Shenyang Yinshengtiancheng Investment Management Co., Ltd. v. Shenyang Office of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (A Case about Disputes over a Contract on Assignment of Claims)@#
@#
@#
@#
@#
Supreme People's Court@# Civil Judgment@# No.125 [2009], Civil Retrial, Cert.@# BASIC FACTS@# Petitioner (defendant in the trial at first instance and appellant in the trial at second instance): Shenyang Office of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd., domiciled at 142 Ningshanzhong Road, Huanggu District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province.@# Person-in-charge: Zhu Xiaojun, general manager of the office.@# Authorized representative: Xu Guiyan, staffer of the office.@# Attorney: Jia Shengnan, lawyer of Beijing B&D Law Firm.@# Respondent (plaintiff in the trial at first instance and appellee in the trial at second instance): Shenyang Yinshengtiancheng Investment Management Co., Ltd., domiciled at 65 Shuntong Street, Huishan Economic Development Zone, Shenbei New District, Shenyang City, Liaoning Province.@# Legal Representative: Fu Cai, general manager of the company.@# Attorney: Bao Limin, lawyer of Liaoning Huajun Law Firm.@# Attorney: Wang Lili, lawyer of Liaoning Huajun Law Firm.@# PROCEDURAL POSTURE@# For the case of disputes over a contract on claims assignment with the respondent, Shenyang Yinshengtiancheng Investment Management Co., Ltd., the petitioner, Shenyang Office of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. filed a retrial petition with this Court against the Civil Judgment (No. 86 [2009], Final, Civil Division II, Liaoning) of the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province. On August 14, 2009, this Court rendered a Civil Ruling (No. 557 [2009], Civil Petition) to retry this case. This Court legally formed a collegial panel comprising Judge Ye Xiaoqing as the presiding judge, Judge Chen Mingyan and Judge Wang Chuang to hear the case. Clerk Zhang Yongshu kept a record of the trial. So far, the trial of this case has been concluded.@# The court of first instance found that: On December 12, 2005, Liaoning Huaan Auction Co., Ltd. published an announcement in Liaoning Daily newspaper on auctioning an asset package which comprised assets in 7 regions including Anshan, Chaoyang, Jinzhou, Fuxin, Yingkou, Panjin and Huludao. On December 27, 2005, Shenyang Yinshengtiancheng Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yinshengtiancheng Company”) acquired the package of assets in the above 7 regions from Shenyang Office of China Huarong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huarong Shenyang Office”) through auction conducted by Liaoning Huaan Auction Co., Ltd., and paid the winning bid price of 73.5 million yuan in full amount. After the auction, Yinshengtiancheng Company and Huarong Shenyang Office signed an Agreement on the Transfer of Claim and Physical Assets (hereinafter referred to as the “Transfer Agreement”), under which they agreed that “Huarong Shenyang Office shall transfer the package of assets in 7 regions: Fuxin, Anshan, Jinzhou, Chaoyang, Panjin, Yingkou and Huludao, which it owns and has the rights to dispose of, to Yinshengtiancheng Company. The total amount of assets in the package shall be approximately 2.6 billion yuan, including loan claims and subordinate rights of about 2.48 billion yuan, which consists of 1.145 billion yuan of principal and 1.335 billion yuan of interest, and 13 items of physical assets with a total book value of about 133.5 million yuan. Yinshengtiancheng Company shall pay 73.5 million yuan in a lump sum to Huarong Shenyang Office for the transfer. Huarong Shenyang Office shall, within 30 days upon receipt of the total transfer payment, completely hand over all existing files on the acquisition and disposition of these assets and deliver the documents proving its rights to dispose of the physical assets to Yinshengtiancheng Company, and make a checklist of physical asset transfer. As soon as the two parties jointly fill out the checklist at the place where the physical assets are located, Huarong Shenyang Office shall be deemed to have fulfilled its obligation to deliver such physical assets. From the date of transfer of these assets, Yinshengtiancheng Company shall assume all risks, liabilities, losses and other expenses related to the transferred assets, including but not limited to: any principal or subordinate debtor's bankruptcy, dissolution, reduced solvency or loss of legal status; any damage, loss, destruction, expropriation or withdrawal of collaterals and pledges; any unpaid due amount related to the transferred assets; any exemption of a guarantor from the guaranty liability because the time limitation for any transferred principal claim has expired; and any difference between the actual amount (or area) and the transferred amount (or area) of physical assets, which are caused by or arise from events not attributable to Huarong Shenyang Office before the date of transfer. Where the sum of the principal, on-balance-sheet interest and off-balance-sheet interest of the transferred claims is inconsistent with the amount listed in the annex to this Agreement, if the excess or shortage is not greater than 5% (inclusive) of the total amount of the subject matter of transfer, neither party shall claim rights against the other; or if the shortage exceeds 5% of the total amount of the subject matter of transfer, Yinshengtiancheng Company shall have the right to reduce the transfer payment commensurately. Yinshengtiancheng Company hereby undertakes and agrees that: Huarong Shenyang Office shall auction the physical assets as they are, and shall not be responsible for vacating the premises for the auctioned real estates and land use rights; Yinshengtiancheng Company shall be responsible for vacating the premises on its own and pay the costs incurred thereby. Yinshengtiancheng Company shall handle the formalities for transfer of physical assets by itself and assume the taxes on the transfer. Upon delivery of the physical assets, if the actual quantity and quality of assets are inconsistent with the annex to this Agreement (including the decrease of actual area of real estates and land use rights or decrease of quantity of machinery and equipment), Huarong Shenyang Office shall not be liable for breach of contract. Yinshengtiancheng Company hereby acknowledges that: Huarong Shenyang Office has made explanations to it about the subject matter of auction; before participation in the auction, it has taken into consideration all the existing or potential legal or practical risks that may affect the exercise or realization of claims; to enter into this Agreement, it has conducted full and thorough investigation about the subject matter of auction and gained necessary understanding thereof, and is willing to assume any defect existing in the subject matter of auction as well as any risk resulting therefrom known after transfer and beyond the express guaranty and remedies provided by Huarong Shenyang Office under this Agreement; in addition to the remedies expressly stated herein, Yinshengtiancheng Company agrees not to claim any other right against Huarong Shenyang Office. After the claims are transferred to Yinshengtiancheng Company, if a final adjudication of a court or arbitral institution denies the existence of any claim assigned by Huarong Shenyang Office, Huarong Shenyang Office shall refund the auction price of such a claim to Yinshengtiancheng Company without paying the interest thereon and related auction fees.” The transfer specifically involved 771 items of claim assets and 13 items of physical assets. After the signing of the Transfer Agreement, Yinshengtiancheng Company timely paid all auction prices, and Huarong Shenyang Office handed over the files on the 771 items of claim assets. During the transfer of physical assets, Huarong Shenyang Office delivered the files on 9 physical assets to Yinshengtiancheng Company: Panshan Building Materials Group Corporation, Anshan Minzu Building, Anshan Department Store Company, No.2 Branch of Huludao Fuel Corporation, Huludao Hardware, Electric Appliance and Chemical Co., Ltd., Jinzhou Tanghezi Shopping Mall, Liaohe Oilfield Camda Electromechanical Products Sales Office, and Panjin Tractor Spare Parts Plant, but did not deliver the files on the other 4 physical assets to Yinshengtiancheng Company. For physical assets, the two sides failed to jointly fill out the checklist of physical asset transfer at the locations of the physical assets as agreed on. On February 5, 2006, Yinshengtiancheng Company transferred 240 items of claim assets and 3 items of physical assets to a party not involved in this case, Shenyang Tiancheng Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tiancheng Company”) at a price of 45 million yuan. Currently, the following problems existed in the claim assets of Yinshengtiancheng Company: the bankrupt procedures for 29 claims were closed; 24 claims were in bankruptcy procedures; the claims of Huarong Shenyang Office against one debtor, Anshan Minzu Building, had been rejected by the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province in its Civil Judgment (No. 285 [2003], Final, Civil Division II, Liaoning), so Huarong Shenyang Office did not have any claim to Anshan Minzu Building; Huarong Shenyang Office, which had recovered some money or physical assets in its claims against 3 debtors: Anshan Medicinal Materials Company, Vehicle Maintenance Center of Jinzhou Economic and Technological Development Zone and Jinzhou Gaopu Leather Co., Ltd., assigned all claims to Yinshengtiancheng Company without deduction of the recovered amount; and Huarong Shenyang Office, which had recovered money in the claim against the debtor, Jinzhou Motor Transport Company, assigned the remaining claim to Yinshengtiancheng Company after deduction of the recovered 900,000 yuan. As to the physical assets, the 2 items of physical assets of the debtors, Panshan Building Materials Group Corporation of Liaoning Province and Huludao Crane Plant (the land user was No.2 Branch of Huludao Fuel Corporation), transferred by Huarong Shenyang Office were actually the rights to use allocated state-owned land. The transferred land and workshop buildings of Panjin Tractor Spare Parts Plant had been awarded to ICBC Panjin Branch at an assessed price of 7,327,567.00 yuan to set off debts by the Intermediate People's Court of Panjin City in its civil ruling (No. 81 [2000], execution) on July 19, 2000. Though ICBC Panjin Branch assigned the claim to Huarong Shenyang Office earlier on May 26, 2000, Huarong Shenyang Office failed to timely exercise its litigation right in the Intermediate People's Court of Panjin City to change the litigation party, as a result of which, the court awarded the remaining 4,009 m2 of land and buildings and 17,400 m2 of land and buildings of Shaling No.2 Plant to ICBC Panjin Branch, making Yinshengtiancheng currently unable to handle the relevant transfer formalities. The transferred real estates of Jinzhou Tanghezi Shopping Mall was allowed to be used by this Mall according to a civil ruling (No. 8 [2000], execution) of the Intermediate People's Court of Jinzhou City on June 20, 2000. As to the transferred electromechanical products of Panjin Liaohe Oilfield Camda Electromechanical Products Sales Office and equipment of Liaohe Oilfield Lianyihongda Economic and Technological Industrial Company, Yinshengtiancheng Company actually could not find any of them in its own investigation. Yinshengtiancheng Company repeatedly urged Huarong Shenyang Office to fulfill its obligation of delivery of the physical assets and cooperate in the procedures for transfer of titles, and sent a lawyer's letter to it to call attention to this issue, but Huarong Shenyang Office still failed to fulfill its obligation of delivery on the spot and obligation of cooperation. During the court hearing, Huarong Shenyang Office admitted that the two sides had not jointly filled out the checklist of physical asset transfer at the locations of physical assets. Instead, it merely delivered the files on the ownerships and rights of disposition of the physical assets to Yinshengtiancheng Company. Before the buildings and land were transferred, Huarong Shenyang Office had not gone through the relevant transfer procedures to register them under its own name. After about one-year fruitless negotiations on delivery of physical assets and cooperation in transfer formalities between Yinshengtiancheng Company and Huarong Shenyang Office, disputes arose between the two sides.@# ...... | | 沈阳银胜天成投资管理有限公司与中国华融资产管理公司沈阳办事处债权转让合同纠纷案@# [裁判摘要]@# 一、金融资产管理公司收购和处置银行不良金融债权,具有较强的政策性。银行不良金融债权的转让,不能完全等同于一般民事主体之间的债权转让行为,具有高风险、高收益的特点,与等价交换的市场规律有较为明显的区别。不良债权交易的实物资产,不是一般资产买卖关系,而主要是一种风险与收益的转移。@# 二、银行不良金融债权以资产包形式整体出售转让的,资产包内各不良金融债权的可回收比例各不相同,而资产包一旦形成,即具有不可分割性。因此,资产包整体买进后,如需解除合同,也必须整体解除,将资产包整体返还。银行不良金融债权的受让人在将资产包中相对优质的债权变卖获益后,又通过诉讼请求部分解除合同,将资产包中其他债权返还的,人民法院不予支持。@# 三、不良金融资产转让协议之目的是公平合规的完成债权及实物资产的顺利转让,在未对受让人是否能够清收债权及清收债权的比例作出承诺和规范的情况下,受让人以合同预期盈利目的不能实现为由提出解除合同的诉讼请求,人民法院不予支持。@# 最高人民法院@# 民事判决书@# (2009)民提字第125号@# @# 申请再审人(原审被告、二审上诉人):中国华融资产管理公司沈阳办事处。@# 负责人:祝晓军,该办事处总经理。@# 委托代理人:徐桂艳,该办事处职员。@# 委托代理人:贾圣囡,北京市北斗鼎铭律师事务所律师。@# 被申请人(原审原告、二审被上诉人):沈阳银盛天成投资管理有限公司。@# 法定代表人:傅才,该公司总经理。@# 委托代理人:包丽敏,辽宁华君律师事务所律师。@# 委托代理人:王黎黎,辽宁华君律师事务所律师。@# @# 申请再审人中国华融资产管理公司沈阳办事处因与被申请人沈阳银盛天成投资管理有限公司债权转让合同纠纷一案,不服辽宁省高级人民法院(2009)辽民二终字第86号民事判决,向本院申请再审。本院于2009年8月14日作出(2009)民申字第557号民事裁定,提审本案。本院依法组成由审判员叶小青担任审判长,审判员陈明焰、王闯参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员张永妹担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@# 原审法院查明:2005年12月12日,辽宁华安拍卖有限公司在辽宁日报上发布出售鞍山、朝阳、锦州、阜新、营口、盘锦及葫芦岛等七个地区的资产包的拍卖公告。 2005年12月27日,沈阳银盛天成投资管理有限公司(以下简称银盛天成公司)通过辽宁华安拍卖有限公司以拍卖方式从中国华融资产管理公司沈阳办事处(以下简称华融沈阳办)购得了鞍山、朝阳、锦州、阜新、营口、盘锦及葫芦岛等七个地区的资产包并全额支付了拍卖价款7350万元。拍卖成交后,银盛天成公司与华融沈阳办签订《债权及实物资产转让协议》约定:“华融沈阳办将拥有所有权和处分权的阜新、鞍山、锦州、朝阳、盘锦、营口、葫芦岛等七个地区的资产包,包内资产总额约26亿元,包括金额约人民币24.8亿元的贷款债权及其从权利,其中本金11.45亿元,利息13.35亿元;实物资产13项,账面价值约1.335亿元转让给银盛天成公司,银盛天成公司一次性向华融沈阳办支付转让价款人民币 7350万元。华融沈阳办收到银盛天成公司全部转让价款之日起30日内将收购档案和处置档案的现有材料全部移交完毕,将证明其对实物资产拥有处分权的文件交付给银盛天成公司,并制作实物资产交接清单,由双方在实物资产所在地共同填写实物资产交接单,即视为已履行了实物资产交付义务。自资产转移之日起,银盛天成公司承担与转让资产有关的一切风险、责任、损失和其他费用,包括但不限于资产转移日之前因不可归责于华融沈阳办方的事由导致或产生的转让资产的主从债务人破产、解散、清偿能力的降低或丧失主体资格,抵、质押物的毁损、灭失、被征用或收回,与转让资产有关的、任何应付未付的费用,所转让的主债权已过诉讼时效、担保债权中的担保人免责,实物资产实际数量(或面积)与转让数量(或面积)之差异。转让债权本金、表内利息、表外利息之和与本协议附件列示的金额不一致时,如超过金额或短少金额不超过转让标的总额的5%(含 5%),双方均不再向对方主张权利;短少金额超过转让标的总额的5%的,银盛天成公司有权要求同比例调减转让价款。银盛天成公司承诺并认可:华融沈阳办按现状拍卖实物资产,华融沈阳办对所拍卖的房产及土地使用权不负责腾迁场地,银盛天成公司自行负责腾迁场地并承担因此而发生的费用。银盛天成公司自行办理实物资产过户手续并承担资产过户所需交纳的税费,实物资产交付后,如出现资产的实际数量与质量与本协议附件不符(包括出现房产、土地使用权实际面积减少或机器设备数量减少的情形)华融沈阳办不承担违约责任。银盛天成公司确认:华融沈阳办已将拍卖标的有关情况向其作出了说明和解释,银盛天成公司在参加竞买前,充分考虑了拍卖标的存在或可能存在的影响债权行使或实现的法律和现实风险,银盛天成公司对此予以认可;为签订本协议,银盛天成公司已经对拍卖标的进行充分、全面的调查和必要的了解,对于受让后知悉的、不属于华融沈阳办在本协议项下明确保证并给予救济的拍卖标的中存在的瑕疵及由此造成的任何风险,银盛天成公司自愿承担;除本协议明确的救济方式外,银盛天成公司同意不向华融沈阳办主张任何其他权利。银盛天成公司受让债权后,如经法院或仲裁机构终审裁决认定华融沈阳办所转让的债权不存在,则华融沈阳办将该项债权的拍卖价款退还给银盛天成公司,但华融沈阳办无需支付该项拍卖价款的利息和相关拍卖费用。”此次转让具体包括771项债权资产及13项实物资产;协议签订后,银盛天成公司及时支付了全部拍卖价款,华融沈阳办也交付了771项债权资产的档案材料,在实物资产交接中,华融沈阳办将9户实物资产:盘山建筑材料企业集团总公司、鞍山市民族大厦、鞍山市百货公司、葫芦岛市燃料总公司第二公司、葫芦岛市五金交电化工公司、锦州汤河子商场、辽河油田康达机电产品销售处、盘锦拖拉机配件厂的档案材料交付给了银盛天成公司,其余4户实物资产的档案材料没有交付给银盛天成公司。对于实物资产,双方未按协议约定在实物资产所在地共同填写实物资产交接单。银盛天成公司于2006年2月5日将债权中的240户债权资产及3项实物资产转让给案外人沈阳天成项目投资管理有限公司(以下简称天成公司),转让价款为人民币4500万元。银盛天成公司现有的债权资产中存在以下问题:29户债权已经破产终结;24户债权处于破产程序中;债务人名称为鞍山民族大厦的债权已经辽宁省高级人民法院(2003)辽民二合终字第285号民事判决驳回华融沈阳办诉讼请求,华融沈阳办并未取得对鞍山民族大厦的债权;债务人名称为鞍山市药材公司、锦州经济技术开发区汽车维修中心、锦州高普皮革有限公司等3户债权业经华融沈阳办执行回款或回物,但华融沈阳办将未扣除已执行款项的全部债权转让给银盛天成公司;债务人名称为锦州汽车运输公司的债权业经华融沈阳办执行回款,华融沈阳办扣除已执行的90万元后将剩余债权转让给了银盛天成公司。关于实物资产部分:华融沈阳办转让的债务人为辽宁省盘山建筑材料企业(集团)总公司、葫芦岛起重机厂(土地使用人为葫芦岛市燃料总公司第二分公司)二户实物资产为国有划拨土地使用权;转让的盘锦拖拉机配件厂的土地、厂房由盘锦市中级人民院在2000年7月19日的 (2000)盘中执字第81号裁定中以评估价格7 327 567.00元抵债给中国工商银行盘锦市分行,虽然中国工商银行盘锦市分行已于2000年5月26日将债权转让给华融沈阳办,但是由于华融沈阳办未及时向盘锦市中级法院行使诉讼权利变更诉讼主体,使得盘锦市中级法院将剩余的4009㎡土地和房屋及沙岭二厂17 400㎡土地和房屋裁定给盘锦市工商银行,现银盛天成公司无法办理相关过户手续;转让的锦州汤河子商场的房地产有锦州市中级法院在 2000年6月20日的(2000)锦执字第8号民事裁定中裁定允许锦州汤河子商场使用;转让的盘锦市辽河油田康达机电产品销售处的机电产品、辽河油田联谊宏大经济技术实业公司的设备银盛天成公司在自行调查中找不到具体的实物。银盛天成公司多次催促华融沈阳办履行对实物资产的交付义务并配合办理产权过户事宜,并且向华融沈阳办发律师函要求重视此事,但是华融沈阳办仍未履行实地交接和配合义务。庭审中,华融沈阳办自认双方未在实物资产所在地共同填写实物资产交接单,只是将与实物资产相关的享有所有权和处分权的档案资料移交给银盛天成公司,所转让的房产及土地在转让前并未办理过户至华融沈阳办名下。银盛天成公司、华融沈阳办双方就实物资产交付及配合办理过户手续协商一年无果,引发纠纷。@# 华融沈阳办转让的771户债权资产定价合计为人民币51 888 062.10元,13项实物资产定价合计为人民币31 341400.00元,二者合计为人民币83 229 462.10元,其中实物资产名称为鞍山市百货公司和鞍山市民族大厦二户定价中包含了同名的债权资产定价,因华融沈阳办提交的《关于对鞍山等七个地区剩余资产整体打包的处置方案》(以下简称处置方案)中并未对这两户的债权部分和实务部分分别定价,故实物资产部分定价合计包括该两户债权部分的定价。因此,债权资产在整个资产包的比例约为62%,实物资产在整个资产包的比例约为38%。华融沈阳办在处置方案第17、 19页中记载,“此资产包预计有回收的资产价值为8331万元”,“虽然资产包可回收价值为7423万元,但拟定打包处置拍卖底价为7350万元”,转让双方最终债权转让价格为人民币7350万元。银盛天成公司于 2006年2月5日将240户债权资产及3项实物资产转让给天成公司,转让价款为人民币4500万元,根据处置方案,此次转让的240户债权资产的定价合计为人民币 36 104 281.03元,3项实物资产的定价合计为人民币17 115 100元,二者合计为人民币53 219 381.03元,转让给天成公司后,银盛天成公司剩余的531户债权资产及10项实物资产的定价合计为人民币 30 010081.07元。由于处置方案中对债权资产及实物资产的定价合计为人民币 83 229 462.10元,因此银盛天成公司转让给天成公司部分占资产包的比例为64%,银盛天成公司现有的债权及实物资产占资产包的比例为36%。结合双方实际转让价款为人民币7350万元、拍卖佣金为人民币 294万元的事实,银盛天成公司实际上以人民币4500万元价格转让给天成公司的债权及实物资产的购买价格为人民币 4704万元,拍卖佣金为人民币188.16万元,银盛天成公司现有的债权及实物资产的购买价格为2646万元,拍卖佣金为人民币105.84万元。@# 银盛天成公司就实物资产交接及配合办理过户手续等问题与华融沈阳办协商未果,于2007年11月14日向沈阳市中级人民法院提起诉讼,请求判令解除银盛天成公司与华融沈阳办签订的《债权及实物资产转让协议》;判令华融沈阳办返还部分转让款人民币26 460 000.00元,相应利息银盛天成公司保留诉权;判令华融沈阳办赔偿损失人民币1 058 400.00元;四、诉讼费用由华融沈阳办承担。@# 原审法院认为:债权让与者,指以移转债权为标的之协议,让与方负有将债权移转于受让方之基本义务,同时其应将证明债权存在的文件一并交付给受让人,并告知受让人关于主张债权所相关的资讯,以利于受让人实行或保全其债权。买卖合同之出卖方不仅应保证所出卖的标的物属于出卖方所有或者出卖人有权处分,而且应保证标的物的转让不为法律所禁止或已满足法律对转让有限制之物允许转让的条件。本案中,华融沈阳办作为让与方在与受让方订立债权及实物资产转让协议前,并未取得对鞍山民族大厦的债权人权利即将该户债权转让给受让方银盛天成公司,致使银盛天成公司不享有对该户债权的债权人权利被驳回诉讼请求,对于该户债权对应的拍卖价款华融沈阳办应予返还;华融沈阳办已经在拍卖时告知银盛天成公司部分债权应经破产,虽然部分债权已经破产终结,但破产终结裁定只是表明债务人受偿能力极低,债权仍然存在,华融沈阳办在拍卖时已经就此瑕疵告知银盛天成公司,故银盛天成公司对29户债权不存在的主张,原审法院不予支持;债务人名称为鞍山市药材公司、锦州经济技术开发区汽车维修中心、锦州高普皮革有限公司等3户债权虽业经华融沈阳办执行回款或回物,且华融沈阳办不能证明已经扣除执行款项,但该3户债权的债权总额未超过双方在协议第8条约定的5%的比例,故对银盛天成公司关于该3户债权的主张,原审法院不予支持;债务人名称为锦州汽车运输公司的债权虽业经华融沈阳办执行回款,但华融沈阳办能够证明已经扣除已执行款90万元,故对银盛天成公司关于该户债权的主张,原审法院不予支持;双方并未在实物资产所在地共同填写实物资产交接单,华融沈阳办虽已将部分实物资产相关的档案资料移交给银盛天成公司,但实物资产大多为不动产,不动产的转让不同于一般债权资产的转让,其经登记方能实现权属变更目的的特性决定了华融沈阳办应配合银盛天成公司办理过户登记手续,故华融沈阳办对实物资产已经交接的主张,原审法院不予支持;双方在协议第4.1条中约定“华融沈阳办将证明其对实物资产拥有处分权的文件交付给银盛天成公司”,但是华融沈阳办作为实物资产的出让方,应对转让标的物承担权利担保和瑕疵担保义务,华融沈阳办在转让前应保证自己对所转让的实物资产享有所有权和处分权,对于转让中涉及土地的部分应保证在转让时符合土地转让的条件,根据最高人民法院《关于审理涉及国有土地使用权合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》法释[2005]5号第11条的规定,双方对于划拨土地的转让行为是无效行为。众所周知,在我国以四大资产管理公司处理的不良债权,一般清收风险较高,将不良债权与实物资产整体打包的处置方式会因实物资产易于变现而降低不良债权的清收风险。本案中,双方签订的《债权及实物资产转让协议》虽包括债权、实物资产两个部分,但是双方并未在协议中进行区分,从华融沈阳办提交的处置方案看,其出售时也是将债权和实物资产作为一个整体而出售,其中抵债金额为人民币13 549.98万元的13项实物资产的存在,对于购买方判断该不良资产包的成本支出与预期收益的问题有重要影响。华融沈阳办在合同履行过程中未能按照约定履行实物资产的交付义务,且未能履行部分在整个资产包的比例约为38%,华融沈阳办不完全履行义务之行为已经导致银盛天成公司购买资产包之合同目的无法实现,故银盛天成公司要求解除债权及实物资产转让协议,返还拍卖款及赔偿损失的诉讼请求,原审法院予以支持。关于华融沈阳办主张银盛天成公司于签订债权转让协议时已知悉风险,其已履行告知义务的抗辩理由,因本案债权转让合同为格式合同,虽约定有“华融沈阳办收到银盛天成公司全部转让价款之日起30日内将收购档案和处置档案的现有材料全部移交完毕,将证明其对实物资产拥有处分权的文件交付给银盛天成公司,并制作实物资产交接清单,由双方在实物资产所在地共同填写实物资产交接单,即视为已履行了实物资产交付义务;自资产转移之日起,银盛天成公司承担与转让资产有关的一切风险、责任、损失和其他费用,包括但不限于资产转移日之前因不可归责于华融沈阳办方的事由导致或产生的转让资产的主从债务人破产、解散、清偿能力的降低或丧失主体资格,抵、质押物的毁损、灭失、被征用或收回,与转让资产有关的任何应付未付的费用,所转让的主债权已过诉讼时效、担保债权中的担保人免责,实物资产实际数量(或面积)与转让数量(或面积)之差异;华融沈阳办按现状拍卖实物资产,华融沈阳办对所拍买的房产及土地使用权不负责腾迁场地,银盛天成公司自行负责腾迁场地并承担因此而发生的费用。银盛天成公司自行办理实物资产过户手续并承担资产过户所需交纳的税费,实物资产交付后,如出现资产的实际数量与质量与本协议附件不符(包括出现房产、土地使用权实际面积减少或机器设备数量减少的情形),华融沈阳办不承担违约责任。银盛天成公司确认:华融沈阳办已将拍卖标的有关情况向其作出了说明和解释,银盛天成公司在参加竞买前,充分考虑了拍卖标的存在或可能存在的影响债权行使或实现的法律和现实风险,银盛天成公司对此予以认可;为签订本协议,银盛天成公司已经对拍卖标的进行充分、全面的调查和必要的了解,对于受让后知悉的、不属于华融沈阳办在本协议项下明确保证并给予救济的拍卖标的中存在的瑕疵及由此造成的任何风险,银盛天成公司自愿承担”的条款,但“转让标的中存在的瑕疵”系指债权转让后影响债权行使或实现的法律和现实风险,华融沈阳办对个别债权资产不享有债权人权利的情形不在此列。根据《中华人民共和国合同法》(以下简称合同法)第四十一条“格式条款的理解发生争议的,应当按通常理解予以解释。对格式条款有两种以上理解的,应当作不利于提供格式条款一方的解释。格式条款和非格式条款不一致的,应当采用非格式条款”之规定,华融沈阳办对债权为鞍山民族大厦的抗辩原审法院不予支持。华融沈阳办虽将部分实物资产的相关档案资料交付给银盛天成公司,但交付不等于交接,且华融沈阳办对部分实物资产未向银盛天成公司提交任何档案资料,对机器设备未进行交付,在银盛天成公司自行调查实物资产过程中,华融沈阳办亦未能尽实物资产转让人之义务,配合银盛天成公司办理相关手续,故对华融沈阳办关于实物资产已经交接的抗辩,原审法院不予支持。综上,依据合同法第六十条、第九十四条第一款第(四)项之规定,原审法院判决:一、解除银盛天成公司与华融沈阳办签订的《债权及实物资产转让协议》。二、华融沈阳办于本判决生效之日起十日内向银盛天成公司返还转让款人民币 26460 000元。三、银盛天成公司于判决生效之日起十日内返还已收到的531户债权资产及10项实物资产的档案材料。四、华融沈阳办于判决生效之日起十日内向银盛天成公司赔偿损失1 058 400元。华融沈阳办如果未按照本判决指定的期间履行给付义务,应当按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十九条规定,加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。案件受理费291 400元,由华融沈阳办负担160 270元,退还银盛天成公司131130元。@# ...... |