>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. (H.K.) v. Guangdong Zhanjiang Shipping Agency Company, Zhanjiang Textiles Enterprise (Group) Company and Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Import and Export Trade (Group) Company (Dispute over Delivery and Taking Delivery of Goods without the Original of the Bill of Lading)
香港华润纺织原料有限公司诉广东湛江船务代理公司、湛江纺织企业(集团)公司和深圳经济特区进出口贸易(集团)公司无正本提单放货、提货纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. (H.K.) v. Guangdong Zhanjiang Shipping Agency Company, Zhanjiang Textiles Enterprise (Group) Company and Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Import and Export Trade (Group) Company (Dispute over Delivery and Taking Delivery of Goods without the Original of the Bill of Lading)
(Dispute over Delivery and Taking Delivery of Goods without the Original of the Bill of Lading)
香港华润纺织原料有限公司诉广东湛江船务代理公司、湛江纺织企业(集团)公司和深圳经济特区进出口贸易(集团)公司无正本提单放货、提货纠纷案

China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. (H.K.) v. Guangdong Zhanjiang Shipping Agency Company, Zhanjiang Textiles Enterprise (Group) Company and Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Import and Export Trade (Group) Company
(Dispute over Delivery and Taking Delivery of Goods without the Original of the Bill of Lading)

 

香港华润纺织原料有限公司诉广东湛江船务代理公司、

 湛江纺织企业(集团)公司和深圳经济特区进出口贸易(集团)
 
BASIC FACTS 公司无正本提单放货、提货纠纷案
Plaintiff: China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. (H.K.) 原告:香港华润纺织原料有限公司。
Legal Representative: Sun Dequan, general manager. 法定代表人:孙德全,总经理。
Authorized Agent: Wang Qiming, deputy general manager of the Natural Fiber Department of China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. 委托代理人:王启明,华润纺织原料有限公司天然纤维部副经理。
Authorized Agent: Ma Xiaohu, lawyer of China Legal Services (H. K.) Ltd. 委托代理人:马小虎,中国法律服务(香港)有限公司律师。
Defendant: Guangdong Zhanjiang Shipping Agency Company. 被告:广东湛江船务代理公司。
Legal Representative: Lin Xing, manager. 法定代表人:林兴,经理。
Authorized Agent: Liang Shan, lawyer of Guangdong Commerce and Finance Law Firm. 委托代理人:梁山,广东商务金融律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Zhanjiang Textiles Enterprise (Group) Company. 被告:湛江纺织企业(集团)公司。
Legal Representative: Lin Feiza, general manager. 法定代表人:林妃杂,总经理。
Authorized Agent: Zhao Fang and Pang Baining, lawyer of Zhanjiang No. 1 Law Firm. 委托代理人:赵放、庞白宁,湛江市第一律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Import and Export Trade (Group) Company. 被告:深圳经济特区进出口贸易(集团)公司。
Legal Representative: Zhang Shuzhi, board chairman. 法定代表人:张树治,董事长。
Authorized Agent: Zhang Guoxin, lawyer of Shenzhen Donghai Law Firm. 委托代理人:张国新,深圳东海律师事务所律师。
Authorized Agent: Liang Minghui, employee of Shenzhen Yida Industrial Company. 委托代理人:梁明辉,深圳亿达实业公司职员。
China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd. (H.K.) (plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Textile Materials Company) brought a lawsuit with Guangzhou Maritime Court against Guangdong Zhanjiang Shipping Agency Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhanjiang Shipping Agency) and Zhanjiang Textiles Enterprise (Group) Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhanjiang Textiles) due to a dispute over delivery and taking delivery of cargo without the original of bill of lading. Guangzhou Maritime Court held after accepting the case that, Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Import and Export Trade (Group) Company (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen Company) had a legal interest relationship with the settlement result of the case, and must participate in the lawsuit jointly with the other two defendants. In accordance with Article 119 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China谁敢欺负我的人”, Shenzhen Company was notified as a defendant of the present case to participate in the lawsuit. 原告香港华润纺织原料有限公司(以下简称纺织原料公司)因与被告广东湛江船务代理公司(以下简称湛江船代)、港江纺织企业(集团)公司(以下简称湛纺公司)无正本提单放货、提货纠纷,向广州海事法院起诉。广州海事法院受理后认为,深圳经济特区进出口贸易(集团)公司(以下简称深圳公司)与案件处理结果有法律上的利害关系,必须共同进行诉讼,依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法

法宝

》第一百一十九条的规定,通知深圳公司为本案被告参加诉讼。
Textile Materials Company alleged: On May 27, 1989, Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company concluded a contract under which Textile Materials Company shall supply Shenzhen Company with 1,908 tons of Sudan cotton. On July 24, upon application of Shenzhen Company, Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch issued an L/C for 945 tons of Sudan cotton. Textile Materials Company chartered a ship to carry 5,023 bags or 963, 583 Kg of Sudan cotton from Sudan Port to Zhanjiang Port. The carrier issued No. ZHAN/1 bill of lading. Zhanjiang Shipping Agency was the carrier's agent at Zhanjiang Port. Since Shenzhen Company refused to make the payment, Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch returned the full set of documents for negotiation, including the original bill of lading under the L/C, to Textile Materials Company on March 1, 1991, and then Textile Materials Company became a lawful owner and holder of the bill of lading. When Textile Materials Company brought the original bill of lading to take delivery of the cargo from Zhanjiang Shipping Agency in May, it was told that the cargo under the No. ZHAN/1 bill of lading had been picked up by Zhanjiang Textiles upon strength of a letter of indemnity. The acts of Zhanjiang Shipping Agency and Zhanjiang Textiles had injured Textile Materials Company's ownership over the cargo under the bill of lading. Textile Materials Company pleaded the court to order Zhanjiang Shipping Agency to deliver the Sudan cotton under the bill of lading to Textile Materials Company or to compensate USD 1,530,596.10 and the interest loss, and to order Zhanjiang Textiles to bear joint and several liabilities. 原告纺织原料公司诉称:1989年5月27日,原告与深圳公司签订合同由原告向深圳公司供应1908吨苏丹棉花。7月24日,根据深圳公司的申请,中国银行深圳分行就945吨苏丹棉花开出信用证。原告租船将5,023包、963,583公斤苏丹棉花从苏丹港运抵湛江港。承运人签发ZHAN/1号提单。湛江船代是承运人在湛江港的代理人。由于深圳公司拒付货款,1991年3月1日,中国银行香港分行将信用证项下包括正本提单在内的全套议付单证退还原告,原告成为该提单的合法所有人和持有人。同年5月,原告持正本提单向湛江船代提货时被告知,ZHAN/1号提单项下货物已被湛纺公司凭保函提走。湛江船代与湛纺公司的行为构成了对原告提单货物所有权的侵犯。请求判令湛江船代向原告交付提单项下苏丹棉花或赔偿1,530,596.10美元及利息损失,湛纺公司负连带责任。
Zhanjiang Shipping Agency argued: It was normal for Zhanjiang Shipping Agency to deliver the cargo after receipt of Zhanjiang Textiles' effective letter of indemnity and the copy, thus all liabilities incurred therefrom shall be borne by Zhanjiang Textiles. 被告湛江船代辩称:被告在收到湛纺公司有效保函及副本的情况下,予以放货,是正常做法,所产生的一切责任应由被告湛纺公司承担。
Zhanjiang Textiles argued: Before Textile Materials Company negotiated with Shenzhen Company, Shenzhen Company made partial payment, and thus Textile Materials Company no longer had any right to claim for the cargo. Zhanjiang Textiles merely cooperated with Shenzhen Company in taking delivery of the cargo, and was not the consignee. 被告湛纺公司辩称:原告与深圳公司经长期交涉前由深圳公司支付了部分货款,原告已无权再主张货物权利。湛纺公司只是配合深圳公司提货,不是提货人。
Shenzhen Company argued: Within the scope of the dispute over the bill of lading, Shenzhen Company had no interest relationship with the parties concerned. Textile Materials Company evaded its contractual dispute with Shenzhen Company, and brought a lawsuit on the ground of the dispute over the bill of lading in order to evade laws. Shenzhen Company pleaded the court to reject Textile Materials Company's lawsuit. 被告深圳公司辩称:在提单纠纷的范围内,深圳公司与本案当事人无利害关系。原告回避其与深圳公司的合同纠纷的事实,以提单纠纷为由起诉,规避法律。请求驳回原告的起诉。
 广州海事法院审理查明:1989年5月6日,原告与瑞士日内瓦NORS-U DS·A·签订买卖合同,原告购买1,905吨苏丹原棉,以信用证方式付款。5月27日,原告与深圳公司签订购棉合同,约定由原告提供苏丹原棉1,908吨分两批交货。6月28日,深圳公司与湛纺公司签订棉花加工合同,约定深圳公司以不作价形式提供原棉954吨,由湛江公司加工成精纺,深圳公司负责办理报关、提货手续,湛纺公司负责原棉从进口口岸到工厂仓库的运输。7月24日,根据深圳公司的申请,中国银行深圳分行开出LC450890756号不可撤销跟单信用证。该信用证规定,苏丹原棉数量745吨,单价为每吨0.73美元,价格条件为CIF湛江。10月11日,原告开出金额为1,530,596·11美元的即期汇票,连同包括一式四份正本提单在内的全套议付单证通过中国银行香港分行转交中国银行深圳分行,要求深圳公司支付货款。根据提单记载,承运人为太平国际船务(私人)有限公司(PACIFIC INTERNATIONALLINES (PTE·)LTD·),承运船“科达·玛珠”(KOTA MAJU),提单编号为ZHAN/1,托运人为苏丹港棉花公司(PORT SUDAN COT-TON CO·),收货人为凭苏丹喀土穆苏丹港棉花公司代日内瓦NORSU-DS·A·棉花部的指示(ORDER OF: PORT SUDAN CO-TTON CO·KHAR-TOUM/SUDAN FOR
It was found out by Guangzhou Maritime Court after trial: On May 6, 1989, Textile Materials Company concluded a sales contract with NORS-U DS?A?Cotton DIV, Geneva, Swiss, under which Textile Materials Company shall purchase 1,905 tons of raw cotton from Sudan, and make the payment by way of L/C. On May 27, Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company concluded a contract on purchase of cotton, which sets forth that Textile Materials Company shall supply 1,908 tons of raw cotton from Sudan in two batches. On June 28, Shenzhen Company and Zhanjiang Textiles concluded a contract on processing of cotton, which sets forth that Shenzhen Company shall supply 954 tons of raw cotton without quoting the price, and Zhanjiang Company shall process the cotton into worsted yarn, Shenzhen Company shall take charge of going through the procedures for declaration to the customs and taking delivery of the cargo, and Zhanjiang Textiles shall take charge of having the raw cotton carried from the import port to the warehouse of the factory. On July 24, upon application of Shenzhen Company, Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch issued No. LC 450890756 irrevocable documentary L/C. The L/C prescribes that, the quantity of the raw cotton from Sudan was 745 tons, the unit price was USD 0.73 per ton, and the price term was CIF Zhanjiang. On October 11, Textile Materials Company issued a sight draft with the amount at USD 1,530, 596.11, and delivered the full set of documents for negotiation along with the original bill of lading in quadruplicate to Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch via Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch, requiring Shenzhen Company to make the payment. As recorded on the bill of lading, the carrier was Pacific International Lines (Pte.) Ltd., the carrying ship was KOTA MAJU, the bill of lading was numbered ZHAN/1, the consignor was Port Sudan Cotton Co., the consignee was upon strength of the order of: Port Sudan Cotton Co. KHARTOUM/Sudan for A/C of NORSUD S?A?Cotton DIV, 1204 Geneva, the port of loading was Sudan Port, the port of discharge was Zhanjiang, 5,023 bags were loaded, and the weight of the raw Sudan cotton was 963,583 Kg. NORSU D S? A? Cotton DIV endorsed the bill of lading in blank. On October 14, Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch received the documents under the L/C, and notified Shenzhen Company to make the payment. On October 20, Shenzhen Company notified Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch that it refused to make payment on the ground that the documents were inconsistent with the L/C. On the same day, Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch notified Bank of China, Hong Kong Branch that it refused to make payment under the L/C. A/C OF NORSUD S·A·COTTONDIV, 1204GENEVA),装货港苏丹港,卸货港湛江,装载5,023包,重量963,583公斤苏丹原棉。NORSUD S·A·棉花部在提单上作空白背书。10月14日,中国银行深圳分行收到信用证项下单据,并通知深圳公司付款。10月20日,深圳公司通知中国银行深圳分行,因单据与信用证规定不符,拒付货款。同日,中国银行深圳分行通知中国银行香港分行,拒付信用证项下款项。
The KOTA MAJU carrying ship arrived at Zhanjiang Port on October 11, 1989. Zhanjiang Shipping Agency was the shipping agency of the carrier. After the cargo was discharged from the KOTA MAJU ship on October 18, the 5, 023 bags of raw cotton from Sudan were stored in the warehouse at the port. Shenzhen Company d to Zhanjiang Customs for import of raw cotton from Sudan. On October 20, Shenzhen Company went through the procedures for taking delivery of cargo from Zhanjiang Shipping Agency, but was short of the original bill of lading. Thus Zhanjiang Textiles issued a letter of guarantee to Zhanjiang Shipping Agency, guaranteeing that it will bear the possible liabilities incurred from Shenzhen Company's taking delivery of the cargo upon strength of the copy of the bill of lading. Zhanjiang Shipping Agency agreed to release the cargo. On October 23, Zhanjiang Textiles went through the procedures for taking delivery of cargo at Zhanjiang Port Administration, moved the cargo from the warehouse of the port under customs supervision to the warehouse of the freight transport company under Zhanjiang Port Administration. Upon consent of Shenzhen Company, Zhanjiang Textiles totally picked up 39 bags of raw cotton on November 10 and November 22 for trial spinning. In January 1990, Zhanjiang Textiles carried 3,031 bags of raw cotton to Sanshui Textiles Dyeing Plant and 1,011 bags to Shekou, Shenzhen according to Shenzhen Company's order, and the remaining 942 bags should be dealt with by Shenzhen Company itself. 1989年10月11日,承运船“科达·玛珠”轮抵湛江港。湛江船代为承运人委托的船务代理。10月18日“科达·玛珠”轮卸货完毕,5,023包苏丹原棉存放于港区仓库。深圳公司向湛江海关申报进口苏丹原棉。10月20日,深圳公司向湛江船代办理提货手续,因无正本提单,湛纺公司向湛江船代出具保证函,保证承担深圳公司凭副本提单提货可能产生的责任。湛江船代同意放行货物。10月23日,湛纺公司向湛江湛务局办理提货手续,将货物从海关监管的港口仓库转运至湛江湛务局货运公司仓库。经深圳公司同意,湛纺公司于11月10日和22日共提取39包原棉以供试纺。1990年1月,湛纺公司根据深圳公司指示,将3,031包原棉运往三水县纺织印染厂,1,011包运往深圳蛇口,余下942包由深圳公司自行处理。
After Shenzhen Company refused to make the payment under the L/C, Textile Materials Company negotiated with Shenzhen Company by fax on the cargo quality and the payment. On October 25, 1989, Textile Materials Company said in the fax to Shenzhen Company, “Your Company has gone to take delivery of cargo … Please notify the bank to transfer the purchase price by wire.” Shenzhen Company required Textile Materials Company to compensate for the losses on the ground that the cargo quality did not meet the contractual requirements. On January 3, 1990, accompanied by Zhou Gangliang, Luo Yongsheng and Xu Chaoyang (employees of Shenzhen Company) as well as Chen Ruijing (employee of Zhanjiang Textiles), Yu Dun (employee of Textile Materials Company) went to the warehouse of the freight transport company under Zhanjiang Port Administration to inspect the cargo quality, storage and custody, and found that 39 bags of raw cotton had been picked away from the warehouse. On June 11, Shenzhen Company drafted a payment agreement and notified Textile Materials Company by saying “through negotiations between both parties, Party A (Shenzhen Company) shall pay USD 600,000 of initial sum, and the remaining amount shall be paid through negotiation between both parties on the basis of Party A's losses.” Textile Materials Company replied, “through negotiations between both parties, Party A (Shenzhen Company) agrees to pay USD 600,000 of initial sum, and will pay the remaining amount in the near future.” Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company reached a consensus through negotiation regarding the USD 600,000 of initial payment and the method thereof. On June 22, Textile Materials Company received USD 600,000 of payment remitted by Shenzhen Company. 深圳公司拒付信用证项下货款后,原告与深圳公司通过传真方式,就货物质量及货款支付问题进行协商。1989年10月25日,原告在给深圳公司的传真文件中称:“贵司已前往提货……请通知银行电汇货款”。深圳公司则以货物质量不符合同要求为由,要求原告赔偿损失。1990年1月3日,原告职员于敦在深圳公司职员周钢亮、罗邕生、许朝阳,湛纺公司职员陈瑞敬的陪同下,前往湛江湛务局货运公司仓库了解货物质量及推存、保管情况,发现已有39包原棉被提离该仓库。6月11日,深圳公司起草一份付款协议书并通知原告“现经双方协商,甲方(指深圳公司)先付60万美元货款,余款按甲方损失情况,双方协商解决。”原告答复:“现经双方协商,甲方(指深圳公司)同意先付60万美元货款,余款近期另付。”原告与深圳公司就先付60万美元货款及其付款方式协商一致。6月22日,原告收到深圳公司电汇支付的60万美元货款。
In May 1991, Textile Materials Company inquired of Zhanjiang Shipping Agency about the storage of the cargo, and Zhanjiang Shipping Agency replied that the cargo under the No. ZHAN/1 bill of lading had been taken. 1991年5月,原告向湛江船代查询货物存放情况,湛江船代答复,ZH-AN/1号提单项下货物已被提走。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
Guangzhou Maritime Court held: The facts of the present case involved two legal relationships relevant to each other: one was the legal relationship between Textile Materials Company, and Zhanjiang Shipping Agency, Zhanjiang Textiles, Shenzhen Company on carriage of goods by sea, and on compensation for damage due to delivery and taking delivery of cargo without the original bill of lading; the other was the international trade contractual legal relationship between Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company. According to the logic analysis of the occurrence and progress of the facts of the present case, when the cargo arrived at Zhanjiang Port, Textile Materials Company lawfully held the bill of lading, and was the owner of the cargo under the bill of lading. Zhanjiang Shipping Agency as the agent of the carrier did not take back the original bill of lading, but delivered the cargo at sight of the letter of indemnity, and violated international navigation practices; Shenzhen Company picked and actually controlled the cargo without obtaining the original bill of lading, and violated international navigation practices, too; Zhanjiang Textiles issued a letter of indemnity to Zhanjiang Shipping Agency in order to enable Shenzhen Company to take delivery of the cargo without the original bill of lading, and also violated international navigation practices. The acts of the three defendants interplayed and constituted joint tort by injuring the legal status of the bill of lading in question which was deemed as a real right at that moment. However, Textile Materials Company as the lawful holder of the bill of lading did not, on the condition of enjoying absolute ownership over the cargo, claim against Zhanjiang Shipping Agency, Zhanjiang Textiles and Shenzhen Company for the rights under the bill of lading via the bill of lading relationship regarding Shenzhen Company's taking delivery of the cargo without making payment, but merely negotiated with Shenzhen Company on the cargo quality and the payment in the identity of a seller to the international trade contract, changed the payment method from documentary L/C into wire transfer, and accepted Shenzhen Company's USD 600,000 of payment in this way. The fact manifested that Textile Materials Company later recognized the tortious act of Zhanjiang Shipping Agency and Zhanjiang Textiles of delivering cargo without the original bill of lading, as well as the delivery of cargo to Shenzhen Company, and meanwhile confirmed the legality of Shenzhen Company's taking delivery of the cargo in the identity of the buyer of the international trade contract. Then, the ownership of the cargo under the bill of lading in question had been transferred to Shenzhen Company. According to Textile Materials Company's acts, it shall be deemed that Textile Materials Company was willing to continue performing the international trade contract along with Shenzhen Company, and to waive its right of claiming for the cargo ownership upon strength of the bill of lading. What is particularly important is that Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company negotiated to change the payment method, which marked that the bill of lading did no longer have the effectiveness of real right voucher. The bill of lading held by Textile Materials Company was merely a proof of the contract of carriage and a voucher on the effectiveness of the delivery of the cargo. Textile Materials Company's litigation claims against Zhanjiang Shipping Agency, Zhanjiang Textiles and Shenzhen Company for payment and interest loss on the basis of the bill of lading, which no longer had the effectiveness of real right, shall not be supported by the present court. The payment dispute between Textile Materials Company and Shenzhen Company shall be settled in a separate case. Therefore, Guangzhou Maritime Court decided in accordance with Article 72 (2) of the “General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China我我我什么都没做”, i.e., “the ownership of property obtained by contract or by other lawful means shall be transferred simultaneously with the property itself”, on September 29, 1993: 广州海事法院认为:本案的事实涉及互相关联的两个法律关系:一是原告与被告湛江船代、湛江纺织和深圳公司之间的海上货物运输无正本提单放货、提货损害赔偿法律关系;二是原告与被告深圳公司之间的国际贸易合同法律关系。从本案事实发生发展的逻辑关系分析,在货物运抵湛江港的当时,原告合法持有提单,是提单项下货物的所有人。湛江船代作为承运人的代理人没有收回正本提单,而凭保函交付货物,违反了国际航运惯例;深圳公司在未取得正本提单的情况下,提取并实际控制货物,亦违反了国际航运惯例;湛江纺织为深圳公司无单提货,向湛江船代出具保函,同样是违反了国际航运惯例,三被告的行为互相作用,构成了共同侵权,侵害了本案提单在当时作为物权的法律地位。然而,原告作为提单合法持有人,在对货物享有绝对所有权的情况下,并未通过提单关系,就深圳公司未付货款而提取货物的行为,向湛江船代、湛江纺织和深圳公司主张提单权利,而只是以国际贸易合同的卖方身份,与国际贸易合同的买方深圳公司就货物质量及支付货款进行交涉,将货款支付方式由跟单信用证方式改变为银行电汇,并以此方式接受了深圳公司支付的60万美元的货款。这一事实表明,原告在事后认同了被告湛江船代、湛江纺织无单放货的侵权行为,以及货物向深圳公司交付的事实,同时亦确认了深圳公司作为国际贸易合同的买方,提取货物的合法性。这时,本案提单项下的货物的所有权即已转移给深圳公司。原告的行为,应视其自愿与深圳公司继续履行国际贸易合同,放弃依提单对货物主张所有权的权利。特别重要的是,原告与深圳公司协商改变货款支付方式,标志着提单不再具有物权凭证的效力,原告持有的提单只是运输合同的证明和交付货物的效力,原告持有的提单只是运输合同的证明和交付货物的凭证。故原告依据不再具有物权效力的提单,向湛江船代、湛江纺织和深圳公司索赔货款及利息损失的诉讼请求,本院不予支持。原告与深圳公司间的货款纠纷应另案解决。据此,广州海事法院于1993年9月29日,依照《中华人民共和国民法通则北大法宝,版权所有》第七十二条第二款关于“按照合同或者其他合法方式取得财产的,财产所有权从财产交付时起转移”的规定,作出判决:
JUDGMENT 
China Resources Textile Materials Co., Ltd.'s litigation claims shall be rejected. 驳回原告香港华润纺织原料有限公司的诉讼请求。
The USD 9,600 of case acceptance fee shall be borne by Textile Materials Company. 案件受理费9600美元由原告负担。
COMMENTARY 
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, neither Textile Materials Company nor the defendants appealed.

 第一审宣判后,原告和被告均未提出上诉。
 

     
     
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