Pudong Branch of China Construction Bank v. China National Export Bases Development Corporation, et al
(Dispute over Loan Contract)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
Where the signature of a party and the company seal affixed on adisputed contract is assessed as counterfeit by forensic examination, and neitherthe evidence provided by the parties nor that collected by the people's court canprove that the counterfeited seal was affixed by the party or by its authorization,that the party is aware of the existence of the disputed contract without expressobjection, or that the party used the counterfeited seal in other businessactivities or was aware of the use of the counterfeited seal by others without expressobjection, the disputed contract shall not be held or inferred to as theexpression of true intention of such party. @#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#
No. 155 (2001)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant of the first instance): China National Export Bases Development Corporation, domiciled at Buildings 16-17, Area No. 3, Fangxing Community, Fangzhuang, Fengtai District, Beijing City.@#
Legal Representative: Xue Zhao, board chairman of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhao Zihe, employee of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Pan Xiuping, lawyer of Beijing Haituo Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff of the first instance): China Construction Bank, Shanghai Pudong Branch, domiciled at No. 201, Yincheng East Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai City.@#
Person-in-charge: Xie Ping, president of the Bank.@#
Authorized Agent: Huang Xiang, employee of the Bank.@#
Authorized Agent: Ye Hangsheng, lawyer of Shanghai Guangting Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant of the first instance): Shanghai Zhongyi International Trade Development Limited Liability Company, domiciled at No. 120, Laoshan West Road, Pudong, Shanghai City.@#
Legal Representative: Wang Tianjue, general manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Guan Xiaowei, employee of Zhongyi International Group Limited Liability Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Han Fangsheng, employee of Zhongyi International Group Limited Liability Company.@#
With regard to the case under the dispute with China Construction Bank, Shanghai Pudong Branch (the appellee, hereinafter referred to as Pudong Branch of CCB) and Shanghai Zhongyi International Trade Development Limited Liability Company (the appellee, hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Zhongyi Company) over a loan contract, China National Export Bases Development Corporation (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as CNEBDC) was dissatisfied with the No. 2 (2001) civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Higher Court), and appealed to the present court. The present court formed a collegial panel according to the provisions of law, composed of Jiang Wei as the presiding judge, Qian Xiaochen and Yang Zhengyu as acting judges, and then heard the case. Zhang Ruihua was the court clerk to make the records. The case has now been finalized.@#
It was verified by Shanghai Higher Court that: (1) On August 19, 1996, Pudong Branch of CCB and Shanghai Zhongyi Company concluded a foreign exchange loan contract, setting forth the following: Pudong Branch of CCB shall provide Shanghai Zhongyi Company with USD 4.5 million of working capital loans, with the term of loans commencing on August 19, 1996 and expiring on August 18, 1997; the annual interest rate of the loans shall be the one-year-based foreign exchange working capital loan interest rate of China Construction Bank, floating by every six months; March 20, June 20, September 20 and December 20 in each year shall be the dates for payment of interest; if Shanghai Zhongyi Company fails to repay any sum of due loan under the contract as agreed upon between both parties, Pudong Branch of CCB shall be entitled to receive interest on the overdue part of loans from Shanghai Zhongyi Company, calculated from the date of occurrence of the amount payable to the date of actual payment, with the interest rate at 1.3 times the contractual loan interest rate (which refers to the loan interest rate at the time of overdue repayment). On the day when the contract was concluded, Pudong Branch of CCB transferred USD 4.5 million into Shanghai Zhongyi Company's account pursuant to the contract. After that, Shanghai Zhongyi Company paid Pudong Branch of CCB the interest calculated from the date of borrowing the loans to December 23, 1996, and USD 120,000 of interest on January 25, 1998, but has defaulted the remaining amount until the present. By January 20, 1998, Shanghai Zhongyi Company still owed USD 4.5 million of principal and USD 307,330.08 of interest (including interest within the term and the overdue interest) to Pudong Branch of CCB. (2) CNEBDC issued an “Irrevocable Letter of Guaranty” to Pudong Branch of CCB regarding the loans in dispute. The letter of guaranty stated that: the guaranteed amount shall be USD 4.5 million and the interest and relevant expenses under the loans; CNEBDC guarantees to repay the principal and interest of the total or partial due loans under the loan contract which Shanghai Zhongyi Company fails to repay on time, and the relevant expenses as well, and guarantees to, within 14 days as of receipt of the written notice of Pudong Branch of CCB, repay the principal and interest of loans and the expenses on behalf of Shanghai Zhongyi Company; the letter of guaranty shall be a kind of suretyship of continuous guaranty and indemnity, which shall become effective on the date of conclusion and expire until the guaranteed amount has been totally repaid by Shanghai Zhongyi Company or CNEBDC. The letter of guaranty was affixed with Xue Zhao's personal seal and CNEBDC's company seal. (3) CNEBDC's company seal affixed on the said letter of guaranty was not consistent with the company seal specimen reserved by CNEBDC in the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for archival filing. (4) Shanghai Zhongyi Company was established with joint investments of CNEBDC and Zhongyi International Economic Group Limited Liability Company (a party not involved in the present case, hereinafter referred to as Zhongyi Group) in 1995. When going through the procedures for establishment registration of Shanghai Zhongyi Company, CNEBDC was one of the investment shareholders, and used the seal of guaranty in question in several positions in the relevant establishment registration materials submitted to the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Pudong New Area, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Pudong AIC). In addition, CNEBDC also used the seal of guaranty in question in two sums of package loans borrowed from International Nederland Group, Shanghai Branch (hereinafter referred to as ING Bank).@#
．．．．．． | | 建行浦东分行诉中基公司等借款合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
有争议的合同文本经司法鉴定认定，一方当事人的签名系伪造，印章系变造，且经当事人举证和人民法院查证，均不能证明变造的印章为该当事人自己加盖或授意他人加盖，也不能证明该当事人有明知争议合同文本的存在而不予否认、或者在其他业务活动中使用过变造印章、或者明知他人使用变造印章而不予否认等情形，故不能认定或推定争议合同文本为该当事人真实意思的表示。@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2001)民二终字第155号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告)：中国出口商品基地建设总公司。住所地：北京市丰台区方庄芳星园三区16—17号楼。@#
法定代表人：薛钊，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：赵子鹤，该公司职员。@#
委托代理人：潘修平，北京市海拓律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审原告)：中国建设银行上海市浦东分行。住所地：上海市浦东新区银城东路201号。@#
负责人：谢平，该行行长。@#
委托代理人：黄翔，该行职员。@#
委托代理人：叶杭生，上海市广庭律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告)：上海中益国际贸易发展有限公司。住所地：上海市浦东崂山西路120号。@#
法定代表人：王天觉，该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人：管晓伟，中益国际集团有限责任公司职员。@#
委托代理人：韩方生，中益国际集团有限责任公司职员。@#
上诉人中国出口商品基地建设总公司为与被上诉人中国建设银行上海市浦东分行、上海中益国际贸易发展有限公司借款合同纠纷一案，不服上海市高级人民法院(2001)沪高经重字第2号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员姜伟担任审判长，代理审判员钱晓晨、杨征宇参加的合议庭进行了审理。书记员张锐华担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
原审法院查明：1．1996年8月19日，中国建设银行上海市浦东分行(以下简称建行浦东分行)与上海中益国际贸易发展有限公司(以下简称上海中益公司)签订一份外汇借款合同。约定：由建行浦东分行向上海中益公司提供流动资金贷款450万美元；贷款期限自1996年8月19日起至1997年8月18日止；贷款年利率为中国建设银行一年期外汇流动资金贷款利率，按六个月浮动；每年3月20日、6月20日、9月20日、12月20日为付息日；若上海中益公司不能按约偿还该合同项下的任何到期款项，则建行浦东分行将向上海中益公司就逾期款项部分，从应付之日起到实际支付之日止计收逾期利息，利率为该合同贷款利率(指逾期发生时的贷款利率)的1．3倍。当日，建行浦东分行依约将450万美元划入上海中益公司帐户。嗣后，上海中益公司除向建行浦东分行支付自借款日至1996年12月23日止的利息和于1998年1月25日，又支付利息12万美元外，余款拖欠至今。截止1998年1月20日，上海中益公司尚欠建行浦东分行本金450万美元、利息(包括期内息和逾期息)307330．08美元。2．中国出口商品基地建设总公司(以下简称中基公司)为本案系争贷款向建行浦东分行出具《不可撤销担保书》一份。该担保书载明，担保金额为450万美元以及贷款项下所发生的利息和相关费用；中基公司保证归还上海中益公司在借款合同项下不按期偿还的全部或部分到期借款本息及相关费用，并保证在接到建行浦东分行的书面通知后14日内代为偿还上海中益公司所欠借款本息和费用；该担保书是一种连续担保和赔偿的保证，自签订日起生效，直至担保金额已由上海中益公司或中基公司全部偿还为止。该担保书上有薛钊的签章并且加盖有中基公司的公章。3．上述担保书上所盖的中基公司公章与中基公司预留在国家工商局备案的公章印文样式不相一致。4．上海中益公司系中基公司与案外人中益国际经济集团有限责任公司(以下简称中益集团)于1995年共同投资设立。在办理上海中益公司设立登记手续时，中基公司作为投资股东之一，在向上海市浦东新区工商行政管理局(以下简称浦东工商局)递交的有关设立登记材料上多处使用了本案系争担保章。另外，中基公司在荷兰商业银行上海分行(以下简称荷兰银行)的两笔打包贷款业务中亦使用了本案系争担保章。@#
为了追索欠款，建行浦东分行于1998年2月28日向上海市高级人民法院提起诉讼，要求上海中益公司偿还全部借款本息，并根据不可撤销的担保书的约定要求中基公司对上述债务承担连带担保责任。上海市高级人民法院受理后，于1999年3月10日作出(1998)沪高经初字第10号民事判决，判令上海中益公司归还建行浦东分行450万美元借款本息，中基公司对此债务承担连带清偿责任。中基公司不服该民事判决，向本院提起上诉，本院受理后，于2001年2月3日作出(1999)经终字第179号民事裁定，认为上海市高级人民法院(1998)沪高经初字第10号民事判决认定事实不清，证据不足，裁定将本案发回上海市高级人民法院重审。@#
@#
上海市高级人民法院经重审认为，本案系借款合同纠纷，建行浦东分行与上海中益公司签订的外汇借款合同合法有效，双方均应按约履行。建行浦东分行依约向上海中益公司放贷后，上海中益公司未能依约还本付息，显属违约，理应承担相应民事责任。上海中益公司有关减免该公司就本案贷款利息部分所应承担的责任的辩称因缺乏法律依据，不予支持。本案所涉担保书上所盖的公章虽与中基公司预留在国家工商行政管理局的公章印文不相一致，但因中基公司在其他的业务活动中亦多次使用了该公章，故应认定中基公司对该公章是认可的，为本案系争贷款提供担保是中基公司的真实意思表示。中基公司作为本案系争贷款的保证人亦应按约承担相应的保证责任。鉴于本案所涉担保书对保证方式约定不明，故中基公司应按连带责任保证承担保证责任。中基公司承担保证责任后，依法有权向上海中益公司追偿。上海中益公司有关该公司从未请中基公司为本案系争贷款提供担保的辩称主张以及上海中益公司与中基公司有关本案所涉担保书上的公章系邬小平用其变造的中基公司公章所盖的辩称，缺乏事实依据，该院不予采信。经该院审判委员会讨论决定，依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十四条、《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第四十条第二款和《中华人民共和国担保法
．．．．．． |