>>>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
 
Baihua Co., Ltd. v. Haoxin Co., Ltd. (Case on Dispute over Sales Contract)
百花公司诉浩鑫公司买卖合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Baihua Co., Ltd. v. Haoxin Co., Ltd. (Case on Dispute over Sales Contract)
(Case on Dispute over Sales Contract)
百花公司诉浩鑫公司买卖合同纠纷案

Baihua Co., Ltd. v. Haoxin Co., Ltd.
(Case on Dispute over Sales Contract)@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Guizhou Baihuai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., domiciled in Fenghuang South Road, Honghuagang District, Zhunyi City, Guizhou Province@#
Legal Representative: Tu Bin, chairman of the board of directors of Baihui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.@#
Defendant: Zhunyi Haoxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., domiciled in Gongyuan Road, Honghuagang District, ZhunyiZunyi City, Guizhou Province@#
Legal Representative: Yuan Shumin, chairman of the board of directors of Zhunyi Haoxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. the company@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Guizhou Baihui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Baihua) had a dispute with ZhunyiZunyi Haoxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haoxin) over their sales contract and thus filed an action with the Intermediate People's Court of ZhunyiZunyi City, Guizhou Province.@#
The plaintiff alleged that: By concluding an Agreement on Asset Conversion, it transferred the assets of its subsidiary, the former ZhunyiZunyi Pharmaceutical Factory (hereinafter referred to as the Factory), a subordinated enterprise, to the defendant, namely, the right to land use, and the above-ground buildings and fixtures, which were converted into an equivalent value of 4. 5million yuan. Follows are the relevant problems existing in the aforesaid Agreement on Asset Conversion as well as its supplementary agreements: 1. The asset conversion was conducted in the absence of approval of the administrative department of state-owned assets, nor was as well as it made through assessment and bid tendering as due, which violated the procedures for trading state-owned assets and thus incurred the losses of state-owned assets; 2. The asset conversion was conducted in the absence of the approval of the administrative department of the industry concerned so that the purpose for which both parties signed the Agreement could not be reached realized and therefore the Agreement could be rescinded. 3. The assets subject to conversion have, before transfer, been pledged to ZhunyiZunyi Business Department of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), for which the relevant registration formalities had been completed. The plaintiff pleaded the court to adjudicate, according to the provisions of paragraph 1, Article 49 of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Guaranty Law), that the Agreement on Asset Conversion as well as its supplementary agreements shall be invalidated and that the case acceptance fee herein shall be jointly borne by both parties.@#
Baihua presented the following evidences to the court:@#
1. Its Business License of Enterprise Legal Person, Certificate of Legal Representative as well as Letter on Alteration of Legal Person, certifying that Baihua's identity of a legal person and that Baihua was renamed as ZhunyiZunyi Xueqing Green Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xueqing).@#
2. The Agreement on Asset Conversion as well as 3 supplementary agreements thereof, certifying that the contractual relationship of asset conversion between both parties concerned was established on December 12, 1998 as well as that the supplementary agreements were established on December 22, 1998, February 3, 1999 and November 1, 2000, respectively.@#
3. A Contract on Maximum Pledge as well as the Pledge Registration Certificate, certifying that the use right of converted land was pledged by the Factory on December 18, 1996, for which the relevant registration formalities had been handled.@#
4. The Certificate of State-owned Land Use Right, certifying that the Factory had the use right of converted land.@#
The defendant, Haoxin, argued that: Baihua violated the principle of being upright and creditworthy by purposely concealing the real situation of pledge when transferring its assets to the defendant. Hence, the defendant had no idea of pledge and thus input lots of financial resources in the performance of the Agreement on Asset Conversion. After the plaintiff transferred the use right of the pledged land, the Bank, as pledgee, once filed an action on dispute over guaranty contract for loan, wherein Baihua was ranked taken as the defendant and Haoxin was ranked as the third party. Taking into account Considering that the Bank meant to withdraw its loan rather than possess the pledged assets and that if the Agreement on Asset Conversion was confirmed as invalid, Haoxin, which acted in good-faith, would suffer huge losses, the Intermediate People's Court of ZhunyiZunyi City adjudicated by Civil Judgment No. 39 (2002) (hereinafter referred to as Judgment No. 39) and the Higher People's Court of Guizhou Province adjudicated by Civil Judgment No. 16 (2004) (hereinafter referred to as Judgment No. 16) that: Where Baihua fails to pay off the debts it owes to the Bank, Haoxin shall make repayment on its behalf. Once Haoxin clears off Baihua's debts, it consequently obtains the right to recovery and, in the meanwhile, the Bank's right to pledge is shall be eradicated as well. As the defendant has performed the obligation of repayment determined in the aforesaid judgments, the Bank's right to pledge is therefore eradicated. The reason why the plaintiff filed an action so as to claim the Agreement on Asset Conversion as invalid is to re-possess the transferred assets whose value is on the increase rather than to safeguard the dignity of law. The plaintiff is a limited liabilities company rather than any ordinary state-owned enterprise. The assets that it transferred to the plaintiff had been re-transferred for several times and are not at all any state-owned assets. Even if the plaintiff is a state-owned enterprise and, further, suppose the assets it transferred are state-owned assets, it has, as a market subject, its own independent right of operation. That the plaintiff failed to obtain an the approval of the administrative department of state-owned assets before transferring its state-owned assets concerns only its internal relationship with the administrative department of state-owned assets rather than and can not affect the force of any the transfer contracts that it has concluded with any other enterprises. The plaintiff pleaded for confirming the contract as invalid and alleged as well that the purpose for which both parties concluded the contract could not be realized in no chance at all, so the contract can be rescinded. However, only an effective contract has something to do with rescission can be rescinded. The plaintiff's ground to file an action is self-conflicted contradictory and thus not well established, thereby its litigation claim shall be rejected.@#
......

 

百花公司诉浩鑫公司买卖合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、根据担保法四十九条第一款和《关于适用<中华人民共和国担保法>若干问题的解释》第六十七条,在未通知抵押权人和未告知受让人的情况下,抵押人转让已办理登记的抵押物,只要抵押人在转让后向抵押权人清偿了债务,或者受让人在得知受让物上有抵押权后代抵押人清偿了债务,使物上设定的抵押权消灭,转让行为仍可以有效。@#
二、能够援引担保法四十九条第一款规定来主张转让行为无效的,应当是合法权益受到损害的抵押权人或者受让人,不是不履行此款规定通知、告知义务的抵押人。抵押人提起诉讼主张确认转让行为无效的,在确保抵押权实现的前提下,其诉讼请求应当驳回。@#
@#
原告:贵州百花药业有限公司,住所地:贵州省遵义市红花岗区凤凰南路。@#
法定代表人:涂斌,该公司董事长。@#
被告:遵义浩鑫房地产开发有限责任公司,住所地:贵州省遵义市红花岗区公园路。@#
法定代表人:袁树民,该公司董事长。@#
@#
原告贵州百花药业有限公司(以下简称百花公司)因与被告遵义浩鑫房地产开发有限责任公司(以下简称浩鑫公司)发生买卖合同纠纷,向贵州省遵义市中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:通过签订《资产折换协议书》,原告将下属企业原遵义市制药厂(以下简称原制药厂)的土地使用权、地上所有建筑物、附属物,等量折换450万元资产后转让给被告。这份《资产折换协议书》及其补充协议存在以下问题:1.资产折换前没有征得国有资产管理部门同意,没有进行评估和招标,违反了国有资产的交易程序,造成国有资产流失;2.资产折换前也没有取得行业主管部门的同意,以至双方签约时要追求的目的根本不能实现,合同可以解除;3.折换的资产在转让前,已经被抵押给中国工商银行遵义营业部(以下简称遵义工行),并且办理过抵押登记。请求依照《中华人民共和国担保法》(以下简称担保法)第四十九条第一款的规定,确认原告与被告签订的《资产折换协议书》及其补充协议无效,本案诉讼费由双方共同负担。@#
原告百花公司提交以下证据:@#
1.企业法人营业执照、法定代表人证书以及公司法人变更函,用以证明百花公司的法人身份,以及该公司的名称变更为遵义雪清绿色食品有限公司(以下简称雪清公司)。@#
2.《资产折换协议书》及其三份补充协议,用以证明双方当事人之间的资产折换合同关系于1998年12月12日成立,1998年12月22日、1999年2月3日、2000年11月1日三次签订补充协议。@#
3.《最高额抵押合同》和抵押物登记证,用以证明折换的土地使用权已于1996年12月18日被原制药厂抵押,并办理了抵押登记。@#
4.国有土地使用权证,用以证明原制药厂对折换的土地享有使用权。@#
被告浩鑫公司辩称:原告百花公司违反诚实信用原则,在向被告转让财产时故意隐瞒了抵押实情。被告对抵押一事不知情,在履行《资产折换协议书》过程中投入很大财力。原告将抵押的土地使用权转让后,抵押权人遵义工行曾以百花公司为被告、浩鑫公司为第三人,提起过借款担保合同纠纷诉讼。考虑到遵义工行并非想占有抵押财产,而是为了收回其发放的贷款,如果确认《资产折换协议书》无效,无疑会给善意的浩鑫公司造成巨额损失,故在借款担保合同纠纷案中,遵义市中级人民法院以(2002)遵市法民二初字第39号(以下简称遵初39号判决)、贵州省高级人民法院以(2004)黔高民二终字第16号民事判决书(以下简称黔高16号判决)判决:在百花公司不能清偿遵义工行的债务时,由浩鑫公司代为清偿;浩鑫公司代偿债务后,取得对百花公司的追偿权,同时遵义工行的抵押权消灭。本被告履行了上述判决确定的代偿义务,遵义工行的抵押权当然应该消灭。现在原告起诉主张《资产折换协议书》无效,不是为维护法律尊严,而是看到其转让的财产正在不断升值,企图通过诉讼来重新占有这份财产。原告是有限公司,不是国有企业;原告转让给被告的财产,是几经转让得来,并非国有资产;原告即便是国有企业,所转让的财产即便是国有资产,但作为一个市场主体,原告有自己独立的经营权;原告未征得国有资产管理部门同意而转让国有财产,是其与国有资产管理部门内部的关系,不应该影响到对外签订转让协议的效力;原告起诉既请求确认合同无效,又称双方当事人签订合同的目的根本不能实现,合同可以解除,而只有有效合同才涉及解除。原告的起诉理由自相矛盾,不能成立,其诉讼请求应当驳回。@#
被告浩鑫公司提交黔高16号判决书、遵初39号判决书、遵义市中级人民法院协助执行通知书和收据各一张、遵义工行的收条两张等证据,用以证明根据贵州省高级人民法院和遵义市中级人民法院的生效判决,浩鑫公司已经划款到法院,由法院转交给遵义工行,代百花公司清偿了欠抵押权人的债务,原告再主张《资产折换协议书》及其补充协议无效,理由不能成立。@#
法庭主持了质证。被告浩鑫公司认为:百花公司的证据一只能证明其正在申请变更公司名称,不能证明雪清公司这一名称已经注册;证据三已被借款担保合同纠纷案的生效判决确认,不应再作为本案证据;证据四中涉及的原制药厂早已不存在,该土地使用证已被注销,而且该宗土地已由浩鑫公司办理了预登记证,这个事实也由生效民事判决确认;只有证据二才可以作为本案证据。原告百花公司认为:浩鑫公司证据中的两份判决虽已生效,但这两份判决不涉及《资产折换协议书》的效力问题,不能以此认为这两份判决已经解决了百花公司在本案中提出的诉讼请求;收条与本案无关。法庭认为:百花公司证据一的真实性可以确认,但因无变更登记,故不能认定百花公司已经变更为雪清公司;证据二、三真实、合法且与本案有关,应当确认;证据四涉及的原制药厂已被注销,涉及的土地已由浩鑫公司办理了预登记证,对该证据不予确认。浩鑫公司的证据均客观、真实且与本案有关,应当确认。@#
经质证、认证,遵义市中级人民法院查明:@#
1996年12月18日,原制药厂与遵义工行签订《最高额抵押合同》,约定原制药厂以其房屋、机器设备、土地使用权,对其1996年12月18日至1999年12月18日之间向遵义工行的贷款在380万元限额内提供抵押担保,抵押物由工商行政管理部门办理登记。1998年5月13日,原制药厂被其上级主管部门遵义市红花岗区工业经济局(以下简称红花岗工业局)转让给瑞康公司。1998年11月5日,瑞康公司又与本案原告百花公司签订《瑞康公司出让其下属遵义市制药厂协议书》,约定:瑞康公司将收购原制药厂的全部资产(包括厂名、商标、药品批准文号、生产工艺文件、药品生产企业合格证等无形资产和土地使用权、生产厂房设备、交通工具、通讯工具、办公用品等有形资产以及债权)出让给百花公司,由百花公司承担原制药厂的全部债务和经济责任。协议生效后,百花公司向遵义工行支付了原制药厂的借款利息。@#
1998年12月12日,原告百花公司与被告浩鑫公司签订《资产折换协议书》约定:一、百花公司将原制药厂的土地使用权及地上所有建筑物、附属物,与浩鑫公司等量资产折换后转让给浩鑫公司;二、浩鑫公司以450万元资产折换百花公司上述资产,折换后浩鑫公司拥有原制药厂全部土地使用权及地上建筑物、附属物的所有权;三、签订合同时,浩鑫公司给百花公司支付20万元保证金;合同生效,双方共同办理好浩鑫公司的土地使用证并交付给浩鑫公司后,浩鑫公司再给百花公司支付130万元保证金;150万元保证金的同期银行贷款利息由百花公司承担,浩鑫公司在结算时扣除;四、浩鑫公司新建的厂房完工后,百花公司必须在30日内将原制药厂设备搬入新厂,以便浩鑫公司进场建设;百花公司搬迁到新厂后,即与浩鑫公司组成移交小组进行资产移交;五、一方违约必须向对方支付违约金25万元,造成损失的赔偿损失。该《资产折换协议书》签订时,百花公司既未向抵押权人遵义工行通知,也未将财产抵押情况向受让人浩鑫公司告知。同年12月22日,百花公司与浩鑫公司签订《资产折换补充协议(一)》,约定:一、浩鑫公司向百花公司支付的150万元保证金,百花公司只承担其中100万元的同期银行贷款利息,剩余50万元的利息由浩鑫公司自行承担;二、浩鑫公司对原制药厂厂址进行土地开发的一切费用,由浩鑫公司承担。1999年2月3日,百花公司与浩鑫公司签订《补充协议(二)》,约定:一、本补充协议签订之日,浩鑫公司应向百花公司支付300万元保证金;扣除已支付的40万元,再需支付260万元;百花公司承担其中250万元的同期同类银行贷款利息;利息从付款翌日起,每季度末由百花公司支付给浩鑫公司;二、新建厂房保证在一年内竣工。如不能按期竣工,谁的原因谁负责;三、自浩鑫公司新建的厂房及车间竣工交付日起30日内,百花公司如不能将原制药厂使用的土地交给浩鑫公司,则应每月向浩鑫公司交纳租赁费5万元,直到土地交付时止。之后,浩鑫公司向百花公司付款340万元,并根据百花公司提供的地籍资料,申办了土地使用权预登记证,将原制药厂的4517.6平方米土地变更为浩鑫公司的住宅建设用地。2000年11月1日,百花公司与浩鑫公司签订第三份补充协议,约定:一、百花公司收取浩鑫公司的340万元,加上应承担的银行利息366 172.63元,作为已支付的置换土地款。按450万元资产总价扣除前述款项后,浩鑫公司还应向百花公司支付733 827.37元,此款应在本协议生效后的11月8日支付;二、浩鑫公司付款后3个月内,百花公司必须将土地及地上建筑物、附着物全部交付给浩鑫公司。百花公司搬迁之前,须向浩鑫公司支付租金,租赁合同另行签订;三、任何一方未按本协议条款执行,则应向另一方承担20万元违约金,并承担继续履行义务。此后,浩鑫公司向百花公司指定的账户汇入733 827.37元。遵初39号判决与黔高16号判决发生法律效力后,浩鑫公司又根据这两份生效判决,代百花公司履行了偿还160万元借款及此款相应利息的义务,遵义工行的抵押权已实现。@#
......


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 【¥900.00】 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