>>>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
 
Yixing City Jiangong Building and Installation Co., Ltd. v. Zhang Xin and Zhang Xueshan (Dispute over Liability for Damages Arising from Petition for Property Preservation during Ligation)
宜兴市建工建筑安装有限责任公司与张欣、张学山申请诉中财产保全损害赔偿责任纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 06-25-2018
  • Procedural status: Retrial
  • Source: 《最高人民法院公报》2018年第9期(总第263期)第32-34页

Yixing City Jiangong Building and Installation Co., Ltd. v. Zhang Xin and Zhang Xueshan (Dispute over Liability for Damages Arising from Petition for Property Preservation during Ligation)
宜兴市建工建筑安装有限责任公司与张欣、张学山申请诉中财产保全损害赔偿责任纠纷案
Yixing City Jiangong Building and Installation Co., Ltd. v. Zhang Xin and Zhang Xueshan (Dispute over Liability for Damages Arising from Petition for Property Preservation during Ligation) 宜兴市建工建筑安装有限责任公司与张欣、张学山申请诉中财产保全损害赔偿责任纠纷案
[Summary] 【裁判摘要】
Because parties had different legal knowledge, capability to prove the facts of the case, and capability to analyze and judge legal relations, and generally they had no professional ability necessary for judicial adjudication, their judgment about the issue, rights and obligations might not be the same as the adjudicative results of the court. The requirement of due care that a party should exercise when petitioning for preservation should not be too harsh. If whether the claim of a petitioner for preservation was supported had been the only basis to decide whether the petition for preservation was erroneous, parties in good faith would inevitably be obstructed from defending their rights through the litigation preservation procedure according to the law, and the functions of the litigation preservation system would be affected. Articles 6 and 7 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China provides that torts were subject to the doctrine of fault liability and that no-fault liability must be subject to legal basis, and the no-fault liability as provided in the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China did not include liability for damages on account of petition for preservation. Therefore, an erroneous petition for preservation must meet the requirement that the petitioner was at subjective fault, instead of being only on sufficient condition that the petitioner's claim had not been supported. 由于当事人的法律知识、对案件事实的举证证明能力、对法律关系的分析判断能力各不相同,通常打不到司法裁判所要求的专业水平,因此当事人对诉争事实和权利义务的判断未必与人民法院的裁判结果一致。对当事人申请保全所应尽到的注意义务的要求不应过于苛责。如果仅以保全申请人的诉讼请求是否得到支持作为申请保全是否错误的依据,必然会对善意当事人依法通过诉讼保全程序维护自己权利造成妨碍,影响诉讼保全制度功能的发挥。而且,《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第六条和第七条规定,侵权行为以过错责任为原则,无过错责任必须要有法律依据,但《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》所规定的无过错责任中并不包含申请保全错误损害赔偿责任。因此,申请保全错误,须以申请人主观存在过错为要件,不能仅以申请人的诉讼请求未得到支持为充分条件。
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
No. 2027 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC (2018)最高法民申2027号
Retrial applicant (plaintiff in first instance trial and appellant in second instance trial): Yixing City Jiangong Building and Installation Co., Ltd., domiciled at 6 Chaquan Road, Yixing Huankeyuan, Yixing City, Jiangsu province. 再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):宜兴市建工建筑安装有限责任公司。
Legal representative: Zhang Yayi, chairman of the said company. 法定代表人:张亚义,该公司董事长。
Attorney: Fei Jianxin, lawyer of Jiangsu Tongyun Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:费建新,江苏通运律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Zhu Qiang, lawyer of Jiangsu Tongyun Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:朱强,江苏通运律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in first instance trial and appellee in second instance trial): Zhang Xin. 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):张欣。
Respondent (defendant in first instance trial and appellee in second instance trial): Zhang Xueshan. 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):张学山。
Retrial applicant Yixing City Jiangong Building and Installation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yixing Company") was dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment No. 1932 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Shandong (hereinafter referred to as the "second instance judgment"), of the Higher People's Court of Shandong province (hereinafter referred to as the "Shandong Higher Court") in the case concerning the dispute over liability for damages on account of petition for property preservation during ligation with respondents Zhang Xin and Zhang Xueshan and applied to this Court for retrial. The Court formed a collegial panel as legally required to review the case and has concluded the review. 再审申请人宜兴市建工建筑安装有限责任公司(以下简称宜兴建筑公司)因与被申请人张欣、张学山申请诉中财产保全损害责任纠纷一案,不服山东省高级人民法院(以下简称山东高院)(2017)鲁民终1932号民事判决(以下简称二审判决),向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审查,现已审查终结。
...... 宜兴建筑公司申请再审称,二审判决认定的基本事实缺乏证据证明。1.对什么是《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零五条规定的"错误"没有司法解释,但张欣申请财产保全错误不仅可以从败诉这一结果中推定,也可以从张欣伪造事实的诉讼中予以确认。2.二审判决认定张欣申请诉讼保全不存在恶意缺乏证据证明。宜兴建筑公司不是涉案《借款合同》的当事人,不应作为被告。证人张新友在庭审中所作的证人证言都以张欣的说法为准。张欣提交的青州市城市展览馆项目的现金日记账是虚假的,不足以证明宜兴建筑公司的行为。宜兴建筑公司并没有出具过授权委托书,张欣向法院提交的授权委托书是虚假的,不能作为认定宜兴建筑公司承担还款责任的依据。张欣在其他民间借贷纠纷案件中选择只起诉翁校刚、撤回对宜兴建筑公司的起诉,说明其知道证据材料是虚假的。由于张欣伪造账本、提供假证、盗用授权委托书以及在诉讼中明知错误仍申请诉讼保全,应认定其申请诉讼保全存在恶意。3.二审判决认定张欣申请诉讼保全的行为未对宜兴建筑公司造成实际损失缺乏证据证明。张欣申请冻结宜兴建筑公司银行账户,导致宜兴建筑公司不能正常运营,只能向非金融机构及其他单位和个人拆借,而拆借利率要比银行贷款利率高出好几倍。至账户被解封时,宜兴建筑公司已支付利息高达1069.89万元,该损失应由张欣和担保人张学山承担。故依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条第二项规定申请再审。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【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