>>>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
 
Yu Shanlan v. Xuanwu Sub-branch and Beijing Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Case of Disputes over Unjust Enrichment)
喻山澜诉工行宣武支行、工行北京分行不当得利纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Yu Shanlan v. Xuanwu Sub-branch and Beijing Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Case of Disputes over Unjust Enrichment)
(Case of Disputes over Unjust Enrichment)
喻山澜诉工行宣武支行、工行北京分行不当得利纠纷案
Yu Shanlan v. Xuanwu Sub-branch and Beijing Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Case of Disputes over Unjust Enrichment) 喻山澜诉工行宣武支行、工行北京分行不当得利纠纷案

Pursuant to Article 92 of the General Principlesof the Civil Law, when a financial institution distributed integrated circuitcards which entitled holders services relating to administrative functions ofadministrative authorities, and charged fees beyond the costs of the cards inviolation of the administration measures for fees and charges, such actconstitutes unjust enrichment.
 
根据民法通则九十二条规定,金融企业在发放与行政机关行政管理职责相关的服务性集成电路卡时,违反收费管理办法,向当事人收取工本费以外的费用,构成不当得利。

Plaintiff: Yu Shanlan, male, 41 years old, journalist of the newspaper office of China Industry and Commerce News, domiciled in Zaoyuan Residential Area, Daxing District, Beijing Municipality
 
原告:喻山澜,男,41岁,中国工商报社记者,住北京市大兴区枣园小区。

Defendant: Xuanwu Sub-branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, domiciled in Nanbinhe Road, Guang'anmenwai, Xuanwu District, Beijing Municipality
 
被告:中国工商银行北京市宣武支行,住所地:北京市宣武区广安门外南滨河路。

Person-in-charge: Guo Zhigang, President of this sub-branch
 
负责人:果志刚,该支行行长。

Defendant: Beijing Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, domiciled in South Fuxingmen Avenue, , Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality
 
被告:中国工商银行北京市分行,住所地:北京市西城区复兴门南大街。

Person-in-charge: Li Xiaopeng, President of this branch
 
负责人:李晓鹏,该分行行长。

Yu Shuanlan, the plaintiff, initiated a lawsuit in the People's Court of Xuanwu District of Beijing Municipality against Xuanwu Sub-branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as Xuanwu Sub-branch of the ICBC) and Beijing Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Branch of the ICBC) for the disputes over unjust enrichment.
 
原告喻山澜因与被告中国工商银行北京市宣武支行(以下简称工行宣武支行)、中国工商银行北京市分行(以下简称工行北京分行)发生不当得利纠纷,向北京市宣武区人民法院提起诉讼。

Yu Shanlan, the plaintiff, claimed that he made up a Peony Traffic IC Card in Baizhifang Savings House, which is subordinate to defendant Xuanwu Sub-Branch of the ICBC. Baizhifang Savings House charged him 100 yuan for making up a Peony Traffic IC Card according to the fee charging rate formulated by Beijing Branch of the ICBC. Afterwards, the plaintiff learned that the fee charging rate executed by all subsidiaries of the ICBC within Beijing Municipality had never been submitted to the price administrative department for examination and approval. These fee charging rates constituted a violation of the provisions of Articles 7 through 9 of the Measures for the Administration of the Application and Charges for Integrated Circuit Cards. It was groundless for the defendant to charge any person any fee for a making up a Peony Traffic IC Card, and was an act of unjust enrichment. He pleaded the court to order the Xuanwu Sub-branch of the ICBC to refund him 100 yuan plus the interest calculated from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and to order Beijing Branch of the ICBC to immediately stop executing the fee charging provisions formulated by itself, to submit the measures for fee charges for new Peony Traffic Cards to the price administrative department of Beijing Municipality for approval according to the relevant provisions, and to bear the litigation costs of this case.
 
原告喻山澜诉称:原告到被告工行宣武区支行所属的白纸坊储蓄所补领一张牡丹交通IC卡,该所按照被告工行北京分行制定的收费标准,向原告收取了100元费用。事后原告了解到,这个在北京市内所有工商银行执行的收费标准,没有报价格主管部门审批过,违反了《集成电路卡应用和收费管理办法》的第七条、第八条、第九条规定。按照这个收费标准向牡丹交通IC卡的补卡人收取费用,是没有合法依据的不当得利行为。请求判令工行宣武区支行给原告返还100元及此款至判决之日止的利息,工行北京分行立即停止执行其自行制定的这个收费标准,遵照有关规定向北京市价格主管部门报批牡丹交通IC卡的补卡收费办法,并负担本案诉讼费。

Xuanwu Sub-branch of the ICBC argued that since its superior entity, Beijing Branch of the ICBC was also listed as a defendant in this case, the defence made by Beijing Branch of the ICBC should prevail.
 
被告工行宣武支行辩称:既然原告将本被告的上级单位工行北京分行也列为本案被告,本被告的答辩意见就以上级单位答辩意见为准。

Beijing Branch of the ICBC contended that the Peony Traffic IC Cards were a banking card business jointly launched by this defendant and Beijing Traffic Administration in 1999, which shall apply to the motor vehicle drivers in Beijing Municipality. Such a card has records of the information about the driving archives of the driver and information about the penalties on the driver for traffic-related violations, and has other functions. It has a relatively high level of scientific and technological content. Before the business was initially launched, this defendant had undertaken the development of the whole system as well as the software and hardware investments. During the past years, it has gratuitously issued 3, 200, 000 odd cards on an accumulative basis with a total investment of 100, 000, 000 yuan. In 1999, there was no regulation regarding how to charge fees for making up or renewing integrated circuit cards. Considering the large amount of investment that had been put into the development and maintenance of this system of high tech product as well as the high cost of making cards, the defendant formulated the fee charging standards - 100 yuan for making up or renewing an integrated circuit card in accordance with Article 6 of the Price Law of the People's Republic of China, which provides that: “Prices of all commodities and services, except those as set in Article 18 of this law to adopt government-set or guided prices, shall be subject to market regulation to be fixed by business operators independently according to the provisions of this law” and in light of the costs of making Peony Traffic IC Cards at that time. The Measures for the Administration of the Application and Charges for Integrated Circuit Cards, on which the lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff was based, began to come into effect until September 28, 2001. No provision of these Measures specifies how to regulate the charges for the integrated circuit cards prior to the implementation of these Measures, therefore these Measures had no retroactive force to the previous act of charging for integrated circuit cards. This defendant formulated the fee charging measures for making up new Peony Traffic Cards and on the precondition that there was no governing provision and charged fees according to these standards, the fees so charged obviously did not conform with the “unjust enrichment” as defined in Article 92 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China. They were not unjust enrichment, therefore it did not agree to the litigation pleadings of the plaintiff.
 
被告工行北京分行辩称:牡丹交通IC卡是本被告与北京市交通管理局于1999年联合推出,以北京市机动车驾驶员为使用对象的银行卡业务。该卡上记载着机动车驾驶员的驾驶档案信息、交通违章罚款信息,同时还有其他功能,科技含量较高。在此项业务推行之初,本被告承担了整个系统的开发和软、硬件投入,几年来累计免费发放了320余万张卡,投入资金达一亿元左右。1999年时,对集成电路卡的补卡、换卡应如何收费,没有法规规定。由于这一高科技产品的系统开发、维护投入大,制卡成本高,本被告根据《中华人民共和国价格法》第六条关于“商品价格和服务价格,除依照本法第十八条规定适用政府指导价或者政府定价外,实行市场调节价,由经营者依照本法自主制定”的规定,结合牡丹交通IC卡当时的成本情况,制定了补卡、换卡时收取100元手续费这一标准。原告据以起诉的《集成电路卡应用和收费管理办法》,是2001年9月28日才开始实施的。该办法没有规定其实施前的集成电路卡收费应如何调整,因此对以前的集成电路卡定价收费行为不具有溯及力。本被告是在没有法规规定的前提下,为牡丹交通IC卡的补卡制定了收费标准并据此收费,这显然不符合《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十二条规定的不当得利定义,不是不当得利,故不同意原告的诉讼请求。

Upon hearing the case, the People's Court of Xuanwu District of Beijing Municipality found that:
......
 
北京市宣武区人民法院经审理查明:
......

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 【¥400.00】 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