to November 6, 2001, the balance recorded on the bankbook provided by Xingang Commercial Bank to Xin Lianhua was 298,287.79 Yuan. However, Xingang Commercial Bank said the deposit balance in Xin Lianhua's account should be 198,287.79 Yuan, and the records of the bankbook were wrong. Hence a dispute arose between both parties.
 
天津市塘沽区人民法院认为:

Tanggu District Court held that,
......
 
中华人民共和国民法通则》(以下简称《民法通则》)第四条规定:“民事活动应当遵循自愿、公平、等价有偿、诚实信用的原则。”第五条规定:“公民、法人的合法的民事权益受法律保护,任何组织和个人不得侵犯。”最高人民法院《关于审理存单纠纷案件的若干规定》(以下简称《存单纠纷规定》)第五条第(二)项规定:“处理人民法院在审理一般存单纠纷案件中,除应审查存单、进账单、对账单、存款合同等凭证的真实性外,还应审查持有人与金融机构间存款关系的真实性,并以存单、进账单、对账单、存款合同等凭证的真实性以及存款关系的真实性为依据,作出正确处理。”其中第2目规定:“持有人以上述真实凭证为证据提起诉讼的,如金融机构不能提供证明存款关系不真实的证据,或仅以金融机构底单的记载内容与上述凭证记载内容不符为由进行抗辩的,人民法院应认定持有人与金融机构间存款关系成立,金融机构应当承担兑付款项的义务。”
......

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 【¥600.00】 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