China Pacific Insurance Company v. Dalian Yangfan Shipping Co., Ltd.
(Case of Retrial concerning the Dispute over Return of Guarantee)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Applicant for Retrial: Dalian Branch of China Pacific Insurance Company@#
Legal Representative: Xu Jinghui, general manager of this company.@#
Opposite Party: Dalian Yangfan Shipping Co., Ltd.@#
Legal Representative: Li Bingkui, general manager of this company.@#
Dalian Maritime Court rendered the Civil Retrial Ruling No. 1 [1997] of Dalian Maritime Court on September 9, 1997 for the case of dispute over the return of guarantee between Dalian Branch of China Pacific Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as Dalian CPIC) and Dalian Yangfan Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yangfan Company), and the said civil ruling has taken effect. However, Dalian CPIC was not satisfied with the said ruling, and brought an application for retrial to the Supreme People's Court for the reason that Yangfan Company failed to lodge a lawsuit to the court within 30 days after its application for seizure of the ship and thus the letter of guarantee provided by Dalian CPIC should be returned, and requested for revoking the ruling in which Dalian Maritime Court affirmed Dalian CPIC as the guarantor for assuming the compensation liability for “Suchun” Ship collision.@#
．．．．．．

中国太平洋保险公司与大连扬帆船务有限公司发还担保纠纷再审案@#
@#
再审申请人：中国太平洋保险公司大连分公司。@#
法定代表人：徐敬惠，总经理。@#
对方当事人：大连扬帆船务有限公司。@#
法定代表人：李秉奎，总经理。@#
再审申请人中国太平洋保险公司大连分公司（以下简称大连太保）与对方当事人大连扬帆船务有限公司（以下简称扬帆公司）发还担保纠纷一案，大连海事法院于１９９７年９月９日作出（１９９７）大海法再字第１号民事裁定，已经发生法律效力。大连太保不服上述裁定，以扬帆公司在申请扣押船舶后３０日内未向法院提起诉讼，大连太保提供的担保函应当发还为由，向最高人民法院提出再审申请。请求撤销大连海事法院认定其为“苏春”轮碰撞责任赔偿的保证人的裁定。@#
最高人民法院再审查明：@#
１９９４年２月８日，对方当事人扬帆公司与圣文森特籍的“苏春”轮船东发生船舶碰撞纠纷后，向大连海事法院申请扣押“苏春”轮。同日，大连海事法院裁定将“苏春”轮在大连港予以扣押，同时责令“苏春”轮船东提供担保，“苏春”轮船东即向扬帆公司提供了再审申请人大连太保出具的６万美元担保函。扬帆公司据此向法院申请解除对“苏春”轮的扣押。次日，大连海事法院发布了解除扣押船舶命令。@#
１９９４年７月７日，对方当事人扬帆公司向大连海事法院提起请求“苏春”轮船东赔偿船舶碰撞损失的诉讼。大连海事法院于９月１３日通知大连太保作为第三人参加诉讼。９月２０日，“苏春”轮船东向大连海事法院递交申请，以“扬帆公司未能在３０日内提起诉讼，超过了法定期限”为由，请求法院发还其提供的担保函。１０月６日，大连海事法院作出（１９９４）大海法事保字第４－－３号裁定，裁定发还“苏春”轮船东提供的担保函，同时通知大连太保退出诉讼。１９９６年１０月２８日，扬帆公司以“最高人民法院的扣押船舶规定中没有发还担保的规定，大连海事法院第４－－３号裁定适用法律错误”为由，提出再审申请。大连海事法院再审后认为，大连太保作为“苏春”轮碰撞赔偿的保证人，应当承担保证责任。第４－－３号裁定发还大连太保的担保，是适用法律错误。据此，再审裁定撤销第４－－３号裁定。@#
．．．．．．