>>>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
 
Nantong Shuangying Trading Co. Ltd. v. Lianda Machinery Plant in Dantu District of Zhenjiang City, Wei Hengnie and Other Five Persons (case concerning sales contract dispute)
南通双盈贸易有限公司诉镇江市丹徒区联达机械厂、魏恒聂等六人买卖合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Nantong Shuangying Trading Co. Ltd. v. Lianda Machinery Plant in Dantu District of Zhenjiang City, Wei Hengnie and Other Five Persons (case concerning sales contract dispute)
(case concerning sales contract dispute)
南通双盈贸易有限公司诉镇江市丹徒区联达机械厂、魏恒聂等六人买卖合同纠纷案

Nantong Shuangying Trading Co. Ltd. v. Lianda Machinery Plant in Dantu District of Zhenjiang City, Wei Hengnie and Other Five Persons
(A case concerning sales contract dispute)

 

南通双盈贸易有限公司诉镇江市丹徒区联达机械厂、魏恒聂等六人买卖合同纠纷案

[Summary] [裁判摘要]
1. When the parties involved agree that a partnership enterprise will continue to utilize its original business license obtained as a sole proprietorship but it is actually operated in the form of partnership, the nature of this enterprise shall be determined based on its actual nature. Where partners jointly make decisions regarding production and operating activities of the enterprise, they shall also jointly assume liabilities for the debts of the enterprise incurred during its production and business operation. The partners may not avoid assuming liabilities by intentionally not changing the nature of the enterprise from a sole proprietorship into a partnership. 一、在当事人约定合伙经营企业仍使用合资前个人独资企业营业执照,且实际以合伙方式经营企业的情况下,应据实认定企业的性质。各合伙人共同决定企业的生产经营活动,也应共同对企业生产经营过程中对外所负的债务负责。合伙人故意不将企业的个人独资企业性质据实变更为合伙企业的行为,不应成为各合伙人不承担法律责任的理由。
2. Debts of a partnership enterprise shall be borne at two levels: the partnership enterprise assumes liabilities for its debts in the first stage, and all partners assume liabilities for its debts in the second stage. The “joint liabilities” mentioned in Article 39 of the Partnership Enterprise Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Partnership Enterprise Law”) refers to the joint liabilities assumed by partners in the second stage rather than those assumed by the partnership enterprise and the partners thereof. 二、合伙企业债务的承担分为两个层次:第一顺序的债务承担人是合伙企业,第二顺序的债务承担人是全体合伙人。合伙企业法三十九条所谓的“连带责任”,是指合伙人在第二顺序的责任承担中相互之间所负的连带责任,而非合伙人与合伙企业之间的连带责任。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Nantong Shuangying Trading Co. Ltd., domiciled at No. 23 Building of Ruifeng Garden, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province. 原告:南通双盈贸易有限公司。
Legal representative: Shi Jianjun, Chairman of Board of Directors of this Company. 法定代表人:石建军,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Lianda Machinery Plant in Dantu District of Zhenjiang City, domiciled at Gaozi Town, Dantu District, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:镇江市丹徒区联达机械厂。
Person-in-charge: Wei Hengnie, investor of this Plant. 负责人:魏恒聂,该厂投资人。
Defendant: Wei Hengnie, male, age 39, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at Gaozi Town, Dantu District, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:魏恒聂。
Defendant: Jiang Zhenwei, male, age 42, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at Shiqiao Town, Economic and Technological Development Zone, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:蒋振伟。
Defendant: Bian Yue, male, age 50, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at North Hanjiang Road, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:卞跃。
Defendant: Zhu Yongbing, male, age 40, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at Shiqiao Town, Economic and Technological Development Zone, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:祝永兵。
Defendant: Yin Hongxiang, male, age 35, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at Shiqiao Town, Economic and Technological Development Zone, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:尹宏祥。
Defendant: Hong Bin, male, age 38, of the Han ethnic group, domiciled at Chahe Sub-district, Hanjiang District, Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:洪彬。
Nantong Shuangying Trading Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shuangying Company”) filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province against Lianda Machinery Plant in Dantu District of Zhenjiang City (hereinafter referred to as Lianda Plant), Wei Hengnie, Jiang Zhenwei, Bian Yue, Zhu Yongbing, Yin Hongxiang, and Hong Bin regarding disputes over a sales contract. 南通双盈贸易有限公司(以下简称双盈公司)因与镇江市丹徒区联达机械厂(以下简称联达厂)、魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬发生买卖合同纠纷,向江苏省南通市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
...... 原告双盈公司诉称:被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬于2005年 12月开始合伙经营联达厂,合伙期限为10年。2006年10月3日,被告联达厂与双盈公司签订工矿产品购销合同一份,约定联达厂向双盈公司购买焦炭2000吨,单价为 1200元/吨,货到需方场地后一周内结清货款。合同签订后,双盈公司先后供给联达厂焦炭1636.625吨,总货款为1 821 038.65元,但联达厂仅给付部分货款,仍拖欠货款 1 213 785.95元。请求判令:联达厂、魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬共同给付货款1 213 785.95元,并承担逾期付款利息(自2006年12月15日起至判决确定的给付之日止按银行同期贷款利率计算)。
 被告卞跃辩称:本案中的焦炭买卖业务发生于原告双盈公司与被告联达厂之间,如联达厂的资产不足以清偿债务,该厂投资人被告魏恒聂应该以个人财产予以清偿。虽然被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃及祝永兵于2005年12月18日签订了合伙合同,但是该合伙合同并未实际履行,联达厂亦仍为个人独资企业。卞跃不是本案的适格主体,双盈公司要求卞跃等个人支付联达厂的欠款没有事实和法律依据,故请求驳回双盈公司的诉讼请求。
 被告联达厂、魏恒聂、蒋振伟、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬在一审中未应诉答辩。
 
 江苏省南通市中级人民法院一审查明:
 原告双盈公司与被告联达厂于2006年10月3日签订工矿产品购销合同一份,约定由双盈公司向联达厂提供焦炭2000吨,单价为1200元/吨,货到需方场地后一周内结清货款。合同签订后,双盈公司先后向联达厂供货1636.625吨,总货款为 1 821 038.65元。联达厂支付了部分货款,尚欠1 213 785.95元。2007年1月7日,联达厂向双盈公司出具欠条一份,载明“发票已全部收到,共计欠款1 213 785.95元”。
 此前,被告魏恒聂于2005年9月8日登记注册成立个人独资企业即被告联达厂,并领有营业执照。后来被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃及祝永兵于2005年12月18日签订合伙合同一份,约定:合伙人魏恒聂原独资经营的联达厂因扩建、改建需追加投资,现由魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵四人共同出资,合伙经营,变更为合伙经营企业;合伙人魏恒聂以位于镇江市丹徒区高资镇巢山村的部分厂房和土地作价15万元出资,土地上现有部分房屋将在合伙后拆除,原有企业的机器设备也将报废;蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵三人根据实际建房及购买设备需要出资;合伙后的企业名称仍为联达厂,仍使用原魏恒聂领取的联达厂营业执照,原个人独资企业营业执照自合伙合同签订之日起归合伙企业所有,原投资人魏恒聂不得再单独使用该营业执照;蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵的出资,用于新建厂房和购买机械设备,全部投资结束后,根据实际使用资金大家共同认可;魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵各占25%的比例分配;合伙债务先由合伙财产偿还,合伙财产不足清偿时,由各合伙人共同承担;合伙企业由魏恒聂负责生产及工人的管理,蒋振伟负责对外开展业务,对合伙企业进行日常管理和产品销售,卞跃负责财务,祝永兵负责采购。合伙合同签订后,联达厂购买了冶炼炉等设备进行技术改造,并向原告双盈公司购买焦炭用于生产。
 2006年12月23日,被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟、卞跃、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬又签订协议书一份,载明魏恒聂等六人按照约定出资成立联达厂,因正常生产进入困境,现就怎样解决该厂困境一事,协商达成一致意见:在10日内理清该厂自成立至该协议生效期间的所有账目;魏恒聂等六人一致同意全权委托魏恒聂将该厂对外承包,承包费用于偿还对外的债务和六人各自的投资;承包金额暂定最低每年50万元;该厂承包前对外的债权债务由魏恒聂负责处理,与其余五人无关。此后,联达厂将厂房、设备等租赁给他人使用。
 本案一审的争议焦点是:一、被告联达厂是否欠原告双盈公司货款;二、如联达厂欠货款,被告卞跃等个人应否向双盈公司承担责任。
 江苏省南通市中级人民法院一审认为:
 一、原告双盈公司已提供了购销合同、入库单、欠条等证据证明被告联达厂欠双盈公司货款未付,被告卞跃对该证据的真实性虽提出异议,但未能提供抗辩证据。相反,卞跃提供的被告魏恒聂的调查笔录能证明联达厂确欠双盈公司货款。其他被告均因不到庭而放弃了抗辩的权利。因此,对于双盈公司关于联达厂欠其货款 1 213 785.95元的主张,应予采信。
 二、原告双盈公司主张被告联达厂由被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟等人合伙经营,并提供了合伙合同、协议书等证据证明。双盈公司还认为,其提交的入库单中有被告祝永兵的签名,祝永兵正是按合伙合同中关于其负责采购的分工约定而在入库单中签名,由此说明合伙合同已实际履行。被告卞跃主张其虽签有合伙合同、协议书,但实际并未履行。原审法院认为,双盈公司提供的合伙合同等证据已能证明魏恒聂等人之间系合伙关系,卞跃提供的本案另三位被告的书面陈述,因其不到庭,对其真实性难以认定。即使卞跃及其他三位被告所作的陈述是真实的,其也只是提出投资未到位,而投资未到位只能说明未诚信履约,并不能产生如同解除合同或退伙、散伙等法律行为所产生的法律效果。相反,在后来魏恒聂、蒋振伟等的六人协议书中,却进一步明确了联达厂系六人出资成立的事实,并且六人还同意以该厂对外承包的费用来偿还对外债务及六人各自的投资。因此,对于双盈公司提出的联达厂系魏恒聂等人合伙经营的主张,应予采信。
 被告联达厂按工商登记仍为个人独资企业,但事实上已转为合伙企业,只是尚未也不想在工商部门进行变更登记,此有合伙人在合伙合同中延用原营业执照的约定为证。从后来被告魏恒聂、蒋振伟等的六人协议书来看,四人签订合伙合同之后,被告尹宏祥、洪彬二人又加入合伙企业成为合伙人。
 综上所述,被告联达厂尚欠原告双盈公司货款1 213 785.95元,此款应由联达厂偿还。联达厂通过出具欠条明确了义务,其未付款即应付款并赔偿双盈公司货款的利息损失。联达厂系魏恒聂等六人合伙经营的企业,根据法律规定,合伙人对合伙的债务承担连带责任,魏恒聂等六合伙人应对联达厂的债务承担连带清偿责任。联达厂、魏恒聂、蒋振伟、祝永兵、尹宏祥、洪彬经传票传唤无正当理由未到庭参加诉讼,视为放弃诉讼权利,法院依法缺席审判。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@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