Business Department of Qinghai Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China v. Qinghai Agricultural and Stockbreeding Materials Company
(Dispute over Guaranty Contract)@#

Judgment Abstract:@#
Where acreditor claimed against the guarantor within the limitation of action for the guaranteeddebts before the debtor was declared bankrupt, and after conclusion of thebankruptcy proceeding, continued to claim against the guarantor for the balanceunsettled in the bankruptcy procedures, the guarantor should be held liable pursuantto Article 44 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on SomeIssues concerning the Application of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republicof China.@#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#

No. 83 (2003)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff in the first instance): Business Department of Qinghai Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China, domiciled at No. 57, Nanguan Street, Xining City, Qinghai Province.@#
Person-in-charge: Zhou Haiwen, general manager of the Business Department.@#
Authorized Agent: Ma Fuxiang, lawyer of Qinghai Tongyi Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant in the first instance): Qinghai Agricultural and Stockbreeding Materials Company, domiciled at No. 23, Jianguo Road, Xining City, Qinghai Province.@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Haiting, general manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Song Zhanrong, employee of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Yanguang, lawyer of Qinghai Xihai Law Firm.@#
With respect to the case on the dispute with Qinghai Agricultural and Stockbreeding Materials Company (the appellee, hereinafter referred to as Agri-Stockbreeding Company) over a guaranty contract, Business Department of Qinghai Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of China (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as Business Department of ADBC) was dissatisfied with the No. 15 (2002) civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Qinghai Province (hereinafter referred to as Qinghai Higher Court), and appealed to the present court. The present court legally formed a collegial panel composed of Zhou Fan as the presiding judge, Sha Ling and Li Chengyu as acting judges, and then heard the case. Yin Jing was the court clerk to make the records. The case has now been finalized.@#
It was verified by Qinghai Higher Court that: on September 27, 1996, Business Department of ADBC and Qinghai Wool Business Group Company (hereinafter referred to as Wool Company) concluded the No. 008 (96) loan contract, with the amount of loans at 14 million Yuan, and the term of loans was from September 27, 1996 to September 27, 1997. According to the guaranty contract, Qinghai Sugar, Wine and Non-staple Food Company shall provide a suretyship of joint and several liabilities for the loans borrowed by Wool Company. After the loans became due, Wool Company failed to repay the loans on time, so the deadline was postponed to February 27, 1998 after negotiation between both parties, but the agreement on deferred repayment did not bear the seal of Qinghai Sugar, Wine and Non-staple Food Company, the original guarantor. On September 29, 1997, Business Department of ADBC again concluded the No. 13397031 loan contract with Wool Company, with the amount of loans at 11 million Yuan, and term of loans from September 29, 1997 to September 29, 1998. According to the No. 13397031 loan contract, Wool Company shall be deemed to have repaid the loans under the No. 008 (96) loan contract on the date of borrowing the second sum of loan. Qinghai Meat Products Group Company provided a suretyship of joint and several liabilities for Wool Company. Later, Wool Company failed to repay the loans on time, so the deadline was postponed to September 29, 1999 after negotiation between both parties, but the second agreement on deferred repayment did not bear the seal of Qinghai Meat Products Group Company, the guarantor. On December 28, 1998, Agri-Stockbreeding Company issued irrevocable letters of suretyship of joint and several liabilities for the abovementioned two loan contracts, and the term of suretyship promised in either letter of suretyship shall be automatically invalidated once all the principal and interest of the loans have been paid off. The two letters of suretyship were notarized in the Public Notarial Office of Chengxi District, Xining City on January 4, 1999. On September 6, 1999, Business Department of ADBC sent Agri-Stockbreeding Company the notification for repaying the 11 million Yuan of loans under the No. 13397031 loan contract; on January 7, 2000, Business Department of ADBC sent Agri-Stockbreeding Company the notification for repaying the 3 million Yuan of loans under the No. 008 (96) loan contract. Qinghai Higher Court ruled on May 8, 2000, ordering Wool Company bankrupt to repay the debts, and ruled on May 20, 2002 to finalize the bankruptcy procedures. As a result, Business Department of ADBC only received 49,000 Yuan in the form of physical properties. On November 14, 2002, Business Department of ADBC brought a lawsuit with Qinghai Higher Court, pleading the court to order Agri-Stockbreeding Company to bear the suretyship liability for the 14 million Yuan of loans and 2,820,000 Yuan of interest for Wool Company.@#
．．．．．．

农业发展银行青海分行营业部诉青海农牧总公司担保合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
在债务人被宣告破产前，债权人已在保证债务的诉讼时效期间内向保证人主张了权利，破产程序终结后，债权人对其在破产程序中未受清偿的部分债权继续向保证人主张权利的，根据最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国担保法＞若干问题的解释》第四十四条的规定，保证人应承担法律责任。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事判决书@#
(2003)民二终字第83号@#
上诉人(原审原告)：中国农业发展银行青海省分行营业部。住所地：青海省西宁市南关街57号。@#
负责人：周海文，该营业部总经理。@#
委托代理人：马福祥，青海同一律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告)：青海省农牧生产资料总公司。住所地：青海省西宁市建国路23号。@#
法定代表人：张海挺，该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人：宋占荣，该公司职员。@#
委托代理人：张衍光，青海西海律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人中国农业发展银行青海省分行营业部(以下简称农发行营业部)因与被上诉人青海省农牧生产资料总公司(以下简称农牧公司)担保合同纠纷一案，不服青海省高级人民法院(2002)青民二初字第15号民事判决书，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员周帆担任审判长，代理审判员沙玲、李成玉参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员尹静担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
原审法院查明：1996年9月27日，农发行营业部与青海省羊毛经营集团公司(以下简称羊毛公司)签订96第008号借款合同，金额1400万元，期限自1996年9月27日至1997年9月27日，青海省糖酒副食品总公司为债务人羊毛公司借款提供连带责任保证。借款到期后，羊毛公司未能按期还款，经双方协商，延期至1998年2月27日，该份延期协议中未有原担保人青海省糖酒副食品总公司的签章。1997年9月29日，农发行营业部与羊毛公司又签订了一份13397031号借款合同，金额1100万元，期限自1997年9月29日至1998年9月29日，借款当日即归还以上96第008号借款合同项下的款项。青海省肉食品集团公司为债务人羊毛公司提供连带责任保证。后羊毛公司未能按期还款，经双方协商，延期至1999年9月29日，该份延期协议中未有原担保人青海省肉食品集团公司的签章。1998年12月28日，农牧公司对以上两笔借款合同出具了不可撤销的连带责任保证书，保证书承诺的保证期间为还清借款人所欠的全部贷款本息和费用后自动失效。1999年1月4日在西宁市城西区公证处分别就两份保证书进行了公证。1999年9月6日，农发行营业部向农牧公司发送了13397031号借款合同1100万元的催收通知；2000年1月7日，农发行营业部向农牧公司发送了96第008号借款合同300万元的催收通知。2000年5月8日，该院裁定宣告羊毛公司破产还债，2002年5月20日裁定破产程序终结，农发行营业部仅获4．9万元的实物清偿。2002年11月14日，农发行营业部诉讼至青海省高级人民法院，请求判令农牧公司对债务人羊毛公司项下的1400万元贷款及利息282万元承担保证责任。@#
本案在青海省高级人民法院审理期间，农牧公司于2002年12月20日申请对96第008号借款合同中1400万元贷款进行质证。经质证，以贷还贷事实属实，但农发行营业部的委托代理人认为，依据《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，该份证据不能作为定案依据。@#
@#
青海省高级人民法院审理认为，农牧公司对羊毛公司的旧贷向贷款人农发行营业部出具不可撤销的连带责任保证书，其意思表示真实，内容合法，应认定有效。虽然本案涉及的借款法律关系系以贷还贷形成，但农牧公司提供保证时，该借款关系早已存在。农牧公司明知是旧贷，却提供连带责任保证，其以不知被保证金额是以贷还贷要求免责的理由不能成立。在保证期间内，债权人农发行营业部对13397031号借款合同1100万元和96第008号借款合同300万元分别于1999年9月6日、2000年1月7日发出《催收通知书》，要求农牧公司承担保证责任。至此，保证期间作用完结，诉讼时效期间开始计算。本案主债务人羊毛公司被该院宣告破产时正处于本案保证债务诉讼时效期间内，农发行营业部依法申报债权后，再未向保证人主张权利。农发行营业部将保证债务的诉讼时效期间理解为保证期间的延续，引用最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国担保法＞若干问题的解释》第四十四条的规定，与法不符。农牧公司抗辩农发行营业部起诉时已超过诉讼时效的理由成立，农发行营业部对其诉讼请求丧失了程序上的胜诉权。依照最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国担保法＞若干问题的解释》第三十二条第二款、第三十四条第二款、第三十六条第一款，最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国民事诉讼法＞若干问题的意见》第一百五十三条之规定，该院判决：驳回农发行营业部的诉讼请求。案件受理费94110元，由农发行营业部承担。@#
．．．．．．