Hebei Shengda Yongqiang New Building Material Co., Ltd. v. Tianjin Branch of China CITIC Bank Corporation Limited and Hebei Baoshuo Co., Ltd.
(A case of disputes over banker's acceptance bill)@#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#
No. 35 [2007], Civil Division II, Final@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant in the Original Instance): Hebei Shengda Yongqiang New Building Material Co., Ltd., located at 19 Yunshan Road, High and New Tech Industrial Development Zone of Baoding, Hebei Province.@#
Legal Representative: Zhou Sheng, chairman of Board of Directors of the company.@#
Attorney: Jiang Kejian, employee of the company.@#
Attorney: Zhou Weiqiang, employee of the company.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Tianjin Branch of China CITIC Bank Corporation Limited, located at 14 Nanjing Road, Hexi District, Tianjin.@#
Person in Charge: Guo Danghuai, governor of the branch.@#
Attorney: Feng Minshi, employee of the branch.@#
Attorney: Shen Yongxi, lawyer of Tianjin Jiabang Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Hebei Baoshuo Co., Ltd., located at 175 Chaoyang Beilu, High and New Tech Industrial Development Zone of Baoding, Hebei Province.@#
Legal Representative: administrator of Hebei Baoshuo Co., Ltd.@#
Attorney: Xie Yuanxun, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.@#
For disputes over banker's acceptance bill with Tianjin Branch of China CITIC Bank Corporation Limited (“CITIC”) and Hebei Baoshuo Co., Ltd. (“Baoshuo Co.”), against the civil judgment, No.0035 [2006], Civil Division II, First Instance, of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin, Hebei Shengda Yongqiang New Building Material Co., Ltd. (“SDYQ Co.”) appealed to this Court. This Court legally formed a collegiate bench consisting of judge Qian Xiaochen as the presiding judge, deputy judge Liu Min and deputy judge Yang Zhengyu to try this case. Clerk Yuan Hongxia keeps the court records. So far, the trial of this case has been concluded.@#
Upon trial, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin found that: on October 27th, 2005, CITIC concluded a Cooperation Agreement on Warehouse Receipt Pledge Business (“Cooperation Agreement”) with SDYQ Co. and Baoshuo Co., under which it was agreed that: CITIC and SDYQ Co. should conclude an Agreement on Acceptance of Banker's Acceptance Bill, No. HC0418 [2005] Bank Acceptance (“Acceptance Agreement”). According to the Acceptance Agreement, CITIC should accept a banker's acceptance bill, No. 01053183-86, in an amount of 30.48 million yuan immediately after charging a deposit of 9.144 million yuan at a rate of 30% from Baoshuo Co., the term of the bill was from October 27, 2005 to April 27, 2006, and default interest should be paid at a rate of 6.786% for days overdue. According to Article 3 and Article 6 (3) of the Cooperation Agreement, Baoshuo Co. should assume a joint and several, irrevocable and unconditional guarantee liability for the above-mentioned Acceptance Agreement. After the bill became mature, SDYQ Co. failed to pay the remaining 70% of the acceptance amount, which was 21.336 million yuan, to CITIC as agreed on in the Acceptance Agreement, and Baoshuo Co. failed to assume its joint and several liability for guaranty as agreed on in the Cooperation Agreement, resulting in an overdue loan with the principal of 21.336 million yuan. After the deduction of interest on the deposit by CITIC, the remaining principal of the overdue loan was 21,252,199.69 yuan. On June 18th, 2006, CITIC brought a lawsuit in the Higher People's Court of Tianjin, requesting the court to order SDYQ Co. to repay the principal of 21,252,199.69 yuan and the corresponding default interest thereon until the date of actual repayment, order Baoshuo Co. to assume the joint and several liability for guaranty, and order SDYQ Co. and Baoshuo Co. to pay all the court costs, preservation fees, attorney's fees and other fees.@#
．．．．．．

河北胜达永强新型建材有限公司与中信银行股份有限公司天津分行、河北宝硕股份有限公司银行承兑汇票协议纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
《中华人民共和国合同法》第三十二条规定：“当事人采用合同书形式订立合同的，自双方当事人签字或者盖章时合同成立。”因此，当事人在合同书上的签字、盖章的效力，是表明合同内容为当事人的真实意思表示，当事人据此享有合同权利、履行合同义务。同时，当事人在合同书上的签字、盖章，还具有使合同相对人确信交易对方，从而确定合同当事人的作用。@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2007)民二终字第35号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告)：河北胜达永强新型建材有限公司。住所地：河北省保定市高新区云杉路19号。@#
法定代表人：周胜，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：蒋克建，该公司职员。@#
委托代理人：周卫强，该公司职员。@#
被上诉人(原审原告)：中信银行股份有限公司天津分行。住所地：天津市河西区南京路14号。@#
负责人：郭党怀，该行行长。@#
委托代理人：冯民石，该行职员。@#
委托代理人：沈永熙，天津嘉邦律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告)：河北宝硕股份有限公司。住所地：河北省保定市国家高新技术产业开发区朝阳北路175号。@#
法定代表人：河北宝硕股份有限公司管理人。@#
委托代理人：谢元勋，北京市金杜律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人河北胜达永强新型建材有限公司(以下简称胜达永强公司)因与被上诉人中信银行股份有限公司天津分行(以下简称中信银行)、河北宝硕股份有限公司(以下简称宝硕公司)银行承兑汇票协议纠纷一案，不服天津市高级人民法院(2006)津高民二初字第0035号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员钱晓晨担任审判长，代理审判员刘敏、杨征宇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。@#
天津市高级人民法院审理查明：2005年10月27日中信银行与胜达永强公司、 宝硕公司三方签订《保兑仓业务合作协议书》(以下简称合作协议)约定：中信银行与胜达永强公司签订编号为(2005)银承字第 HC0418号《银行承兑汇票承兑协议》(以下简称承兑协议)。根据承兑协议的约定中信银行在收取了宝硕公司30％计人民币 914．4万元保证金后，即对01053183-86号金额为人民币3048万元的银行承兑汇票予以承兑，票据期限为2005年10月27日至2006年4月27日，逾期按6．786％计收罚息。根据合作协议第三条及第六条第三款之约定，宝硕公司为上述承兑协议提供连带的、不可撤销的、五条件的保证责任。票据到期后，胜达永强公司未按照承兑协议的约定向中信银行支付剩余70％的票款计人民币2133．6万元，宝硕公司亦未履行合作协议约定的连带保证付款责任，形成本金为人民币2133．6万元的逾期贷款。前述逾期贷款中信银行在扣收保证金利息后尚余本金人民币21 252 199．69元。中信银行于2006年6月18日向天津市高级人民法院提起诉讼，请求判令胜达永强公司偿还本金人民币21 252 199．69元，及至实际给付之日止的相应罚息，宝硕公司承担连带保证责任，本案诉讼费、保全费、律师费及其他费用由胜达永强公司和宝硕公司承担。@#
@#
天津市高级人民法院认为：涉案之合作协议、承兑协议均系当事人的真实意思表示，且不违反法律的相关规定，依法应认定有效。中信银行依约履行出票放款义务，但票据到期后，胜达永强公司未履行还款义务，宝硕公司也未履行相应的保证责任，属于违约行为，应承担违约责任。胜达永强公司向该院提交的宝硕公司向其出具的《承诺》、《关于以“保兑仓”形式融资的承诺》虽然约定因融资产生的一切法律责任由宝硕公司承担，但胜达永强公司与宝硕公司双方当事人之间的约定，不产生对外的效力，胜达永强公司不能以此主张免除其对中信银行的还款责任。综上，该院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条；《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零八条、第一百一十一条；《中华人民共和国担保法》第十八条之规定，缺席判决：一、胜达永强公司于判决生效10日内偿还所欠中信银行01053183-86号银行承兑汇票项下形成的逾期贷款本金计人民币 21 252 199．69元及该款自票据到期日至判决给付之日止的罚息(按合同约定执行)，逾期按《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十二条的规定执行。二、宝硕公司对上述给付事项承担连带保证责任。案件受理费人民币116 271元，诉讼保全费人民币106 781元，由胜达永强公司承担。该两笔费用已由中信银行预交，该院不再退回，由胜达永强公司执行中给付中信银行，宝硕公司承担连带给付责任。@#
．．．．．．