>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Suzhou Dongbao Property Co., Ltd., Suzhou Jincheng Guarantee Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongbao Metals Co., Ltd., (case of funds transfer contract)
苏州东宝置业有限公司、苏州市金城担保有限责任公司、苏州市东宝金属材料有限公司、苏州市东宝有黑色金属材料有限公司、徐阿大与苏州百货总公司、江苏少女之春集团公司资产转让合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Suzhou Dongbao Property Co., Ltd., Suzhou Jincheng Guarantee Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongbao Metals Co., Ltd., (case of funds transfer contract)
(case of funds transfer contract)
苏州东宝置业有限公司、苏州市金城担保有限责任公司、苏州市东宝金属材料有限公司、苏州市东宝有黑色金属材料有限公司、徐阿大与苏州百货总公司、江苏少女之春集团公司资产转让合同纠纷案

Suzhou Dongbao Property Co., Ltd., Suzhou Jincheng Guarantee Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongbao Metals Co., Ltd.,

 

苏州东宝置业有限公司、苏州市金城担保有限责任公司、苏州市东宝金属材料有限公司、苏州市东宝有黑色金属材料有限公司、徐阿大与苏州百货总公司、江苏少女之春集团公司资产转让合同纠纷案

 【裁判摘要】
 一、当事人签订的多份合同中,有的约定了仲裁条款,有的既没有约定仲裁条款,也没有明确将其列为约定了仲裁条款的合同的附件,或表示接受约定了仲裁条款的合同关于仲裁管辖的约定。尽管上述合同之间具有一定的关联性,但不能因此否认各自的独立性。
 二、根据仲裁法的相关规定,当事人采用仲裁方式解决纠纷,应当自愿达成仲裁协议;未达成仲裁协议,一方当事人申请仲裁的,仲裁委员会不予受理。因此,当事人约定仲裁管辖必须有明确的意思表示并订立仲裁协议,仲裁条款也只在达成仲裁协议的当事人之间产生法律效力。
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
 民事裁定书
Civil Ruling Paper No.2 [2006] (2006)民二终字第2号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Suzhou Dongbao Property Co., Ltd., located at Room 102, No.10 of North Tongjing Road, Jinchang District of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 上诉人(原审原告):苏州东宝置业有限公司,住所地:江苏省苏州市金阊区桐泾北路10号102室。
Legal Representative: You Jianqing, general manager of the company. 法定代表人:尤建青,该公司总经理。
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance):Suzhou Jincheng Guarantee Co., Ltd., located at Room 102, No.10 of North Tongjing Road, Jinchang District of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 上诉人(原审原告):苏州市金城担保有限责任公司,住所地:江苏省苏州市金阊区桐泾北路10号102室。
Legal Representative: Xu A'da, president of the company. 法定代表人:徐阿大,该公司董事长。
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Suzhou Dongbao Metals Co., Ltd., located at Room 102, No.10 of North Tongjing Road, Jinchang District of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 上诉人(原审原告):苏州市东宝金属材料有限公司,住所地:江苏省苏州市金阊区桐泾北路10号102室。
Legal Representative: Xu A'da, general manager of the company. 法定代表人:徐阿大,该公司总经理。
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Suzhou Dongbao Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals Co., Ltd., located at Taiping Industrial Zone, Xiangcheng District of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 上诉人(原审原告):苏州市东宝有黑色金属材料有限公司,住所地:江苏省苏州市相城区太平工业园。
Legal Representative: Lu Ren'gen, general manager of the company. 法定代表人:陆仁根,该公司总经理。
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Xu A'da, male, born on October 18th, 1957, the Han Ethnicity, residing at No.1, Shijiantou of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 上诉人(原审原告):徐阿大,男,1957年10月18日出生,汉族,居住在江苏省苏州市十间头1号。
Appellee (Defendant in the Original Instance): Suzhou Department Store, located at No.330, Jingde Road of Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):苏州百货总公司,住所地:江苏省苏州市景德路330号。
Legal Representative: Mao Jiasi, general manager of the company. 法定代表人:茆家斯,该公司总经理。
Appellee (Defendant in the Original Instance): Jiangsu Shaonvzhichun Group Company, located at No.88, Middle Xincun Road, Jianghua Town of Taixing City, Jiangsu Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):江苏少女之春集团公司,住所地:江苏省泰兴市蒋华镇新村中路88号。
Legal Representative: Cheng Yumin, general manager of the company. 法定代表人:程裕民,该公司总经理。
With regard to the dispute over assets assignment contract between Suzhou Dongbao Property Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongbao Company), Suzhou Jincheng Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guarantee Company), Suzhou Dongbao Metals Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Metals Company), Suzhou Dongbao Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ferrous Metals Company) and Xu A'da on the one hand and Suzhou Department Store (hereinafter referred to as Department Store) and Jiangsu Shaonvzhichun Group Company (hereinafter referred to as Shaonvzhichun Company) on the other hand, the appellees listed above refused to accept the civil judgment No.23-2 [2005] made by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province and appealed to this Court. This Court formed a collegial panel with Jin Jianfeng acting as the chief justice and the participation of Chen Bailing and Qian Xiaochen, and heard the case. Yuan Hongxia, the clerk, acted as the recorder. This case has been concluded now. 上诉人苏州东宝置业有限公司(以下简称东宝公司)、苏州市金城担保有限责任公司(以下简称担保公司)、苏州市东宝金属材料有限公司(以下简称金属公司)、苏州市东宝有黑色金属材料有限公司(以下简称黑色金属公司)、徐阿大为与被上诉人苏州百货总公司(以下简称百货公司)、江苏少女之春集团公司(以下简称少女之春公司)资产转让合同纠纷一案,不服江苏省高级人民法院(2005)苏民二初字第023号-2民事裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员金剑锋担任审判长,代理审判员陈百灵、钱晓晨参加的合议庭,对本案进行了审理。书记员袁红霞担任记录。本案现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The court of the original instance found out that: on September 10th, 2004, Department Store concluded a Contract of Auction Authorization of Jiangsu Province with an auction company, entrusting the latter to sell Suzhou Bamianfeng Building Co., Ltd. on auction. It was stipulated in Article 12 of the contract that both parties agree to subject any dispute incurred from this Contract to the arbitration of Suzhou Arbitration Committee. Thereafter, on December 24th, 2004, Dongbao Company won the auction of Suzhou Bamianfeng Building Company and signed on the Letter of Confirmation on Successful Bidder of Jiangsu Province (Type-B). It was indicated in the Letter of Confirmation that type-B letter of confirmation only applies to a transaction concluded by auctioneer and buyer on a single auction article and that any dispute incurred herefrom shall be settled by Suzhou Arbitration Committee by arbitration. On December 28th, 2004, Department Store, Shaonvzhichun Company and Dongbao Company concluded an Assignment Agreement, which stipulated that Dongbao Company shall deposit the transfer price at the bank account designated by the auction company. There was no arbitration clause in the agreement, or any content about attaching the Contract of Auction Authorization of Jiangsu Province and the Letter of Confirmation on Successful Bidder of Jiangsu Province as annexes. Dongbao Company transferred 54.5 million yuan to the account designated by Auction Company as stipulated, and Auction Company then transferred the money to Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company. But later, for the dispute occurred in the process of fulfilling the contract, Dongbao Company, Guarantee Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Metal Company and Xu A'da brought a lawsuit to the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province on August 29th, 2005, claiming that Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company shall pay a fine of 10.9 million yuan for delaying the fulfillment of contract or being unable to fully fulfill the contract, that the plaintiffs shall suspend paying the last sum of transfer price, which is 54.5 million yuan, and that the legal cost of this case shall be paid by Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company. During the defense period, Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company presented a jurisdiction demur, saying that this case was actually a dispute over stock right auction, so it shall be settled by Suzhou Arbitration Committee by arbitration, thus the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed. On September 16th, 2005, Department Store submitted an application form for arbitration to Suzhou Arbitration Committee, which accepted the application on September 28th, 2005. 原审法院审查查明:2004年9月10日,百货公司与拍卖公司签订了一份《江苏省委托拍卖合同》,由百货公司委托拍卖公司拍卖苏州市八面风商厦有限公司,该合同第十二条约定:因本合同发生的纠纷,双方同意向苏州市仲裁委员会申请仲裁。之后,东宝公司于2004年12月28日经拍卖取得苏州市八面风商厦有限公司,并在《江苏省拍卖成交确认书》(乙种)上签字盖章,该确认书载明,乙种拍卖成交确认书仅适用于拍卖人与买受人就单个的拍卖物达成的交易行为,如有争议,由苏州市仲裁委员会仲裁解决。2004年12月28日,百货公司、少女之春公司与东宝公司签订了一份《转让协议》,该协议约定,东宝公司给付的转让款支付到拍卖公司指定的银行账户。该协议没有约定仲裁条款,亦没有将其作为《江苏省委托拍卖合同》和《江苏省拍卖成交确认书》的附件等内容的约定。之后,东宝公司实际履行中亦是按约将5450万元转让款打到拍卖公司指定账户,再由拍卖公司转给百货公司、少女之春公司。后因履行合同发生纠纷,东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大于2005年8月29日向江苏省高级人民法院提起诉讼。请求判令百货公司、少女之春公司支付因迟延履行和不能完全履行合同的违约金1090万元;判决原告中止给付最后一期股权转让款5450万元;诉讼费由百货公司、少女之春公司负担。被告百货公司、少女之春公司在答辩期间提出管辖异议,认为本案实际为股权拍卖纠纷,应由苏州市仲裁委员会仲裁,故应驳回原告的起诉。 2005年9月16日,百货公司向苏州市仲裁委员会递交仲裁申请书。2005年9月 28日,苏州市仲裁委员会对百货公司的申请予以受理。
The court of the original instance held that: the Contract on Auction Authorization of Jiangsu Province as concluded by Department Store and the auction company included an arbitration clause, and the auction company was authorized to sell all the stock rights of Suzhou Bamianfeng Building Company (in which Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company each held 50%) by public auction. Dongbao Company won the auction on December 28th, 2004 and signed and affixed its seal on the Letter of Confirmation on Successful Bidder of Jiangsu Province, which included an arbitration clause clearly indicating the arbitration organ and that any dispute shall be settled by arbitration. Such clause did not violate any law, so it shall be deemed as valid. Department Store, Shaonvzhichun Company and Dongbao Company concluded an Assignment Agreement, stipulating that Dongbao Company shall pay the transfer price to Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company through the bank account of the auction company, and Dongbao Company did transfer 54.5 million yuan of transfer price to the account designated by the auction company as stipulated, which then transferred the money to Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company. In conclusion, the Assignment Agreement concerned in this case was based on the Contract on Auction Authorization and the Letter of Confirmation, it formed a whole with the latter two, the three parts depended on each other for existence, so the fulfillment of the Assignment Agreement may not be isolated from the Contract on Auction Authorization, the Letter of Confirmation or the auction company. Moreover, the Assignment Agreement signed by Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company did not exclude the arbitration clause stipulated in the Letter of Confirmation, so the plaintiffs' claims shall be bounded by the arbitration clause stipulated in the Letter of Confirmation on Successful Bidder of Jiangsu Province. In conclusion, Dongbao Company did not satisfy the statutory requirements to bring a lawsuit. In accordance with the provision ofArticle 111 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this court decided to reject the lawsuit brought by Dongbao Company, Guarantee Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Metal Company and Xu A'da. 原审认为:百货公司与拍卖公司之间的《江苏省委托拍卖合同》约定了仲裁条款,拍卖公司对苏州市八面风商厦有限公司的全部股权(百货公司、少女之春公司各占50%股权)进行公开拍卖。东宝公司于 2004年12月28日通过竞拍获得该标的,并在《江苏省拍卖成交确认书》上签字盖章,该确认书上也约定了仲裁条款,上述仲裁条款明确了仲裁机构及用仲裁方式解决纠纷,该约定不违反法律及有关规定,应当确认有效。百货公司、少女之春公司与东宝公司签订了一份《转让协议》,约定东宝公司给付百货公司、少女之春公司的转让款是通过拍卖公司的账户予以支付,且东宝公司实际履行中亦是按约将5450万元转让款打到拍卖公司指定账户,再由拍卖公司转给百货公司、少女之春公司。综上,本案《转让协议》是以委托拍卖合同、成交确认书为基础,没有委托拍卖合同及成交确认书就没有本案的《转让协议》,《转让协议》与委托拍卖合同及成交确认书为一个紧密联系的整体,相互依存,《转让协议》的履行不能脱离委托拍卖合同及成交确认书,也不能脱离拍卖公司,东宝公司与百货公司、少女之春公司签订的《转让协议》也没有排除拍卖成交确认书上的仲裁条款,故东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大在本案中的诉讼请求应当受到《江苏省拍卖成交确认书》中仲裁条款的约束。综上,东宝公司的诉讼请求不符合法定的起诉条件,该院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百一十一条爬数据可耻第(二)项的规定,裁定:驳回东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大的起诉。
Dongbao Company, Guarantee Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Metal Company and Xu A'da all refused to accept the civil judgment made by the court of the original instance, appealed to this Court and claimed that: 1. there is no arbitration agreement between the parties concerned in this case, so the original judgment was made by going against the provision of Article 4法宝 of the Arbitration Law; 2. the Assignment Agreement concerned in this case is by nature different from the Contract of Auction Authorization and from the Letter of Confirmation in terms of subject and legal relationship, the application of law in deciding that the arbitration clause in the Letter of Confirmation shall be bound to the parties concerned of this case was wrong; 3. after this suit was brought, Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company made pleadings, which meant that they agreed to be subject to the judicial jurisdiction of the court of the original instance, so their later problem about jurisdiction demurral shall not be heard at all; 4. before this suit was brought, Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company appealed the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province for attachment before the institution of a lawsuit on the ground that the Assignment Agreement as involved in this case was in dispute, and the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province approved the appeal, so it is ridiculous for them to present the jurisdiction demurral; 5. this case was brought for the dispute over stock right assignment and the defendants also made pleadings therefor, neither party has any objection against this fact, so the original judgment lacked factual basis to change it to a dispute over assets assignment. In conclusion, the appellants request the court to cancel the judgment of the first instance, order the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province to try the case in a timely manner and order Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company to pay the legal cost. 东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大不服该民事裁定,向本院提起上诉称:(一)本案当事人之间没有仲裁协议,一审裁定违反仲裁法四条的规定;(二)本案与委托拍卖合同属不同性质的合同,与成交确认书主体不同、法律关系不同,一审裁定认定本案当事人受成交确认书仲裁条款约束属适用法律错误;(三)在本案起诉后,百货公司、少女之春公司进行了答辩,接受了司法管辖,此后又提出管辖异议问题不应采信;(四)本案在原告起诉前,被告百货公司、少女之春公司在江苏省高级人民法院以本案所涉《转让协议》纠纷为由提出诉前保全,江苏省高级人民法院依法进行了保全,现又对法院管辖提出异议十分可笑;(五)本案起诉的是股权转让纠纷,被告答辩也是股权转让纠纷,双方都认可,一审裁定改为资产转让纠纷没有事实依据。综上,请求撤销一审裁定,指令江苏省高级人民法院依法及时审理并由百货公司和少女之春公司承担诉讼费。
Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company pleaded that: 1. the facts verified by the court of the first instance are right; 2. the nature of the relationship among the Contract on Auction Authorization, the Letter of Confirmation and the Assignment Agreement as verified by the court of the first instance is accurate. As the stock rights concerned in this case were assigned by public auction, the Letter of Confirmation shall not be deemed as having been fulfilled until both parties deliver the transfer price and the auction article. The conclusion of the Assignment Agreement is a step for fulfilling the Letter of Confirmation, it is by nature a supplement to and a special stipulation about the Letter of Confirmation, so any dispute incurred from the Assignment Agreement shall be settled in a way determined in the Letter of Confirmation; 3. the appellants' appeal grounds have no legal basis. The Assignment Agreement can't exist independently, the legal relationship between Dongbao Company and Department Store would not come into being without the Letter of Confirmation. The Letter of Confirmation shall cover all behaviors conducted by the buyer in auction activities, so any dispute incurred from the Assignment Agreement shall be absolutely subject to arbitration as required by the Letter of Confirmation. The transfer price was transferred by Dongbao Company to the account of the auction company as required by the Letter of Confirmation. From the mode of payment, we can also say that the Assignment Agreement is the detailed rules for the implementation of the Letter of Confirmation and a supplement to the latter. In conclusion, the Assignment Agreement did not directly stipulate any arbitration clause, but it is a component part of the Letter of Confirmation, it further details the Letter of Confirmation. It also forms a closely connected whole with the Contract on Auction Authorization. The dispute incurred from the Assignment Agreement is essentially a dispute from the Letter of Confirmation. The two aim at the same legal relationship. So the appellees request for dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment. 百货公司和少女之春公司答辩称: (一)一审法院对本案的事实认定无误; (二)一审法院对《委托拍卖合同》、《成交确认书》、《转让协议》之间的关系的性质认定准确,本股权转让是通过拍卖程序进行的,只有等双方转让款和拍卖标的交付完毕后,成交确认书才算履行完毕;股权《转让协议》是履行《成交确认书》的一项内容,其性质应是对《成交确认书》的补充和特别约定,故由《转让协议》引起的纠纷应当按照《成交确认书》确定的方式来执行;(三)上诉人的上诉理由无法律依据;《转让协议》不能独立存在,没有《成交确认书》就没有东宝公司与百货公司之间的法律关系,《成交确认书》中的约定包含买受人在履行拍卖活动中所发生的一切行为,故因履行《转让协议》所产生的争议,理所当然要按照《成交确认书》的约定提起仲裁;股权转让款也是由东宝公司打入拍卖公司账户,这也是因为有成交确认书存在,从付款方式上也可证明《转让协议》是《成交确认书》的实施细则和补充条款。综上,《转让协议》虽未直接约定仲裁条款,但其是《成交确认书》的组成部分,是对《成交确认书》的明确和细化,其与《委托拍卖合同》一起构成紧密联系的整体,因《转让协议》所产生的争议实质就是因《成交确认书》而产生的争议,两者调整的是同一法律关系,请求驳回上诉,维持原裁定。
This court also found out that: on May 20th, 2005, Guarantee Company, Metals Company and Xu A'da jointly produced a Letter of Commitment to Guarantee to Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company, promising that Guarantee Company and Xu A'da would assume joint and several guarantee liabilities for Dongbao Company's obligation of paying off the rest transfer price and that Metals Company would entrust the auction company to sell the land right to the relevant real property to provide the guarantee. 本院另查明:2005年5月20日,担保公司、金属公司及徐阿大共同向百货公司、少女之春公司、拍卖公司出具《承诺担保函》,承诺对东宝公司支付剩余部分股权转让款的义务,由担保公司和徐阿大承担连带担保责任,由金属公司以委托拍卖公司拍卖的有关房产土地权证作担保。
On June 6th, 2005, Dongbao Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Metal Company and Guarantee Company jointly produced a Letter of Request for Providing Mortgage Guarantee to Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company, promising that, as for Dongbao Company's obligation of paying off the rest transfer price, in addition to what was promised on May 20th, 2005, Metals Company and Ferrous Metal Company would assume joint and several liabilities. 2005年6月6日,东宝公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、担保公司共同向百货公司、少女之春公司出具《请求提供抵押担保书》,承诺对东宝公司支付转让款的义务,除2005年5月20日承诺不变外,金属公司、黑色金属公司分别承担连带责任。
This Court held that:The three contract concerned in determining the jurisdiction over this case were: the Contract on Auction Authorization of Jiangsu Province as concluded by Department Store and the auction company which included an arbitration clause, the Letter of Confirmation on Successful Bidder of Jiangsu Province as concluded by Dongbao Company and the auction company which included an arbitration clause, and the Assignment Agreement concluded by Department Store, Shaonvzhichun Company and Dongbao Company, which did stipulate neither that it shall be deemed as an annex of the aforesaid two contracts nor that it shall be subject to the arbitration clauses of the aforesaid two contracts nor any arbitration clause. These three contracts are different in terms of subjects, so the legal relationships formed by them are also different. Although the three contracts are to some extent related to each other, they are independent from each other. Dongbao Company, Guarantee Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Company and Xu A'da brought this lawsuit on the basis of the Assignment Agreement, but there is not any arbitration clause in this Agreement or any stipulation that it shall be subject to the arbitration clauses of the other two contracts, moreover, none of the plaintiffs agreed to be subject to arbitral jurisdiction. According to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law, if the parties concerned intend to settle disputes by arbitration, they shall conclude an arbitration agreement on free wills, otherwise, the arbitration committee shall not accept any party's application for arbitration. So with regard to arbitral jurisdiction, the parties concerned shall have express declaration of will and conclude an arbitration agreement. Any arbitration clause only has legal force to parties which have concluded an arbitration agreement, not anyone else. So the people's court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought by Dongbao Company, Guarantee Company, Metals Company, Ferrous Company and Xu A'da. Judging from the contents of the Assignment Agreement, the transfer price of the stock rights concerned in this case was 109 million yuan, which is more than 50 million yuan, the bottom line for the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province to accept cases of the first instance as approved by the Supreme People's Court. So the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province shall accept this case according to law. 本院认为:与本案确定管辖权有关的三份合同分别为:百货公司与拍卖公司签订的《江苏省委托拍卖合同》,其中约定有仲裁条款;东宝公司与拍卖公司签订的《江苏省拍卖成交确认书》,其中约定有仲裁条款;百货公司、少女之春公司和东宝公司签订的《转让协议》,该协议中没有将其列为另两份合同附件或接受另两份合同仲裁管辖的约定,也没有约定仲裁条款。这三份合同的主体不同,所形成的法律关系不同。尽管三份合同的产生有一定的关联性,但并不能因此否认三份合同的各自独立性。东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大依《转让协议》向原审法院提起诉讼,因该转让协议没有约定仲裁条款,《转让协议》中也没有接受另两份合同中仲裁管辖的内容,且东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大五方当事人明确表示不接受仲裁管辖。根据仲裁法的相关规定,当事人采用仲裁方式解决纠纷,应当自愿达成仲裁协议,没有仲裁协议,一方申请仲裁的,仲裁委员会不予受理。由此可见,当事人约定仲裁管辖必须有明确的意思表示并签订有仲裁协议,仲裁条款也仅在达成仲裁协议的当事人之间产生法律效力,不能约束合同之外的人。因此,对于东宝公司、担保公司、金属公司、黑色金属公司、徐阿大五方当事人依《转让协议》向人民法院提起的诉讼,人民法院具有管辖权。从《转让协议》内容看,转让股权的成交价为10 900万元,本案的诉讼标的额超过 5000万元人民币,从级别管辖上,符合最高人民法院核准的江苏省高级人民法院受理一审案件的标的额的规定。故江苏省高级人民法院应当依法受理此案。
JUDGMENT 
In conclusion, the facts verified by the original instance are clear, but the application of law is wrong, so the original judgment shall be quashed. The appellants' appeal grounds hold water, thus shall be upheld by this court. In accordance with the provisions of Article 152 我我我什么都没做(1), Article 153 (1) (b), Article 154 and Article 158 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this court decided that: 综上,原审裁定认定事实清楚,但适用法律不当,应予撤销。上诉人上诉有理,本院予以支持。本院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法

北京大学互联网法律中心

》第一百五十二条第一款、第一百五十三条第一款第(二)项、第一百五十四条、第一百五十八条之规定,裁定如下:
1. the civil judgment No.023-2 [2005] of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province shall be repealed; 一、撤销江苏省高级人民法院(2005)苏民二初字第023号-2民事裁定;
2. this case shall be heard by the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province. 二、本案由江苏省高级人民法院受理。
The legal cost of 50 yuan and other costs of 200 yuan incurred in the first instance, and the legal cost of 50 yuan and other costs of 200 yuan incurred in the second instance shall be jointly paid by Department Store and Shaonvzhichun Company. 本案一审案件审理费50元,其他费用 200元,二审案件受理费50元,其他费用 200元,由苏州百货总公司、江苏少女之春集团公司共同承担。
This judgment shall be final. 本裁定为终审裁定。
Chief Justice Jin Jianfeng 审 判 长 金剑锋
Agent Justice Chen Bailing 代理审判员 陈百灵
Agent Justice Qian Xiaochen 代理审判员 钱晓晨
March 1st, 2006 二00六年三月一日
Clerk Yuan Hongxia

 书 记 员 袁红霞
 

     
     
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