>>>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
 
Guiding Case No. 109: Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Inmobiliaria Palacio Oriental S.A. (dispute over guarantee fraud)
指导案例109号:安徽省外经建设(集团)有限公司诉东方置业房地产有限公司保函欺诈纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 109: Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Inmobiliaria Palacio Oriental S.A. (dispute over guarantee fraud) 指导案例109号:安徽省外经建设(集团)有限公司诉东方置业房地产有限公司保函欺诈纠纷案
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布)
Guiding Case No. 109 指导案例109号
Keywords 关键词
Civil; guarantee fraud; review of underlying transactions; principle of limitation and necessity; independent counter guarantee 民事/保函欺诈/基础交易审查/有限及必要原则/独立反担保函
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. Where it is necessary to review the underlying transaction for determination of an independent guarantee fraud, the principle of limitation and necessity should be followed and the review scope should be limited to whether the beneficiary knows that the opposing party of the underlying contract does not breach the contract under the underlying contract and whether the beneficiary knows that it does not have the right of claim for payment. 1.认定构成独立保函欺诈需对基础交易进行审查时,应坚持有限及必要原则,审查范围应限于受益人是否明知基础合同的相对人并不存在基础合同项下的违约事实,以及是否存在受益人明知自己没有付款请求权的事实。
2. The breach of contract by the beneficiary under the underlying contract does not affect the beneficiary's right to present documents and raise a claim in accordance with the provisions on an independent L/G. 2.受益人在基础合同项下的违约情形,并不影响其按照独立保函的规定提交单据并进行索款的权利。
3. In identifying whether there is a fraud under an independent counter guarantee L/G, even if there is a fraud under the independent L/G, where the bona fide payment has been made under the independent L/G, the people's court is not allowed to ruleto stop the payment of the fund under the independent counter guarantee L/G. 3.认定独立反担保函项下是否存在欺诈时,即使独立保函存在欺诈情形,独立保函项下已经善意付款的,人民法院亦不得裁定止付独立反担保函项下款项。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 8 and 44 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships 中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条、第44条

下跌你应该笑还是哭

Basic Facts北大法宝,版权所有 基本案情
On January 16, 2010, Inmobiliaria Palacio Oriental S.A. (hereinafter referred to as “Oriental S.A.”) as the developer, Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AFECC”) as the contractor, and Chinafecc Central América S.A. as the construction party concluded a Contract for the Construction of the Lakeside Mansion Project (hereinafter referred to as the “Construction Contract”) in Costa Rica in San Jose, the Republic of Costa Rica and it was agreed in the Construction Contract that the contractor executed the construction of three 14-floored comprehensive commercial and residential buildings. On May 26, 2010, AFECC filed an application with Anhui Branch of China Construction Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Anhui Branch of CCB”) for issuing a performance guarantee to the beneficiary Oriental S.A. with Bank of Costa Rica as the reissuing bank and the guaranty matter being the Lakeside Mansion Project in Costa Rica. On May 28, 2010, Bank of Costa Rica issued a performance guarantee (No. G051225) with Anhui Branch of CCB as the guarantor, AFECC as the principal, and Oriental S.A. as the beneficiary, and the amount of guarantee was USD2,008,000, valid until October 12, 2011 and extended to February 12, 2012. Notes on the guarantee: It is an unconditional, irrevocable, obligatory, and demand guarantee. To perform this guarantee, the beneficiary should submit a credential in duplicate to the Department of Foreign Trade under the Central Office of Bank of Costa Rica, indicating the grounds for performing the guarantee. In addition, the beneficiary should issue a notarized statement, indicating the date when Chinafecc Central América S.A. was notified of this claim for breach of contract, affixed with the original guarantee and the issued modified version. Anhui Branch of CCB simultaneously issued a counter guarantee (No. 34147020000289) to Bank of Costa Rica and promised that it would pay the fund under the guarantee within 20 days upon receipt of the notice of Bank of Costa Rica. The counter guarantee was “unconditional and irrevocable, and demanded payment at any time” and it was agreed that it “should observe the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG458) published by the International Chamber of Commerce.” 2010年1月16日,东方置业房地产有限公司(以下简称东方置业公司)作为开发方,与作为承包方的安徽省外经建设(集团)有限公司(以下简称外经集团公司)、作为施工方的安徽外经建设中美洲有限公司(以下简称外经中美洲公司)在哥斯达黎加共和国圣何塞市签订了《哥斯达黎加湖畔华府项目施工合同》(以下简称《施工合同》),约定承包方为三栋各十四层综合商住楼施工。外经集团公司于2010年5月26日向中国建设银行股份有限公司安徽省分行(以下简称建行安徽省分行)提出申请,并以哥斯达黎加银行作为转开行,向作为受益人的东方置业公司开立履约保函,保证事项为哥斯达黎加湖畔华府项目。2010年5月28日,哥斯达黎加银行开立编号为G051225的履约保函,担保人为建行安徽省分行,委托人为外经集团公司,受益人为东方置业公司,担保金额为2008000美元,有效期至2011年10月12日,后延期至2012年2月12日。保函说明:无条件的、不可撤销的、必须的、见索即付的保函。执行此保函需要受益人给哥斯达黎加银行中央办公室外贸部提交一式两份的证明文件,指明执行此保函的理由,另外由受益人出具公证过的声明指出通知外经中美洲公司因为违约而产生此请求的日期,并附上保函证明原件和已经出具过的修改件。建行安徽省分行同时向哥斯达黎加银行开具编号为34147020000289的反担保函,承诺自收到哥斯达黎加银行通知后二十日内支付保函项下的款项。反担保函是“无条件的、不可撤销的、随时要求支付的”,并约定“遵守国际商会出版的458号《见索即付保函统一规则》”。
In the performance of the Construction Contract, on January 23, 2012, architects Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora issued the Project Construction Inspection Report, which determined that there were “poor construction” and “inferior quality” in the construction project and circumstances where modification or repair was required. On February 7, 2012, with Oriental S.A. as the respondent, Chinafecc Central América S.A. submitted an arbitration claim to the Dispute Resolution Center of the Union of Architects and Engineers in Costa Rica, alleged that Oriental S.A. was in arrears of the payable project funds for the completed construction and the corresponding interest, and requested the rescission of the Construction Contract and the adjudication on Oriental S.A.'s compensation for losses. On February 8, Oriental S.A. submitted to Bank of Costa Rica such guarantee payment documents as the statement on the claim, the notice on breach of contract, and the Project Construction Inspection Report and required the performance of guarantee. On February 10, Bank of Costa Rica issued to Anhui Branch of CCB a teletext, stating that Oriental S.A. raised a claim for payment of the fund of USD2,008,000 under the bank guarantee (No. G051225) and Bank of Costa Rica thus required that Anhui Branch of CCB should pay the aforesaid fund before February 16, 2012. On February 12, upon application of Chinafecc Central América S.A., the No. 2 Tribunal of the Administrative Litigation Court of the Republic of Costa Rica issued the injunction of interim protection measure and ruled that Bank of Costa Rica should suspend the performance of the performance guarantee (No. G051225). 《施工合同》履行过程中,2012年1月23日,建筑师 Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora出具《项目工程检验报告》。该报告认定了施工项目存在“施工不良”“品质低劣”且需要修改或修理的情形。2012年2月7日,外经中美洲公司以东方置业公司为被申请人向哥斯达黎加建筑师和工程师联合协会争议解决中心提交仲裁请求,认为东方置业公司拖欠应支付之已完成施工量的工程款及相应利息,请求解除合同并裁决东方置业公司赔偿损失。2月8日,东方置业公司向哥斯达黎加银行提交索赔声明、违约通知书、违约声明、《项目工程检验报告》等保函兑付文件,要求执行保函。2月10日,哥斯达黎加银行向建行安徽省分行发出电文,称东方置业公司提出索赔,要求支付G051225号银行保函项下2008000美元的款项,哥斯达黎加银行进而要求建行安徽省分行须于2012年2月16日前支付上述款项。2月12日,应外经中美洲公司申请,哥斯达黎加共和国行政诉讼法院第二法庭下达临时保护措施禁令,裁定哥斯达黎加银行暂停执行G051225号履约保函。
On February 23, AFECC filed a lawsuit about dispute over guarantee fraud with the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province and applied for suspending the payment of the fund under the guarantees (No. G051225 and No. 34147020000289). On February 27, the court of first instance entered a ruling (No. 00005-1 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Hefei) that the payment of the fund under the guarantees (No. G051225 and No. 34147020000289) should be suspended. On February 28, it served the aforesaid ruling upon Anhui Branch of CCB. On February 29, Anhui Branch of CCB sent a teletext to Bank of Costa Rica and notified Bank of Costa Rica of the matters in the ruling and on the same day, it mailed the duplicate of the aforesaid ruling to Bank of Costa Rica. On March 5, Bank of Costa Rica received the duplicate of the aforesaid ruling. 2月23日,外经集团公司向合肥市中级人民法院提起保函欺诈纠纷诉讼,同时申请中止支付G051225号保函、34147020000289号保函项下款项。一审法院于2月27日作出(2012)合民四初字第00005-1号裁定,裁定中止支付G051225号保函及34147020000289号保函项下款项,并于2月28日向建行安徽省分行送达了上述裁定。2月29日,建行安徽省分行向哥斯达黎加银行发送电文告知了一审法院已作出的裁定事由,并于当日向哥斯达黎加银行寄送了上述裁定书的复印件,哥斯达黎加银行于3月5日收到上述裁定书复印件。
On March 6, the No. 2 Tribunal of the Administrative Litigation Court of the Republic of Costa Rica entered a judgment that Chinafecc Central América S.A. lost the lawsuit regarding its application for the preventive measure and the injunction of interim protection measure was relieved. On March 20, as required by Bank of Costa Rica, Anhui Branch of CCB extended the validity term of the guarantee (No. 34147020000289). On March 21, Bank of Costa Rica paid Oriental S.A. the fund under the guarantee (No. G051225). 3月6日,哥斯达黎加共和国行政诉讼法院第二法庭判决外经中美洲公司申请预防性措施败诉,解除了临时保护措施禁令。3月20日,应哥斯达黎加银行的要求,建行安徽省分行延长了34147020000289号保函的有效期。 3月21日,哥斯达黎加银行向东方置业公司支付了G051225号保函项下款项。
On July 9, 2013, the Union of Architects and Engineers in Costa Rica entered an arbitral award, which determined that Oriental S.A. has seriously breached the contract in the performance of contract and ruled to terminate the Construction Contract, Oriental S.A. should pay Chinafecc Central América S.A. the progress payments for projects No. 1 to No. 18, a total of USD800,058.45 and the interest thereof; since the project No. 19 was not accepted by the developer, the relevant claim for the project fund was not supported; since the fund under the guarantee (No. G051225) has been paid, the claim of Chinafecc Central América S.A. for returning the guarantee should not be supported. 2013年7月9日,哥斯达黎加建筑师和工程师联合协会做出仲裁裁决,该仲裁裁决认定东方置业公司在履行合同过程中严重违约,并裁决终止《施工合同》,东方置业公司向外经中美洲公司支付1号至18号工程进度款共计800058.45美元及利息;第19号工程因未获得开发商验收,相关工程款请求未予支持;因G051225号保函项下款项已经支付,不支持外经中美洲公司退还保函的请求。
Judgment 裁判结果
On April 9, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 00005 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Hefei) that: (1) the claim of Oriental S.A. against the performance guarantee (No. G051225) constituted a fraud; (2) Anhui Branch of CCB should terminate the payment of the fund of USD2,008,000 under the bank guarantee (No. 34147020000289) to Bank of Costa Rica; and (3) other claims of AFECC should be dismissed. Oriental S.A. refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. On March 19, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 00389 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, HPC, Anhui) to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. Oriental S.A. refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On December 14, 2016, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 134 [2017], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC) that: (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 00389 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, HPC, Anhui) entered by the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province and the Civil Judgment (No. 00005 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Hefei) entered by the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province should be set aside; and (2) the claims of AFECC should be dismissed. 安徽省合肥市中级人民法院于2014年4月9日作出(2012)合民四初字第00005号民事判决:一、东方置业公司针对G051225号履约保函的索赔行为构成欺诈;二、建行安徽省分行终止向哥斯达黎加银行支付编号为34147020000289的银行保函项下2008000美元的款项;三、驳回外经集团公司的其他诉讼请求。东方置业公司不服一审判决,提起上诉。安徽省高级人民法院于2015年3月19日作出(2014)皖民二终字第00389号民事判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。东方置业公司不服二审判决,向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月14日作出(2017)最高法民再134号民事判决:一、撤销安徽省高级人民法院(2014)皖民二终字第00389号、安徽省合肥市中级人民法院(2012)合民四初字第00005号民事判决;二、驳回外经集团公司的诉讼请求。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
The Supreme People's Court held that, first, with respect to issues concerning the basis for identifying a case about independent guarantee fraud, jurisdiction, and application of law involved in this case. Since the habitual residences of the parties to the dispute involved, Oriental S.A. and Bank of Costa Rica, were not within the territory of China and this case was about foreign-related commercial dispute. In accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships (hereinafter referred to as the “the Law on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships”) that “The law of the court shall apply to the determination on the nature of foreign-related civil relations,” as the parent company of Chinafecc Central América S.A. in China, AFECC was the applicant for issuance of the guarantee involved. It filed an application with Anhui Branch of CCB for issuing a counter demand guarantee to Bank of Costa Rica, which then reissued a performance guarantee to the beneficiary Oriental S.A. In accordance with the text of the guarantee, the payment obligations of Bank of Costa Rica and Anhui Branch of CCB were independent from the underlying transaction relation and the legal relation of guarantee application. Therefore, the aforesaid guarantee may be determined as an independent demand guarantee and the aforesaid counter guarantee may be determined as an independent counter demand guarantee. AFECC filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance on the ground of guarantee fraud and the nature of this case was dispute over guarantee fraud. The independent counter guarantee, the payment of which was claimed to be suspended, was issued by Anhui Branch of CCB and the place where Anhui Branch of CCB was located should be determined as the place where the tort occurred. As a court in the place where the tort occurred, the court of first instance had jurisdiction over this case. Since it was specified in the guarantee involved that the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees中小学减的负已经加到家长身上了 should apply, it should be determined that the content of the aforesaid Rules constituted a component of the guarantee in dispute. In accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Law on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships that “the laws at the place of tort shall apply to liabilities for tort,” the laws of the People's Republic of China should apply to the standards for determination of a guarantee fraud not involved in the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees. Since China does not join the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and the parties in this case did not agree on the application of the aforesaid Convention or include the relevant content of the aforesaid Convention in the guarantee as the international trading rules, under the principle of autonomy, the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit should not apply. 最高人民法院认为:第一,关于本案涉及的独立保函欺诈案件的识别依据、管辖权以及法律适用问题。本案争议的当事方东方置业公司及哥斯达黎加银行的经常居所地位于我国领域外,本案系涉外商事纠纷。根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第八条“涉外民事关系的定性,适用法院地法”的规定,外经集团公司作为外经中美洲公司在国内的母公司,是涉案保函的开立申请人,其申请建行安徽省分行向哥斯达黎加银行开立见索即付的反担保保函,由哥斯达黎加银行向受益人东方置业公司转开履约保函。根据保函文本内容,哥斯达黎加银行与建行安徽省分行的付款义务均独立于基础交易关系及保函申请法律关系,因此,上述保函可以确定为见索即付独立保函,上述反担保保函可以确定为见索即付独立反担保函。外经集团公司以保函欺诈为由向一审法院提起诉讼,本案性质为保函欺诈纠纷。被请求止付的独立反担保函由建行安徽省分行开具,该分行所在地应当认定为外经集团公司主张的侵权结果发生地。一审法院作为侵权行为地法院对本案具有管辖权。因涉案保函载明适用《见索即付保函统一规则小词儿都挺能整》,应当认定上述规则的内容构成争议保函的组成部分。根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四十四条“侵权责任,适用侵权行为地法律”的规定,《见索即付保函统一规则》未予涉及的保函欺诈之认定标准应适用中华人民共和国法律。我国没有加入《联合国独立保证与备用信用证公约》,本案当事人亦未约定适用上述公约或将公约有关内容作为国际交易规则订入保函,依据意思自治原则,《联合国独立保证与备用信用证公约》不应适用。
Second, with respect to the issue concerning whether the beneficiary Oriental S.A. had preliminary evidence under the underlying contract to prove that its claim had factual basis. 第二,关于东方置业公司作为受益人是否具有基础合同项下的初步证据证明其索赔请求具有事实依据的问题。
When the people's court tried a case involving an independent guarantee and a counter guarantee related to the independent guarantee, in the review of underlying transactions, the people's court should follow the principle of limitation and necessity and the scope of review should be limited to whether the beneficiary knew that the opposing party of the underlying contract did not breach the contract under the underlying contract or did not commit other act resulting in payment of the fund under the independent guarantee. Otherwise, the review of the underlying contract would shake the institutional value of independent guarantee, namely, “demand guarantee.” 人民法院在审理独立保函及与独立保函相关的反担保案件时,对基础交易的审查,应当坚持有限原则和必要原则,审查的范围应当限于受益人是否明知基础合同的相对人并不存在基础合同项下的违约事实或者不存在其他导致独立保函付款的事实。否则,对基础合同的审查将会动摇独立保函“见索即付”的制度价值。
In accordance with the provisions of Article 68 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (for Trial Implementation), a fraud is mainly manifested as making up facts and concealing truth. According to the facts found in the retrial, Bank of Costa Rica issued a performance guarantee (No. G051225), specifying that to perform this guarantee, the following documents should be submitted: the credential with grounds for performing the guarantee, the date when Chinafecc Central América S.A. was notified of performing the guarantee claim, the original guarantee and the issued modified version. Since AFECC alleged that the act of Oriental S.A. constituted a fraud under the independent guarantee, it should produce evidence to prove that Oriental S.A. committed any of the following acts in the performance of the independent guarantee: (1) Oriental S.A. submitted a false or forged document in the claim; or (2) the claim of Oriental S.A. totally had no factual basis or reliable basis. In this case, what was guaranteed under the guarantee included “quality and tolerance of materials used in the construction, losses arising from compensation, and/or compensation for the contractor's failure to perform obligations.” In other words, what was guaranteed under the guarantee included construction quality and other behaviors breaching the contract. Therefore, the beneficiary only needed to submit the preliminary evidence on the existence of construction quality problems so as to satisfy the requirement for performance of the guarantee, namely, “the credential indicating the grounds for performing the guarantee.” In the performance of the underlying contract, on January 23, 2012, Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora, project supervisors of Oriental S.A., issued the Project Construction Inspection Report, which determined that there were “poor construction” and “inferior quality” in the construction project and circumstances where modification or repair was required. Therefore, the Project Construction Inspection Report was preliminary evidence proving that there were construction quality problems. 根据《最高人民法院关于贯彻执行〈中华人民共和国民法通则〉若干问题的意见(试行)》第六十八条的规定,欺诈主要表现为虚构事实与隐瞒真相。根据再审查明的事实,哥斯达黎加银行开立编号为G051225的履约保函,该履约保函明确规定了实现保函需要提交的文件为:说明执行保函理由的证明文件、通知外经中美洲公司执行保函请求的日期、保函证明原件和已经出具过的修改件。外经集团公司主张东方置业公司的行为构成独立保函项下的欺诈,应当提交证据证明东方置业公司在实现独立保函时具有下列行为之一:1.为索赔提交内容虚假或者伪造的单据;2.索赔请求完全没有事实基础和可信依据。本案中,保函担保的是“施工期间材料使用的质量和耐性,赔偿或补偿造成的损失,和/或承包方未履行义务的赔付”,意即,保函担保的是施工质量和其他违约行为。因此,受益人只需提交能够证明存在施工质量问题的初步证据,即可满足保函实现所要求的“说明执行保函理由的证明文件”。本案基础合同履行过程中,东方置业公司的项目监理人员Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora于2012年1月23日出具《项目工程检验报告》。该报告认定了施工项目存在“施工不良”、“品质低劣”且需要修改或修理的情形,该《项目工程检验报告》构成证明存在施工质量问题的初步证据。
In the Construction Contract and under the guarantee, the parties involved did not explicitly agree that the Project Construction Inspection Report should be submitted to Bank of Costa Rica for performing the guarantee. Therefore, Oriental S.A. had the right to independently determine the type of credential “indicating the grounds for performing the guarantee” submitted to Bank of Costa Rica and whether it submitted the Project Construction Inspection Report to Bank of Costa Rica did not affect the exercise of rights under the guarantee. In addition, the Construction Contract and the guarantee did not stipulate that the aforesaid Report must be issued by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) or personnel with international membership of the AIA. Therefore, whether Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora had the international membership of the AIA did not affect their issuance of the Project Construction Inspection Report as project supervisors of the contract-issuing party. AFECC knew that Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora were project supervisors of the contract-issuing party and it recognized the identities of Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora as project supervisors when they issued the Project Construction Inspection Report and received the project funds. AFECC used evidence it recognized that could prove the identities of Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora as project supervisors as reverse proof that the Project Construction Inspection Report issued by Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora was false, which was not logically self-consistent. Since AFECC failed to produce other evidence to prove that Oriental S.A.'s performance of the guarantee involved totally lacked factual basis or Oriental S.A. submitted false or forged document, Oriental S.A.'s application to Bank of Costa Rica for realizing the guarantee rights had legal basis. 本案当事方在《施工合同》中以及在保函项下并未明确约定实现保函时应向哥斯达黎加银行提交《项目工程检验报告》,因此,东方置业公司有权自主选择向哥斯达黎加银行提交“证明执行保函理由”之证明文件的类型,其是否向哥斯达黎加银行提交该报告不影响其保函项下权利的实现。另外,《施工合同》以及保函亦未规定上述报告须由AIA国际建筑师事务所或者具有美国建筑师协会国际会员身份的人员出具,因此,JoseBrenes和Mauricio Mora是否具有美国建筑师协会国际会员身份并不影响其作为发包方的项目监理人员出具《项目工程检验报告》。外经集团公司对Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora均为发包方的项目监理人员身份是明知的,在其出具《项目工程检验报告》并领取工程款项时对Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora的监理身份是认可的,其以自身认可的足以证明Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora监理身份的证据反证Jose Brenes和Mauricio Mora出具的《项目工程检验报告》虚假,逻辑上无法自洽。因外经集团公司未能提供其他证据证明东方置业公司实现案涉保函完全没有事实基础或者提交虚假或伪造的文件,东方置业公司据此向哥斯达黎加银行申请实现保函权利具有事实依据。
In conclusion, the Project Construction Inspection Report was preliminary evidence proving the breach of contract committed by AFECC under the underlying contract and the evidence produced by AFECC was insufficient to prove that the aforesaid Report was false or forged and that Oriental S.A. required the performance of the guarantee knowing that the opposing party to the underlying contract did not breach the contract under the underlying contract or carry out other act resulting in the payment of the fund under the independent guarantee. On the basis of AFECC's breach of contract under the underlying contract and in accordance with the stipulations of the contract, Oriental S.A.'s claim for exercise of rights under the independent guarantee did not constitute a guarantee fraud. 综上,《项目工程检验报告》构成证明外经集团公司基础合同项下违约行为的初步证据,外经集团公司提供的证据不足以证明上述报告存在虚假或者伪造,亦不足以证明东方置业公司明知基础合同的相对人并不存在基础合同项下的违约事实或者不存在其他导致独立保函付款的事实而要求实现保函。东方置业公司基于外经集团公司基础合同项下的违约行为,依据合同的规定,提出实现独立保函项下的权利不构成保函欺诈。
Third, with respect to whether the breach of contract by the beneficiary of the independent guarantee under the underlying contract necessarily constituted a fraudulent claim under the independent guarantee. 第三,关于独立保函受益人基础合同项下的违约情形,是否必然构成独立保函项下的欺诈索款问题。
In the view of AFECC, in accordance with the provisions of items (3), (4), and (5) of Article 12 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Independent Guarantee Dispute Cases (hereinafter referred to as the “judicial interpretation on independent guarantees”), it should be determined that the act of Oriental S.A. constituted an independent guarantee fraud. In accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the judicial interpretation on independent guarantees, upon interpretation in the court trial, AFECC still insisted that the handling of this case should not violate the spirit of the judicial interpretation on independent guarantees. In light of AFECC's allegation, the Supreme People's Court further interpreted the aforesaid relevant issues involving the judicial interpretation on independent guarantees. 外经集团公司认为,根据《最高人民法院关于审理独立保函纠纷案件若干问题的规定》(以下简称独立保函司法解释)第十二条第三项、第四项、第五项,应当认定东方置业公司构成独立保函欺诈。根据独立保函司法解释第二十五条的规定,经庭审释明,外经集团公司仍坚持认为本案处理不应违反独立保函司法解释的规定精神。结合外经集团公司的主张,最高人民法院对上述涉及独立保函司法解释的相关问题作出进一步阐释。
An independent guarantee was independent of the underlying transaction between the principal and the beneficiary. The bank issuing the independent guarantee was only responsible for reviewing whether the documents submitted by the beneficiary conformed to the stipulations of the guarantee clauses and it had the right to decide whether to make payment. The guarantor bank's payment obligation was not affected by the rights of defense of the principal and the beneficiary under the underlying transactions. When Oriental S.A. produced the preliminary evidence proving the existence of construction quality problems as the beneficiary, even though it did not initiate any of such dispute resolution procedures as litigation or arbitration and confirm that the opposing party breached the contract upon the aforesaid procedure, the realization of Oriental S.A.'s guarantee rights was not affected. Even though there was an ongoing litigation or arbitration procedure for the underlying contract, as long as the final determination that the underlying transaction debtor was not liable for payment or compensation was not made in the relevnat dispute resolution procedure, it did not affect the realization of guarantee rights of the beneficiary, either. In a word, even though an effective judgment or arbitral award determined that the act of the beneficiary constituted breach of contract under the underlying contract, such breach of contract was not necessarily the necessary and sufficient condition for the constitution of a guarantee “fraud.” 独立保函独立于委托人和受益人之间的基础交易,出具独立保函的银行只负责审查受益人提交的单据是否符合保函条款的规定并有权自行决定是否付款,担保行的付款义务不受委托人与受益人之间基础交易项下抗辩权的影响。东方置业公司作为受益人,在提交证明存在工程质量问题的初步证据时,即使未启动任何诸如诉讼或者仲裁等争议解决程序并经上述程序确认相对方违约,都不影响其保函权利的实现。即使基础合同存在正在进行的诉讼或者仲裁程序,只要相关争议解决程序尚未做出基础交易债务人没有付款或者赔偿责任的最终认定,亦不影响受益人保函权利的实现。进而言之,即使生效判决或者仲裁裁决认定受益人构成基础合同项下的违约,该违约事实的存在亦不必然成为构成保函“欺诈”的充分必要条件。
In this case, the guaranteed matters in the guarantee included construction quality and other acts of breaching of contract and there was no causal relationship in logic between the beneficiary's breach of contract for failing to pay the project fund and the construction quality problem. The breach of contract of Oriental S.A. as the beneficiary in the performance of the underlying contract did not necessarily constitute a fraudulent claim under the independent guarantee. In accordance with the provisions of item (3) of Article 12 of the judicial interpretation on independent guarantee, the requirement for determination of an independent guarantee fraud was limited to that “the debtor under the underlying transaction is deemed to be free of payment or indemnity liability by the court decision or arbitral award.” Therefore, unless otherwise agreed in the guarantee, the review of the underlying contract should be limited to performance matters within the scope of the guarantee and we should be prudent when incorporating whether the beneficiary breached the contract in the underlying contract into the review scope of a guarantee fraud. Although the Union of Architects and Engineers in Costa Rica entered an arbitral award, which determined that Oriental S.A. breached the contract in the performance of the contract, the aforesaid arbitration procedure was launched by AFECC on February 7, 2012, Oriental S.A. raised no counter claim, the arbitral award entered on July 9, 2013 determined that Oriental S.A. breached the contract only with respect to the claim matter of AFECC and it did not determine that AFECC was exempted from the obligation for payment or compensation due to the opposing party's breach of contract. Therefore, it could not be determined according to the aforesaid arbitral award that the act of Oriental S.A. constituted a guarantee fraud as prescribed in item (3) of Article 12 of the judicial interpretation on independent guarantees. 本案中,保函担保的事项是施工质量和其他违约行为,而受益人未支付工程款项的违约事实与工程质量出现问题不存在逻辑上的因果关系,东方置业公司作为受益人,其自身在基础合同履行中存在的违约情形,并不必然构成独立保函项下的欺诈索款。独立保函司法解释第十二条第三项的规定内容,将独立保函欺诈认定的条件限定为“法院判决或仲裁裁决认定基础交易债务人没有付款或赔偿责任”,因此,除非保函另有约定,对基础合同的审查应当限定在保函担保范围内的履约事项,在将受益人自身在基础合同中是否存在违约行为纳入保函欺诈的审查范围时应当十分审慎。虽然哥斯达黎加建筑师和工程师联合协会做出仲裁裁决,认定东方置业公司在履行合同过程中违约,但上述仲裁程序于2012年2月7日由外经集团公司发动,东方置业公司并未提出反请求,2013年7月9日做出的仲裁裁决仅针对外经集团公司的请求事项认定东方置业公司违约,但并未认定外经集团公司因对方违约行为的存在而免除付款或者赔偿责任。因此,不能依据上述仲裁裁决的内容认定东方置业公司构成独立保函司法解释第十二条第三项规定的保函欺诈。
In addition, the fact that both parties had dispute over the project quality and some descriptions of project quality issues in the Arbitral Award issued by the Dispute Resolution Center of the Union of Architects and Engineers in Costa Rica could support each other. The obligations of Chinafecc Central América S.A. under the Construction Contract have not been fully performed and this case did not fall under the circumstances where Oriental S.A. confirmed the full performance of the underlying transaction debts or the non-occurrence of due payment. Nor could the existing evidence prove that Oriental S.A. knowingly abused the right of claim for payment while it did not possess such right. As the beneficiary, Oriental S.A. breached the contract in the performance of the underlying contract. Although the arbitral award confirmed such breach of contract, AFECC's obligation for payment or compensation was not thus exempted. In conclusion, even if the judicial interpretation on independent guarantees applied according to the allegation of AFECC, the circumstances in this case did not constitute a guarantee fraud. 另外,双方对工程质量发生争议的事实以及哥斯达黎加建筑师和工程师联合协会争议解决中心作出的《仲裁裁决书》中涉及工程质量问题部分的表述能够佐证,外经中美洲公司在《施工合同》项下的义务尚未完全履行,本案并不存在东方置业公司确认基础交易债务已经完全履行或者付款到期事件并未发生的情形。现有证据亦不能证明东方置业公司明知其没有付款请求权仍滥用权利。东方置业公司作为受益人,其自身在基础合同履行中存在的违约情形,虽经仲裁裁决确认但并未因此免除外经集团公司的付款或者赔偿责任。综上,即使按照外经集团公司的主张适用独立保函司法解释,本案情形亦不构成保函欺诈。
Fourth, with respect to the independent counter guarantee related to the independent guarantee involved in this case. 第四,关于本案涉及的与独立保函有关的独立反担保函问题。
Based on the characteristics of an independent guarantee, besides the debtor, the guarantor was liable for direct payment to the beneficiary and there was no subordination between the independent guarantee and the principal debts in terms of the right of defense. Even though the debtor exercised the right of defense in certain dispute resolution procedure, it did not necessarily enable the independent guarantor to obtain the benefit of the defense. In addition, even though there were circumstancesof fraudulent demand by the beneficiary under the independent guarantee, it could not be presumed that the act of the guarantor bank constituted a fraudulent demand under the independent counter guarantee. Only when the guarantor bank knew that the beneficiary was making fraudulent demands for payment and violated, and claimed the payment of fund under the independent counter guarantee to the counter guarantor bank, could it be determined that the guarantor bank constituted a fraudulent demand under the independent counter guarantee. 基于独立保函的特点,担保人于债务人之外构成对受益人的直接支付责任,独立保函与主债务之间没有抗辩权上的从属性,即使债务人在某一争议解决程序中行使抗辩权,并不当然使独立担保人获得该抗辩利益。另外,即使存在受益人在独立保函项下的欺诈性索款情形,亦不能推定担保行在独立反担保函项下构成欺诈性索款。只有担保行明知受益人系欺诈性索款且违反诚实信用原则付款,并向反担保行主张独立反担保函项下款项时,才能认定担保行构成独立反担保函项下的欺诈性索款。
Since AFECC filed this lawsuit on the ground of a guarantee fraud, it should bear the burden of proving that Bank of Costa Rica knew that there were circumstances of independent guarantee fraud committed by Oriental S.A., still made a payment in violation of the principle of good faith , and then raised a claim for payment of the fund under the demand counter guarantee in the identity of the beneficiary, and its act constituted a fraudulent demand under the counter guarantee. Now, AFECC was not only unable to prove that Bank of Costa Rica committed a fraud in its payment of the fund under the independent guarantee to Oriental S.A., but also failed to prove that Bank of Costa Rica committed a fraudulent demand under the independent counter guarantee. Therefore, its claim for suspended payment of the fund under the independent counter guarantee lacked factual basis. 外经集团公司以保函欺诈为由提起本案诉讼,其应当举证证明哥斯达黎加银行明知东方置业公司存在独立保函欺诈情形,仍然违反诚信原则予以付款,并进而以受益人身份在见索即付独立反担保函项下提出索款请求并构成反担保函项下的欺诈性索款。现外经集团公司不仅不能证明哥斯达黎加银行向东方置业公司支付独立保函项下款项存在欺诈,亦没有举证证明哥斯达黎加银行在独立反担保函项下存在欺诈性索款情形,其主张止付独立反担保函项下款项没有事实依据。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Chen Jizhong, Yang Honglei, and Yang Xingye) (生效裁判审判人员:陈纪忠、杨弘磊、杨兴业)
     
     
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