>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company v. Liaoning Huaxi Group Corporation (Case on Appeal of Dispute over Loan Guaranty)
中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处诉辽宁华曦集团公司等借款担保纠纷上诉案
【法宝引证码】

Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company v. Liaoning Huaxi Group Corporation (Case on Appeal of Dispute over Loan Guaranty)
(Case on Appeal of Dispute over Loan Guaranty)
中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处诉辽宁华曦集团公司等借款担保纠纷上诉案

Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company v. Liaoning Huaxi Group Corporation
(Case on Appeal of Dispute over Loan Guaranty)@#
Supreme People's Court@#
Civil Judgment@#
No. 93[2003] of the Second Civil Tribunal@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant: Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company. Address: No.9, Yan'an Road of Zhongshan District, Dalian, Liaoning Province@#
Person in charge: Zhu Shanyun, General Manager of the Office@#
Entrusted Agent: Li Long, Attorney at Law of Liaoning Hengxin Law Firm@#
Appellee: Liaoning Huaxi Group Corporation. Address: No.95 of Renmin Road, Zhongshan District, Dalian, Liaoning Province@#
Legal Representative: Wei Wei, Director of the Board of the Corporation@#
Entrusted Agent: Zheng Shengnan, Employee of the Corporation@#
Appellee: Liaoning Times Group Co., Ltd.. Address: No.7 of Gangwan Street, Zhongshan District, Dalian, Liaoning Province@#
Legal Representative: Fan Xiaoyuan, Director of the Board of Liaoning Times Group Co., Ltd.@#
Entrusted Agent: Sun Yantao, Attorney at Law of Liaoning Huaxuan Law Firm.@#
Appellee: Liaoning Animal Products Import & Export Company. Address: No.95 of Renmin Road, Zhongshang District, Dalian@#
Legal Representative: Wang Yupeng, General Manager of the Company.@#
Entrusted Agent: Fu Yuling, Employee of the Company.@#
The appellant Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company was dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment No.70 [2002] of No.3 Civil Tribunal of the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province on the case of dispute over loan guaranty between the appellant and Liaoning Huaxi Group Corporation, Liaoning Times Group Co., Ltd., and Liaoning Animal Products Import & Export Company, and appealed to this Court. This Court held an open session on August 26, 2003 to hear this case by forming a collegial bench with Jiang Bixin acting as the presiding judge, and Song Xiaoming and Cao Shibing as judges, and clerk Xia Dongxia made the court trial transcripts. The trial of this case has now been concluded.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The court of original trial ascertained that: On January 14, 1995, Liaoning Animal Products Import & Export Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Animal Products Company”) and Liaoning Branch of the Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as “Provincial Bank of China”) concluded a foreign exchange loan contract No.95001, which stipulated that: The loan is a foreign exchange loan for circulation funds of USD 2,000,000 and shall be used for importing mink skin and fox skin to process clothes for exporting; and the loan interest rate shall apply the interest rate of foreign exchange loan for circulation funds, and go up 10% with the loan term of six months. On January 4 of the same year, Liaoning Garment Import & Export Company (The predecessor of Liaoning Times Group Co., Ltd.), which, as a guarantor, issued irrevocable letter of guarantee to the Provincial Bank of China. It committed in the letter of guarantee that: This letter of guarantee was an unconditional and irrevocable letter of guarantee for the purpose of guaranteeing the loan amount USD 2,000,000 or the RMB equal to USD 2,000,000 and the interests and expenses occurred under the loan. It guaranteed the repayment of part or all of the principal and interests due, and unpaid on time by the borrower under the loan contract No. 95001, and the guarantor agreed to repay the principal and interests of the loan owed by the borrower as an agent within 14 days after receiving the written notice of the Provincial Bank of China. This letter of guarantee was a type of surety for continuous guarantee and indemnity, and should not be affected by the instructions of the upper level organs received by the borrower or any agreement or document signed by the borrower or any entity. This letter of guarantee should take effect from the day when it was signed, and should be invalid automatically till the borrower had paid off all the principal and expenses it owed. After the contract was concluded, the Provincial Bank of China extended the loan USD 830,577.69 and USD 1,169,422.31, which totaled to USD 2,000,000 to the Animal Products Company respectively on January 16 and 23, 1995. The Animal Products Company repaid USD 1,500,000 by two sums of USD 1,169,422.31 and USD 340,692.60 respectively under the loan contract No.94010 on January 23, 1995. On October 28, 1997, Animal Products Company and the Provincial Bank of China concluded a loan contract No. 97000538 of Liaoning Branch of the Bank of China, stipulating that: The loan is a type of loan of special foreign trade enterprise, and the loan amount is 25,200,000 yuan; and the loan shall be used for purchase of export commodities; the interest rate shall be 9.504% annually; the loan term shall begin from October 28, 1997 till September 28, 1998. After the contract was concluded, the Provincial Bank of China performed the agreed-upon contractual obligations, and transferred the 25,200,000 yuan to the account of Animal Products Company on October 28, 1997. After the loan contract expired, the Animal Products Company failed to repay the arrears on time, and the Provincial Bank of China sent a notice of abandonment to the Animal Products Company on August 31, 1999 and September 13, 1999 respectively, and Animal Products Company sealed in the notice of abandonment for confirmation respectively. On May 31, 2000, the Provincial Bank of China and the Dalian Office of China Oriental Assets Management Company (hereinafter referred to as the Oriental Company) concluded an agreement on assignment of creditor's claims, stipulating to transfer to the Oriental Company the creditor's claims of the Provincial Bank of China-loan principal 223,750,000 yuan, USD 3,996,901.50 and the interests receivable to the Animal Products Company. On the same day, the Provincial Bank of China sent a notice for assignment of creditor's claims to the Animal Products Company. The Animal Products Company sealed for confirmation after receiving the said notice. On September 29, 2001, Oriental Company published an announcement in Liaoning Daily urging the repayment of the loans to all the debtors to whom the creditor's rights were assigned and to the guarantors.@#
......

 

中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处诉辽宁华曦集团公司等借款担保纠纷上诉案@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2003)民二终字第93号@#
@#
上诉人:中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处。住所地:辽宁省大连市中山区延安路9号。@#
负责人:朱善运,该办事处总经理。@#
委托代理人:李龙,辽宁恒信律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人:辽宁华曦集团公司。住所地:辽宁省大连市中山区人民路95号。@#
法定代表人:韦玮,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:郑胜男,该公司职员。@#
被上诉人:辽宁时代集团有限责任公司。住所地:辽宁省大连市中山区港湾街7号。@#
法定代表人:范晓远,该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人:孙延涛,辽宁华轩律师事务所律师,@#
被上诉人:辽宁省畜产进出口公司。住所地:大连市中山区人民路95号。@#
法定代表人:王玉鹏,该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人:付玉玲,该公司职员。@#
上诉人中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处为与被上诉人辽宁华曦集团公司、辽宁时代集团有限责任公司、辽宁省畜产进出口公司借款担保纠纷一案,不服辽宁省高级人民法院(2002)辽民三初字第70号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员江必新担任审判长,审判员宋晓明、曹士兵参加的合议庭,于2003年8月26日对本案进行了公开开庭审理,书记员夏东霞担任记录。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
原审法院查明:1995年1月14日,辽宁省畜产进出口公司(以下简称畜产公司)与中国银行辽宁省分行(以下简称省中行)签订一份编号为汇流字第95001号的外汇借款合同。合同约定:借款金额为外汇流动资金贷款2000000美元;借款用途为进口水貂皮和狐狸皮加工出口服装;借款利率执行中国银行公布的外汇流动资金贷款利率,并上浮10%;借款期限为六个月。同年1月4日,辽宁省服装进出口公司(即辽宁时代集团有限责任公司的前身)作为担保人,向省中行出具不可撤销担保书。担保书承诺:本保证书为无条件不可撤销的保证书,担保金额为2000000美元或相应于2000000美元的人民币和贷款项下所发生的借款利息和费用;本保证书保证归还借款方在汇流字第95001号借款合同项下不按期偿还的全部或部分到期借款本息,并同意在接到省中行书面通知后十四天内代为偿还借款方所欠借款本息;本保证书是一种连续担保和赔偿的保证,不受借款方接受上级指令和借款方与任何单位签订的任何协议、文件的影响;本保证书自签订之日起生效,至还清借款方所欠全部本息和费用时自动失效。合同签订后,省中行于1995年1月16日、同月23日分别向畜产公司发放贷款830577.69美元和1169422.31美元,合计2000000美元。畜产公司于1995年1月23日,用1169422.31美元、340692.60美元,分两笔偿还了编号为94010号借款合同项下的1500000美元。1997年10月28日,畜产公司与省中行签订一份编号为辽中银贷字97000538号借款合同。合同约定:借款种类为专业外贸企业贷款;借款金额为25200000元人民币;借款用途为出口商品收购;利率为年息9.504%;借款期限自1997年10月28日起至1998年9月28日止。合同签订后,省中行依约履行了合同义务,于1997年10月28日将25200000元人民币转到畜产公司帐户。借款合同到期后,畜产公司没有如期偿还欠款;省中行于1999年8月31日、1999年9月13日分别向畜产公司发出催收贷款通知书,畜产公司分别在催收贷款通知书上盖章确认。2000年5月31日,省中行与中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处(以下简称东方公司)签订债权转让协议,约定将省中行对畜产公司的贷款本金223750000元人民币、3996901.50美元及应收利息的债权,转让给东方公司。同日,省中行向畜产公司发出债权转让通知。畜产公司收到债权转让通知后,盖章予以确认。2001年9月29日,东方公司在辽宁日报上登发公告,向其受让债权的所有债务人和担保人发出催收公告。@#
原审另查明,1993年9月8日,畜产公司作为组建单位,向辽宁省工商行政管理局申请成立辽宁华曦集团公司(以下简称华曦集团)。该公司章程中明确,华曦集团系原辽宁省畜产进出口公司改建的以公有制为主体的外向型的国有综合商社型企业,畜产公司是华曦集团的核心企业。@#
2002年8月8日,东方公司向辽宁省高级人民法院提起诉讼,请求判令债务人畜产公司承担偿还贷款本金及利息的法律责任,判令时代公司承担偿还95001号借款合同项下贷款本金及利息的担保责任,并以畜产公司以全部资产投入华曦集团,畜产公司实际名存实亡为理由,请求判令华曦集团对畜产公司的债务承担法律责任。@#
原审法院审理认为:畜产公司与省中行签订的借款合同、时代公司出具的不可撤销担保书、省中行与东方公司签订的债权转让协议均是当事人的真实意思表示,并且不违反法律法规的强制性规定,合法有效。畜产公司应按两份借款合同的约定,偿还东方公司的欠款。95001号借款合同是担保法生效前签订的,其履行期为半年,时代公司的担保函中对保证期间的约定是“自签订之日起生效,至还清借款方所欠全部本息和费用时自动失效”,根据最高人民法院的有关司法解释,应视为保证期间约定不明,而保证期间约定不明的,保证人应当在被保证人承担责任的期限内承担责任,该保证期间为诉讼时效内的两年,其性质应属除斥期间。无论诉讼时效是否中断、中止,只要债权人在主合同履行期间届满后的两年内未向保证人主张权利的,保证人即可免责。本案中,95001号合同的履行期为半年,即到1995年7月14日到期,债权人省中行应在1997年7月14日前向保证人时代公司主张权利,而债权人东方公司是在2001年9月29日通过在辽宁日报上发布公告向担保人主张权利的,已大大超出了保证期间。按规定,保证人时代公司应当免责。95001号借款合同于1995年7月14日到期,债务人畜产公司于1995年6月15日至1996年7月31日分别偿还省中行五笔贷款利息,因此,主债务的诉讼时效应从1996年8月1日起算,到1998年7月31日届满。而省中行是在1999年8月31日、1999年9月13日向畜产公司发出催收贷款通知书,已经超过诉讼时效期间,畜产公司在催收通知书上盖章确认,依最高人民法院法释(1999)7号批复的规定,应视为畜产公司对原债务的重新确认。最高人民法院(2002)年144号通知规定,对于当事人在担保法生效前签订的保证合同中没有约定保证期限或约定不明的,如果主债务没有超过诉讼时效期间,债权人未向保证人主张权利的,债权人可以自本通知下发之日起六个月内向保证人主张权利。而本案中,主债务已经超过诉讼时效,债务人畜产公司在超过诉讼时效后,又对债权人的债权重新确认,是债务人畜产公司对自己权利的一种处分,与担保人时代公司无关。在主债务诉讼时效已经届满后,债权人与债务人又重新对原债务进行了确认的,由于原主债务曾超过了诉讼时效,根据法发(1994)8号文件的有关规定,此时,除非保证人又明确表示为确认后的主债务提供保证,否则保证人不再承担保证责任。由于时代公司没有明确表示为东方公司与畜产公司重新确认后的主债务提供保证,因此保证人时代公司不再承担保证责任。时代公司的抗辩理由有理,应予以支持。华曦集团虽然是畜产公司申请组建的,但其与畜产公司都是作为独立的企业法人存在。畜产公司是在华曦集团成立后,与省中行签订的借款合同,形成的债权债务关系,畜产公司的债务系其独立的企业行为造成的,与华曦集团无关,因此,应由畜产公司对其债务承担偿还责任。虽然华曦集团于1995年7月7日以自己名义向省中行外汇信贷处提出《关于美元贷款展期的申请》,但是该申请未得到省中行的同意,并且单凭此申请也无法认定华曦集团取代畜产公司借款人的地位。畜产公司既是签约主体,又是合同履行主体,省中行和东方公司也一直向畜产公司主张权利,而没有向华曦集团主张权利。依工商登记,华曦集团与畜产公司都是独立的企业法人,并且没有证据证明华曦集团承接了畜产公司的债权债务,畜产公司作为独立的企业法人仍然存在,因此,华曦集团不应对畜产公司的债务承担责任。综上,该院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十条最高人民法院《关于审理经济合同纠纷案件有关保证的若干问题的规定》第二十九条的规定作出如下判决:一、被告辽宁省畜产进出口公司于该判决生效后十五日内,偿还原告中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处欠款2000000美元及截止2000年5月31日的利息623386.17美元(2000年6月1日起至付清之日止的罚息,按中国人民银行同期逾期付款罚息标准计付);二、被告辽宁省畜产进出口公司于该判决生效后十五日内,偿还原告中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处欠款25200000元人民币及截止2000年5月31日的利息14559358.88元人民币(2000年6月1日起至付清之日止的罚息,按中国人民银行同期逾期付款罚息标准计付);三、驳回原告中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处要求被告辽宁时代集团有限责任公司对被告辽宁省畜产进出口公司2000000美元及利息的债务承担连带清偿责任的诉讼请求;四、驳回原告中国东方资产管理公司大连办事处对被告辽宁华曦集团公司的诉讼请求。案件受理费、保全费减半收取,案件受理费158640元、保全费152760,共311400元,由被告辽宁省畜产进出口公司承担。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥800.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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