(Pix Credit HERE)
Guiding cases have been issued by the Chinese Supreme People's COurt since 2011. The Guiding Cases, official summaries with rationales, are issued in accordance with provisions adopted by the SPC in 2010 that established a system of case guidance to aid judges in the disposition of cases. Though China is a civil law country, it was deemed necessary to aid in the exercise of interpretive function to provide a set of cases to guide interpretation. Guiding cases are to serve as a reference for judges when they adjudicate similar cases. Implementing regulations issued in 2015 require judges to refer to relevant guiding cases when adjudicating a claim which is deemed to fall within the "similar case" category. In such a case the judge is expected to reference the relevant guiding case for its persuasive reasoning rather than as binding precedent.
China has recently announced the issuance of a set of new guiding cases
with relevance to Chinese approaches to the legal consequences of
obligations of parties within the Belt and Road Initiative. The cases include the following (with links to official cite 仅限中文):
- 中化国际（新加坡）有限公司诉蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案(Sinochem International (Singapore) Co., Ltd. v. ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd.)
- 浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司诉A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷案 (Zhejiang Longda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. v. AP Muller – Maersk Co., Ltd)
- 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 (Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group) Co., Ltd. Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd)
- 交通运输部南海救助局诉阿昌格罗斯投资公司、香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处海难救助合同纠纷案 (Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport v. Achang Gross Investment Co. Hong Kong Anda Ossen Co., Ltd. Shanghai Representative Office)
- 中国建设银行股份有限公司广州荔湾支行诉广东蓝粤能源发展有限公司等信用证开证纠纷案 (China Construction Bank Corporation Guangzhou Liwan Branch v. Guangdong Lan Yue Energy Development Co., Ltd. and other letters of credit issue dispute)
- 阿斯特克有限公司申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金案 (Astek Co., Ltd. applied for the establishment of a maritime liability limitation fund case)
These guiding cases are important for two principal reasons. First they begin to flesh out the structures of implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative. And Second they begin to outline the principles and approaches to trade and trade dispute under the Chinese alternative vision of global trade. For both reasons the cases are an important element for companies and states involved in any aspect of BRI.
The full original text of the Guiding cases follow from the original Chinese website (仅限中文i), followed by a crude English translation (to give readers the gist). For further information or discussion, and case analysis, please contact Larry Catá Backer and Flora Sapio.
-->
指导案例107号
中化国际（新加坡）有限公司诉蒂森克虏伯冶金产品
有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:12:24 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
1.国际货物买卖合同的当事各方所在国为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国，应优先适用公约的规定，公约没有规定的内容，适用合同中约定适用的法律。国际货物买卖合同中当事人明确排除适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的，则不应适用该公约。
2.在国际货物买卖合同中，卖方交付的货物虽然存在缺陷，但只要买方经过合理努力就能使用货物或转售货物，不应视为构成《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》规定的根本违约的情形。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国民法通则》第145条
《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第1条、第25条
基本案情
2008年4月11日，中化国际（新加坡）有限公司（以下简称中化新加坡公司）与蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司（以下简称德国克虏伯公司）签订了购买石油焦的《采购合同》，约定本合同应当根据美国纽约州当时有效的法律订立、管辖和解释。中化新加坡公司按约支付了全部货款，但德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦HGI指数仅为32，与合同中约定的HGI指数典型值为36-46之间不符。中化新加坡公司认为德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约，请求判令解除合同，要求德国克虏伯公司返还货款并赔偿损失。
裁判结果
江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定，德国克虏伯公司提供的石油焦HGI指数远低于合同约定标准，导致石油焦难以在国内市场销售，签订买卖合同时的预期目的无法实现，故德国克虏伯公司的行为构成根本违约。江苏省高级人民法院于2012年12月19日作出（2009）苏民三初字第0004号民事判决：一、宣告蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司于2008年4月11日签订的《采购合同》无效。二、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内返还中化国际（新加坡）有限公司货款2684302.9美元并支付自2008年9月25日至本判决确定的给付之日的利息。三、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际（新加坡）有限公司损失520339.77美元。
宣判后，德国克虏伯公司不服一审判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉，认为一审判决对本案适用法律认定错误。最高人民法院认为一审判决认定事实基本清楚，但部分法律适用错误，责任认定不当，应当予以纠正。最高人民法院于2014年6月30日作出（2013）民四终字第35号民事判决：一、撤销江苏省高级人民法院（2009）苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第一项。二、变更江苏省高级人民法院（2009）苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第二项为蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际（新加坡）有限公司货款损失1610581.74美元并支付自2008年9月25日至本判决确定的给付之日的利息。三、变更江苏省高级人民法院（2009）苏民三初字第0004号民事判决第三项为蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际（新加坡）有限公司堆存费损失98442.79美元。四、驳回中化国际（新加坡）有限公司的其他诉讼请求。
裁判理由
最高人民法院认为，本案为国际货物买卖合同纠纷，双方当事人均为外国公司，案件具有涉外因素。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉若干问题的解释（一）》第二条规定：“涉外民事关系法律适用法实施以前发生的涉外民事关系，人民法院应当根据该涉外民事关系发生时的有关法律规定确定应当适用的法律；当时法律没有规定的，可以参照涉外民事关系法律适用法的规定确定。”案涉《采购合同》签订于2008年4月11日，在《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》实施之前，当事人签订《采购合同》时的《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百四十五条规定：“涉外合同的当事人可以选择处理合同争议所适用的法律，法律另有规定的除外。涉外合同的当事人没有选择的，适用与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”本案双方当事人在合同中约定应当根据美国纽约州当时有效的法律订立、管辖和解释，该约定不违反法律规定，应认定有效。由于本案当事人营业地所在国新加坡和德国均为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》缔约国，美国亦为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》缔约国，且在一审审理期间双方当事人一致选择适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》作为确定其权利义务的依据，并未排除《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的适用，江苏省高级人民法院适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》审理本案是正确的。而对于审理案件中涉及到的问题《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》没有规定的，应当适用当事人选择的美国纽约州法律。《〈联合国国际货物销售合同公约〉判例法摘要汇编》并非《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的组成部分，其不能作为审理本案的法律依据。但在如何准确理解《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》相关条款的含义方面，其可以作为适当的参考资料。
双方当事人在《采购合同》中约定的石油焦HGI指数典型值在36-46之间，而德国克虏伯公司实际交付的石油焦HGI指数为32，低于双方约定的HGI指数典型值的最低值，不符合合同约定。江苏省高级人民法院认定德国克虏伯公司构成违约是正确的。
关于德国克虏伯公司的上述违约行为是否构成根本违约的问题。首先，从双方当事人在合同中对石油焦需符合的化学和物理特性规格约定的内容看，合同对石油焦的受潮率、硫含量、灰含量、挥发物含量、尺寸、热值、硬度（HGI值）等七个方面作出了约定。而从目前事实看，对于德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦，中化新加坡公司仅认为HGI指数一项不符合合同约定，而对于其他六项指标，中化新加坡公司并未提出异议。结合当事人提交的证人证言以及证人出庭的陈述，HGI指数表示石油焦的研磨指数，指数越低，石油焦的硬度越大，研磨难度越大。但中化新加坡公司一方提交的上海大学材料科学与工程学院出具的说明亦不否认HGI指数为32的石油焦可以使用，只是认为其用途有限。故可以认定虽然案涉石油焦HGI指数与合同约定不符，但该批石油焦仍然具有使用价值。其次，本案一审审理期间，中化新加坡公司为减少损失，经过积极的努力将案涉石油焦予以转售，且其在就将相关问题致德国克虏伯公司的函件中明确表示该批石油焦转售的价格“未低于市场合理价格”。这一事实说明案涉石油焦是可以以合理价格予以销售的。第三，综合考量其他国家裁判对《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中关于根本违约条款的理解，只要买方经过合理努力就能使用货物或转售货物，甚至打些折扣，质量不符依然不是根本违约。故应当认为德国克虏伯公司交付HGI指数为32的石油焦的行为，并不构成根本违约。江苏省高级人民法院认定德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约并判决宣告《采购合同》无效，适用法律错误，应予以纠正。
（生效裁判审判人员：任雪峰、成明珠、朱科）
Guidance Case No. 107
Sinochem International (Singapore) Co., Ltd.
v. ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd.
(Issued by the Supreme Court Judicial
Committee discussed February 25, 2019)
2019-02-25 11:12:24 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
1. The countries where the parties to the international sale of goods
contracts are parties to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods shall apply the provisions of the Convention in
priority, and the provisions of the contract shall apply to the provisions of
the contract. The parties to an international contract for the sale of goods
shall expressly exclude the application of the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and shall not apply the
Convention.
2. In the
international sale of goods contract, although the goods delivered by the
seller are defective, as long as the buyer can use the goods or resell the
goods with reasonable efforts, it should not be regarded as a fundamental
breach of contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods. situation.
Related law
Article
145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of
China
Articles 1 and 25 of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
Basic
case
April 11, 2008, Sinochem International (Singapore) Limited
(hereinafter referred to as Sinochem Singapore) and ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical
Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the German Krupp company) signed
a purchase petroleum coke. " Procurement Contract, stipulates that this
contract shall be concluded, governed and interpreted in accordance with the
laws in force in New York State at the time. Sinochem Singapore paid the full
amount of the contract , but the KGI index delivered by Krupp AG was only 32 ,
which is inconsistent with the typical HGI index of 36-46 as stipulated in the
contract . Sinochem Singapore believes that Krupp AG has constituted a
fundamental breach of contract and requested an order to terminate the
contract, requiring the German Krupp company to return the purchase price and
compensate for the loss.
Referee result
According
to the first instance of the Jiangsu Higher People's Court, according to the
relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods, the KGI index of the petroleum coke provided by
Krupp AG is far below the contractual standards, which makes it difficult for
petroleum coke to be sold in the domestic market. At the same time, the
expected purpose of the merger could not be realized, so the behavior of the
German Krupp company constituted a fundamental breach of contract. Jiangsu
Provincial Higher People's Court (2009) Su Min San Chu Zi No. 0004 civil
judgments in 2012, December 19: First, declare ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical
Products Co., Ltd. and Sinochem International (Singapore) Limited April 11,
2008 signed the "purchase contract" null and void. Second, Japan
ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd. effective date of this decision
within thirty days of the return of Sinochem International (Singapore) Ltd to
pay the purchase price of $ 2,684,302.9 and self-determined payment of 25
September 2008 to this decision Interest on the day. 3. ThyssenKrupp
Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd. compensated Sinochem International (Singapore)
Co., Ltd. for loss of USD 520,339.77 within 30 days from the effective date of
this judgment .
After the verdict was pronounced, the German
Krupp Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed
to the Supreme People's Court, arguing that the first-instance judgment was
wrong in applying the law to the case. The Supreme People's Court held that the
facts of the first-instance judgment were basically clear, but some of the laws
were incorrectly applied and the responsibility was improperly determined and
should be corrected. Supreme People's Court (2013) Min Si Zhong Zi No. 35 civil
judgments on June 30, 2014: First, remove Jiangsu Province Higher People's
Court (2009) Su Min San Chu Zi No. 0004 civil judgments first. Second, change
the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court ( 2009 ) Su Min San Chu Zi No.
0004 Civil Judgment No. 2 for ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co., Ltd. to
compensate Sinochem International within 30 days from the effective date of
this judgment ( Singapore) Limited loan losses of $ 1,610,581.74 and paid from
the date of payment of the September 25, 2008 to determine the interest of this
judgment. III. Change of Jiangsu Higher People's Court ( 2009 ) Su Min San Chu
Zi No. 0004 Civil Judgment No. 3 for ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products Co.,
Ltd. to compensate Sinochem International within 30 days from the effective
date of this judgment ( Singapore) Co., Ltd. reserves a loss of $ 984,42.79 .
4. Dismissed other claims from Sinochem International (Singapore) Co., Ltd.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that this case
is a dispute over international sales contracts, both parties are foreign
companies, and the case has foreign-related factors. Article 2 of the
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Law
applicable to the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign-related
Civil Relations (1): “The foreign-related civil relations that occurred before
the implementation of the law applicable to foreign-related civil relations
shall be relevant laws and regulations when foreign-related civil relations
that should apply the law; when the law does not require to be determined by
reference to the provisions of civil relations with foreigners law applicable
to the "case involving the" purchase contract "was signed in
2008, April 11, at. Before the implementation of the Law of the People's
Republic of China on the Application of Foreign-related Civil Relations Law,
Article 145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic
of China when the parties sign the Purchase Contract states: “ The parties to a
foreign-related contract may choose to apply the contract dispute. The law,
unless otherwise stipulated by the law. If the parties to the foreign-related
contract have no choice, the law of the country with the closest connection
with the contract shall apply. "The parties in the case agreed in the
contract that they should be concluded and governed according to the laws in
force in New York State at the time. And explain that the agreement does not
Anti law, shall be deemed valid. Since the countries in which the parties are
located in Singapore and Germany are both parties to the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the United States
is also a party to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International
Sale of Goods, and both parties have consistently chosen to apply the United
Nations International Sales of Goods during the trial. As a basis for
determining its rights and obligations, the Contract Convention does not
exclude the application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods. It is correct that the Higher People's Court of
Jiangsu Province applied the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods to hear the case. Where there is no provision in
the case concerning the handling of the case in the United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the laws of the State of New
York, selected by the parties, shall apply. The "Compilation of Case Laws
of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods" is not part of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods and cannot be used as a legal basis for the trial
of this case. However, it can be used as an appropriate reference in how to
accurately understand the meaning of the relevant provisions of the United
Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
The
typical CGI index of the petroleum coke agreed by the parties in the
“Procurement Contract” is between 36 and 46 , while the KGI index actually
delivered by Krupp AG is 32 , which is lower than the typical value of the HGI
index agreed by both parties . Value, does not meet the contractual agreement.
The Jiangsu Higher People's Court found that the German Krupp Company
constituted a breach of contract.
Whether
the above-mentioned breach of contract by Krupp AG constitutes a fundamental
breach of contract. First, from the content parties in the contract of the
chemical and physical properties of petroleum coke must meet the specifications
agreed see, damp rate contract petroleum coke, sulfur content, ash content,
volatile matter content, size, heat, hardness (HGI Values) and other seven
aspects have been agreed. From the current facts, Sinochem Singapore only
believes that the HGI index does not meet the contractual agreement for the
petroleum coke delivered by Krupp AG , but Sinochem Singapore has no objection
to the other six indicators. In combination with the witness testimony
submitted by the parties and the statement of the witness appearing in court,
the HGI index indicates the grinding index of the petroleum coke. The lower the
index, the greater the hardness of the petroleum coke and the more difficult
the grinding. However, the statement issued by the School of Materials Science
and Engineering of Shanghai University submitted by Sinochem Singapore does not
deny that the petroleum coke with HGI index of 32 can be used, but only that
its use is limited. Therefore, it can be concluded that although the petroleum
coke HGI index does not conform to the contractual agreement, the petroleum
coke still has value in use. Secondly, during the first trial of this case,
Sinochem Singapore Company re-sold the petroleum coke through active efforts to
reduce losses, and it clearly stated the petroleum coke in the letter to the
German Krupp company. The resale price is “ not below the market reasonable
price ” . This fact indicates that the petroleum coke can be sold at a
reasonable price. Third, comprehensive consideration of the judgments of other
countries on the basic breach of contract provisions of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, as long as the
buyer can use the goods or resell the goods with reasonable efforts, or even
make some discounts, the quality is not a fundamental breach of contract. .
Therefore, it should be considered that the German Krupp company 's behavior of
delivering a petroleum coke with an HGI index of 32 does not constitute a
fundamental breach of contract. The Jiangsu Higher People's Court found that
the German Krupp Company constituted a fundamental breach of contract and the
judgment declared that the "purchase contract" was invalid, and the applicable
law was wrong and should be corrected.
(Effective referee judges: Ren Xuefeng, Cheng
Mingzhu, Zhu Ke)
__________
指导案例108号
浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司诉A.P.穆勒-马士基
有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷案
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:17:14 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
在海上货物运输合同中,依据合同法第三百零八条的规定，承运人将货物交付收货人之前，托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利，但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法第五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。托运人行使此项权利时，承运人也可相应行使一定的抗辩权。如果变更海上货物运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运，承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的请求，但应当及时通知托运人不能变更的原因。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国合同法》第308条
《中华人民共和国海商法》第86条
基本案情
2014年6月，浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司（以下简称隆达公司）由中国宁波港出口一批不锈钢无缝产品至斯里兰卡科伦坡港，货物报关价值为366918.97美元。隆达公司通过货代向A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司（以下简称马士基公司）订舱，涉案货物于同年6月28日装载于4个集装箱内装船出运，出运时隆达公司要求做电放处理。2014年7月9日，隆达公司通过货代向马士基公司发邮件称，发现货物运错目的地要求改港或者退运。马士基公司于同日回复，因货物距抵达目的港不足2天，无法安排改港，如需退运则需与目的港确认后回复。次日，隆达公司的货代询问货物退运是否可以原船带回，马士基公司于当日回复“原船退回不具有操作性，货物在目的港卸货后，需要由现在的收货人在目的港清关后，再向当地海关申请退运。海关批准后，才可以安排退运事宜”。2014年7月10日，隆达公司又提出“这个货要安排退运，就是因为清关清不了，所以才退回宁波的，有其他办法吗”。此后，马士基公司再未回复邮件。
涉案货物于2014年7月12日左右到达目的港。马士基公司应隆达公司的要求于2015年1月29日向其签发了编号603386880的全套正本提单。根据提单记载，托运人为隆达公司，收货人及通知方均为VENUS STEEL PVT LTD，起运港中国宁波，卸货港科伦坡。2015年5月19日，隆达公司向马士基公司发邮件表示已按马士基公司要求申请退运。马士基公司随后告知隆达公司涉案货物已被拍卖。
裁判结果
宁波海事法院于2016年3月4日作出(2015)甬海法商初字第534号民事判决，认为隆达公司因未采取自行提货等有效措施导致涉案货物被海关拍卖，相应货损风险应由该公司承担，故驳回隆达公司的诉讼请求。一审判决后，隆达公司提出上诉。浙江省高级人民法院于2016年9月29日作出（2016）浙民终222号民事判决：撤销一审判决；马士基公司于判决送达之日起十日内赔偿隆达公司货物损失183459.49美元及利息。二审法院认为依据合同法第三百零八条，隆达公司在马士基公司交付货物前享有请求改港或退运的权利。在隆达公司提出退运要求后，马士基公司既未明确拒绝安排退运，也未通知隆达公司自行处理，对涉案货损应承担相应的赔偿责任，酌定责任比例为50%。马士基公司不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月29日作出（2017）最高法民再412号民事判决：撤销二审判决；维持一审判决。
裁判理由
最高人民法院认为，合同法与海商法有关调整海上运输关系、船舶关系的规定属于普通法与特别法的关系。根据海商法第八十九条的规定，船舶在装货港开航前，托运人可以要求解除合同。本案中，隆达公司在涉案货物海上运输途中请求承运人进行退运或者改港，因海商法未就航程中托运人要求变更运输合同的权利进行规定，故本案可适用合同法第三百零八条关于托运人要求变更运输合同权利的规定。基于特别法优先适用于普通法的法律适用基本原则，合同法第三百零八条规定的是一般运输合同，该条规定在适用于海上货物运输合同的情况下，应该受到海商法基本价值取向及强制性规定的限制。托运人依据合同法第三百零八条主张变更运输合同的权利不得致使海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益显失公平，也不得使承运人违反对其他托运人承担的安排合理航线等义务，或剥夺承运人关于履行海上货物运输合同变更事项的相应抗辩权。
合同法总则规定的基本原则是合同法立法的准则，是适用于合同法全部领域的准则，也是合同法具体制度及规范的依据。依据合同法第三百零八条的规定，在承运人将货物交付收货人之前，托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利，但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法第五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。海上货物运输具有运输量大、航程预先拟定、航线相对固定等特殊性，托运人要求改港或者退运的请求有时不仅不易操作，还会妨碍承运人的正常营运或者给其他货物的托运人或收货人带来较大损害。在此情况下，如果要求承运人无条件服从托运人变更运输合同的请求，显失公平。因此，在海上货物运输合同下，托运人并非可以无限制地行使请求变更的权利，承运人也并非在任何情况下都应无条件服从托运人请求变更的指示。为合理平衡海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益之平衡，在托运人行使要求变更权利的同时，承运人也相应地享有一定的抗辩权利。如果变更运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运，承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的要求，但应当及时通知托运人不能执行的原因。如果承运人关于不能执行原因等抗辩成立，承运人未按照托运人退运或改港的指示执行则并无不当。
涉案货物采用的是国际班轮运输，载货船舶除运载隆达公司托运的4个集装箱外，还运载了其他货主托运的众多货物。涉案货物于2014年6月28日装船出运，于2014年7月12日左右到达目的港。隆达公司于2014年7月9日才要求马士基公司退运或者改港。马士基公司在航程已过大半，距离到达目的港只有两三天的时间，以航程等原因无法安排改港、原船退回不具有操作性为抗辩事由，符合案件事实情况，该抗辩事由成立，马士基公司未安排退运或者改港并无不当。
马士基公司将涉案货物运至目的港后，因无人提货，将货物卸载至目的港码头符合海商法第八十六条的规定。马士基公司于2014年7月9日通过邮件回复隆达公司距抵达目的港不足2日。隆达公司已了解货物到港的大体时间并明知涉案货物在目的港无人提货，但在长达8个月的时间里未采取措施处理涉案货物致其被海关拍卖。隆达公司虽主张马士基公司未尽到谨慎管货义务，但并未举证证明马士基公司存在管货不当的事实。隆达公司的该项主张缺乏依据。依据海商法第八十六条的规定，马士基公司卸货后所产生的费用和风险应由收货人承担，马士基公司作为承运人无需承担相应的风险。
（生效判决审判人员：王淑梅、余晓汉、黄西武）
Guidance Case No. 108
Zhejiang Longda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. v.
AP Muller – Maersk Co., Ltd.
(Issued by the Supreme Court Judicial
Committee discussed February 25, 2019)
2019-02-25 11:17:14 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
In the
contract for the carriage of goods by sea , in accordance with the provisions
of Article 308 of the Contract Law, the shipper has the right to request a
change of the contract of carriage before the carrier delivers the goods to the
consignee, but the parties still have to comply with Article 5 of the Contract
Law. The prescribed principle of fairness determines the rights and obligations
of the parties. When the shipper exercises this right, the carrier may also
exercise a certain right of defense. If the change of the contract for the
carriage of goods by sea is difficult to achieve or will seriously affect the
normal operation of the carrier, the carrier may refuse the shipper's request
to change the port or return the goods, but should promptly notify the shipper
of the reasons for the change.
Related law
Article 308 of the Contract Law of the
People's Republic of China
Article 86 of the Maritime Law of the People's
Republic of China
Basic
case
June 2014, Zhejiang Lunda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to Lunda company) by the Ningbo Port China exports a number of
stainless steel seamless product to the port of Colombo, Sri Lanka, customs
value of the goods is $ 366,918.97. Lunda company by forwarding to the AP
Moller - Maersk Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Maersk) booking, goods
involved in the same year on June 28 loaded shipping containers shipped within
4, when the company shipped Lunda asked to do electrical discharge treatment .
July 9, 2014, Lunda said the company e-mail to the company by Maersk freight
forwarding, find the goods required to change the wrong destination or returned
to Hong Kong. Maersk Company replied on the same day that it was unable to
arrange for the change of port because the goods arrived at the port of
destination less than 2 days. If it is necessary to return the goods, it must
be confirmed with the destination port and then reply. On the next day, the
freight forwarder of Ronda Company asked whether the goods could be returned to
the original ship. Maersk Company replied on the same day that “the original
ship returned is not operational. After the goods are unloaded at the port of
destination, the current consignee needs to be at the port of destination.
after customs clearance, local customs apply again returned after the approval
of the customs, we can arrange matters returned. " July 10, 2014, Lunda
company also proposed "to arrange for the goods returned, is not clear
because the clearance, so it returned to Ningbo, there are other ways to
do." Since then, Maersk has not responded to the mail.
Involved
in cargo arrival at destination in about July 12, 2014. Maersk should Lunda
requirements of the company in January 29, 2015 numbered 603,386,880 issued its
full set of original bills of lading. According to the bill of lading, the
shipper is Ronda, the consignee and the notifying party are VENUS STEEL PVT LTD
, the port of departure is Ningbo, China, and the port of discharge is Colombo.
May 19, 2015, the company Lunda mail, Maersk Line has been told by Maersk
require the applicant returned. Maersk then informed Ronda that the goods
involved in the case had been auctioned.
Referee
result
Ningbo
Maritime Court (2015) Ningbo Haifa Shang Chu Zi No. 534 civil judgments on
March 4, 2016, that the Lunda company for its own delivery and other effective measures
are not taken to be auctioned goods involved lead to customs, the corresponding
risk of cargo damage should The company assumed that the claim of Ronda Company
was rejected. After the judgment of the first instance, Ronda filed an appeal.
Zhejiang Higher People's Court on September 29, 2016 to (2016) Zhe Min Zhong
No. 222 civil judgments: verdict revoked; Maersk company on the date of service
of the decision within ten days Lunda company for damages of $ 183,459.49 goods
and interest. The court of second instance held that according to Article 308
of the Contract Law, Longda Company had the right to request to change port or
return shipment before Maersk Company delivered the goods. After the company
submitted the return request, Maersk Company did not expressly refuse to
arrange the return shipment, nor did it notify Ronda to handle it by itself. It
should bear the corresponding liability for the damage caused by the case, and
the discretionary responsibility ratio is 50% . Maersk Company refused to
accept the judgment of the second instance and applied to the Supreme People's
Court for retrial. Supreme People's Court on December 29, 2017 (2017) and then
up to France and China No. 412 civil judgment: revocation of a second trial;
upheld the verdict.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that the
provisions of the Contract Law and the Maritime Law relating to the adjustment
of maritime transport relations and ship relations are the relationship between
common law and special law. According to the provisions of Article 89 of the
Maritime Law, the shipper may request the termination of the contract before
the ship sails at the port of loading. In this case, Longda Company requested
the carrier to return or change the port during the maritime transport of the
goods involved. Since the maritime law does not stipulate the shipper’s right
to change the contract of carriage in the voyage, the contract law can be
applied to the third hundred and zero. Eight provisions concerning the
shipper’s request to change the rights of the contract of carriage. Based on
the basic principles of the law applicable to the common law, the special law
applies in Article 308 of the Contract Law. This article stipulates that in the
case of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, it should be subject to
the basic value orientation of the maritime law. And mandatory restrictions.
The shipper’s right to change the contract of carriage in accordance with
Article 308 of the Contract Law shall not result in the unfairness of the
interests of the parties in the contract of carriage of goods by sea, nor shall
the carrier violate the obligation to arrange reasonable routes to other
shippers, Or deprive the carrier of the corresponding right of defense to
perform changes to the contract of carriage of goods by sea.
The basic principle stipulated in the general
provisions of the contract law is the standard of contract law legislation,
which is the standard applicable to all areas of contract law, and also the
basis for the specific system and norms of contract law. According to Article
308 of the Contract Law, the shipper has the right to request a change of the
contract of carriage before the carrier delivers the goods to the consignee,
but the parties still have to follow the fairness principle stipulated in
Article 5 of the Contract Law. Party's rights and obligations. Sea cargo
transportation has special characteristics such as large transportation volume,
pre-planned voyage, and relatively fixed routes. Shippers' requests for port
change or return are sometimes not only difficult to operate, but also hinder
the normal operation of the carrier or ship to other cargoes or The consignee
brings greater damage. In this case, it is unfair if the carrier is required to
unconditionally obey the shipper’s request to change the contract of carriage.
Therefore, under the contract of carriage of goods by sea, the shipper is not
entitled to exercise the right to request a change without restriction, and the
carrier is not in any case unconditionally obeying the shipper’s request for a
change. In order to reasonably balance the interests of the parties in the
contract of carriage of goods by sea, the carrier also has a certain right of
defense while the shipper exercises the right to change the requirements. If
the change of the transportation contract is difficult to achieve or will
seriously affect the carrier's normal operation, the carrier may refuse the
shipper's request to change the port or return the goods, but should promptly
notify the shipper of the reasons for the failure to perform. If the carrier’s
defense against the failure to enforce the cause is established, the carrier’s
failure to comply with the shipper’s instructions to return or change the port
is not inappropriate.
The goods involved in the case were
transported by international liners. In addition to carrying the four
containers consigned by Ronda, the cargo ships carried a large number of goods
consigned by other cargo owners. Goods involved in the June 28, 2014 on board
the ship to reach the port of destination in about July 12, 2014. Lunda company
on July 9, 2014 before the company returned or changed requirements Maersk Hong
Kong. Maersk has been in the voyage for more than half of the time. It only takes
two or three days to reach the destination port. It is impossible to arrange
for the change of the port due to the voyage and other reasons. The original
ship is returned without operationality. It is in line with the facts of the
case. The defense was established. Maersk It is not inappropriate for the
company not to arrange for a return or change to Hong Kong.
After Maersk Company transported the goods
involved to the port of destination, the unloading of the goods to the port of
destination was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 of
the Maritime Law. Maersk on July 9, 2014 reply from the company arrived at the
port of destination Lunda less than the 2nd through the mail. Ronda has been
aware of the general time of arrival of the goods and knows that the goods
involved are not picked up at the port of destination, but did not take
measures to deal with the goods involved in the case for up to eight months to
be auctioned by the customs. Although Ronda has claimed that Maersk has not
fulfilled its cautious obligation to manage the goods, it has not proved that
Maersk has the fact that the goods are improperly handled. Ronda’s claim is
unfounded. According to the provisions of Article 86 of the Maritime Law, the
costs and risks incurred by Maersk Company after unloading shall be borne by
the consignee, and Maersk shall not bear the corresponding risks as the
carrier.
(Effective
judges: Wang Shumei, Yu Xiaohan, Huang Xiwu)
__________
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
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:19:21 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
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.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.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。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条、第44条
基本案情
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》”。
《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。
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。
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。
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。
裁判结果
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。
裁判理由
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》，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。
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。
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。
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。
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，Jose Brenes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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
（生效裁判审判人员：陈纪忠、杨弘磊、杨兴业）
Guidance Case No. 109
Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group)
Co., Ltd.
Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd.
(Issued by the Supreme Court Judicial
Committee discussed February 25, 2019)
2019-02-25 11:19:21 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
1. When it is determined that the formation of an independent letter
of guarantee fraud requires review of the underlying transaction, the principle
of limitation and necessity should be adhered to. The scope of the examination
should be limited to whether the beneficiary knows that the counterpart of the
underlying contract does not have the fact of default under the underlying
contract and whether there is any benefit. People know that they do not have
the right to request payment.
2. The
default situation of the beneficiary under the basic contract does not affect
its right to submit documents and make claims in accordance with the provisions
of the independent guarantee.
3. If there is any fraud under the independent counter-guarantee
letter, even if the independent guarantee has a fraudulent situation and the
payment is made in good faith under the independent guarantee, the people's
court may not decide to stop the payment under the independent
counter-guarantee letter.
Related
law
Articles
8 and 44 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Application of
Foreign-related Civil Relations Law
Basic case
January 16, 2010, Oriental Land Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the Oriental Land Company) as a developer, and Anhui Foreign
Economic Construction as the contractor (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as Foreign Economic Corporation), as the construction side Anhui Foreign
Economic Construction Central America Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
Foreign Economics Central America Company) signed the “Construction Contract
for the Costa Rica Lakeside Project” (hereinafter referred to as the
“Construction Contract”) in San Jose, Costa Rica, stipulates that the
contractor is three Construction of a 14-storey mixed commercial and
residential building. Foreign Economic Corporation on May 26, 2010 to Anhui
Branch of China Construction Bank Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CCB
Anhui Branch) apply, and transfer to the Bank of Costa Rica as the opening line
to the company as a beneficiary of the Oriental Land opened compliance The
letter of guarantee is guaranteed to be the Huafu project on the shores of
Costa Rica. May 28, 2010, the Costa Rican bank to open a number G051225 performance
bond, the guarantor for the Anhui Branch of China Construction Bank, the
principal is a foreign economic company, the beneficiary Oriental Land Company,
the guarantee amount of $ 2.008 million, valid until October 2011 12, after
postponed to February 12, 2012. Letter of guarantee: Unconditional,
irrevocable, mandatory, pay-as-you-go guarantee. The execution of this letter
of guarantee requires the beneficiary to submit two copies of the supporting
documents to the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the Central Office of the Bank of
Costa Rica, indicating the reasons for the execution of the letter of
guarantee, and the beneficiary’s notarized statement states that the request
was notified to the foreign Central American company for breach of contract. Date,
accompanied by a letter of guarantee and an amendment that has been issued. CCB
Anhui Branch also issued a counter-guarantee letter numbered to the Bank of
Costa Rica with the number 341-47020000289 , and promised to pay the amount
under the guarantee within 20 days after receiving the notice from the Costa
Rican bank. Counter guarantee is "unconditional, irrevocable, at any time
asked to pay" and agreed "to comply with the International Chamber of
Commerce Publication No. 458" Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees
"."
"Construction Contract" fulfillment
process, January 23, 2012, the architect Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora issued
"project inspection reports." The report identified a situation where
the construction project had “ poor construction ” and “ poor quality ” and
needed to be modified or repaired. February 7, 2012, foreign companies to the
Central American Oriental Land Company to be submitted to arbitration request
the applicant to the Joint Association of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica
Dispute Resolution Center, the Oriental Land Company believes arrears should be
paid the amount of construction has been completed for the works And the
corresponding interest, request to terminate the contract and ruling the
Oriental Real Estate Company to compensate for the loss. February 8, Oriental
Land Company of Costa Rica submitted to the bank statement of claim, notices of
default, breach of contract statement, "project inspection reports"
and other guarantees payment documents, required to perform guarantee. February
10, Costa Rica Bank issued a message to China Construction Bank branch in
Anhui, said the Oriental Land Company filed a claim payments 2.008 million US
dollars under G051225 No. Bank Guarantee, Costa Rica Bank then asked the CCB Anhui
Branch to be on February 16, 2012 The above payment was made a few days ago.
February 12, the company should apply for foreign economic relations in Central
America, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Costa Rica second lawsuit
the court to order interim measures of protection injunction, ruled that Costa
Rica banks to suspend the implementation of resolution G051225 performance
bond.
February 23,
Foreign Economic Corporation filed a lawsuit to guarantee fraud dispute Hefei
Intermediate People's Court, No. G051225 apply for suspension of payment
guarantees, payments under number 34147020000289 Guarantee. Court of First
Instance on 27 February made (2012) co-Min Si Chu Zi No. 00005-1 ruled that
ruling to suspend payments under guarantees and No. G051225 number
34147020000289 Guarantee, and on February 28 to reach the Anhui Branch of China
Construction Bank The above ruling. February 29, China Construction Bank branch
in Anhui send the message to the Bank of Costa Rica informed the Court of First
Instance ruled that the subject has been made on the same day sent a copy of
the above ruling to the bank in Costa Rica, Costa Rican bank receipt of the
above on March 5 A copy of the ruling.
March 6, Administrative Litigation Court of the Republic of Costa Rica
in Central America second court foreign economic relations company to apply
preventive measures lost, the lifting of the ban on interim measures of
protection. March 20, at the request of Costa Rica Bank, China Construction
Bank branch in Anhui extended the expiration date of the guarantee number
34147020000289. March 21, the Costa Rican bank paid the money under the number
G051225 Guarantee to the east property companies.
July 9, 2013,
the Costa Rican Association of architects and engineers to make a joint
arbitration award, the arbitral award recognized the Oriental Land Company in
the execution of this serious breach of contract, and the decision to terminate
"construction contract", Oriental Land Company to foreign economic
relations in Central America the company paid Nos. 1 to 18 project progress
payments totaling $ 800,058.45 plus interest; No. 19 project developers for
failing to obtain acceptance for projects related to failing to support the
request; due to the lower number G051225 guarantee payment had been made, it
does not support foreign economic relations in The request of the American
company to return the guarantee.
Referee result
Hefei
Intermediate People's Court (2012) co-Min Si Zi No. 00005 civil judgments on
April 9, 2014: First, the Oriental Land Company acts constitute fraud claims
against No. G051225 Performance Bond; Second, China Construction Bank in Anhui
Province The branch terminated the payment of $ 2008000 under the bank
guarantee number number 3414702000028 to the Costa Rican bank ; 3. Dismissed
other claims from the foreign economic group company. Dongfang Real Estate Co.,
Ltd. refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal.
Anhui Provincial Higher People's Court on March 19, 2015 (2014) Wan Min Er
Zhong Zi No. 00389 civil judgments: rejected the appeal and upheld the original
verdict. Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd. refused to accept the judgment of the
second instance and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. Supreme
People's Court (2017) and then up to France and China Civil Judgment No. 134 on
December 14, 2017: First, remove Anhui Province Higher People's Court (2014)
Wan Min Er Zhong Zi No. 00389, Hefei Intermediate People's Court ( 2012 ) He
Min Si Chu Zi No. 00005 Civil Judgment; Second, dismiss the foreign company's
litigation request.
Referee
reason
The
Supreme People's Court held that: First, the identification basis, jurisdiction
and application of the law regarding the independent letter of guarantee fraud
cases involved in this case. The parties to the dispute in this case, Dongfang
Real Estate Co., Ltd. and Costa Rica Bank’s permanent residence are located
outside the country. This case is a foreign-related commercial dispute.
According to Article VIII "foreign-related civil relations law applicable
to the People's Republic of China," "qualitative civil relations with
foreigners, the court shall apply the law" provisions, foreign group
companies as foreign economic relations in Central America in the country of
the parent company, is involved in the undertaking The applicant was opened,
and the application for the CCB Anhui Branch opened a pay-as-you-go
anti-guarantee letter to the Costa Rican bank, and the Costa Rican bank
transferred the performance bond to the beneficiary Oriental Real Estate.
According to the text of the letter of guarantee, the payment obligations of
the Bank of Costa Rica and the Anhui Branch of CCB are independent of the basic
transaction relationship and the legal relationship of the letter of guarantee
application. Therefore, the above guarantee can be determined as a
pay-as-you-go independent guarantee. The above-mentioned counter-guarantee
guarantee can be determined as a reference. Pay the independent counter-guarantee
letter. The foreign economic group company filed a lawsuit in the court of
first instance on the grounds of letter of guarantee fraud. The nature of the
case was a letter of credit fraud. The independent counter-guarantee letter
requested to be stopped shall be issued by the CCB Anhui Branch, and the
location of the branch shall be deemed to be the place where the infringement
result claimed by the foreign economic group company. The court of first
instance as the court of infringement has jurisdiction over the case. As the
letter of guarantee in the case states that the Uniform Rules for Pay-As-You-Go
Protection Letters shall apply, it shall be determined that the contents of the
above-mentioned rules constitute an integral part of the dispute guarantee.
According to Article 44 "foreign-related civil relations law applicable to
the People's Republic of China," "Tort Liability, applicable to tort
law" provides the "Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees" bond
fraud involved were not identified criteria should be applied laws of People's
Republic of China. China has not acceded to the UN Convention on Independent
Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit. The parties to this case have not
agreed to apply the above-mentioned conventions or to include the relevant
contents of the Convention as a letter of guarantee for international
transactions. According to the principle of autonomy of will, the UN Convention
on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit. Should not be applied.
Secondly, whether Dongfang Real Estate Co.,
Ltd. as a beneficiary has prima facie evidence under the basic contract proves
that its claim has a factual basis.
When the people's court hears the independent
guarantee letter and the counter-guarantee case related to the independent
guarantee, the review of the basic transaction shall adhere to the limited
principle and the necessary principle. The scope of the review shall be limited
to whether the beneficiary knows that the relative person of the basic contract
does not have a basic contract. The fact of default under the item or the fact
that there is no other payment resulting in the independent guarantee.
Otherwise, a review of the underlying contract will shake the system value
independent bond "first demand" in.
According
to Article 68 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on the Implementation of
the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China
(Trial), fraud is mainly manifested in fictional facts and concealing the
truth. According to the facts of the re- examination , the Bank of Costa Rica
opened a performance bond numbered G051225 , which clearly stated that the
documents required to be submitted for the realization of the letter of
guarantee were: a document indicating the reasons for the execution of the
letter of guarantee, and a notification to the Central American company to
execute the letter of guarantee request. The date, the original of the letter
of guarantee and the amendments that have been issued. Foreign Economic Corporation
proposition East Property's conduct constituted fraud under separate Guarantee
shall submit evidence of Oriental Land Company has one of the following acts
when independence guarantees: 1. the claim submission of false or forged
documents; 2. The claim is completely unfounded and credible. In this case, the
guarantee guarantees “ the quality and patience of the materials used during
the construction period, the losses caused by compensation or compensation,
and/or the failure of the contractor to perform the obligations ” , which means
that the guarantee guarantees the construction quality and other breach of
contract. Consequently, the beneficiary simply submit preliminary evidence to
prove the existence of construction quality problems, to meet the guarantee to
achieve the required "documents executed instructions Guarantee
reason." Case basis for performance of the contract, the Oriental Land
Company's project supervisors Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora on January 23, 2012
issued "project inspection reports." The report identified the
construction project as “ poor construction ” and “ poor quality ” and required
modification or repair. The “Project Engineering Inspection Report” constitutes
prima facie evidence of the existence of construction quality problems.
The parties in this case should submit the
“Project Engineering Inspection Report” to the Costa Rican Bank in the
“Construction Contract” and under the guarantee letter. Therefore, Dongfang
Real Estate Co., Ltd. has the right to submit “ certification execution ” to
the Costa Rican Bank. type bond reasons "of supporting documents, whether
to submit the report to the Bank of Costa Rica does not affect the realization
of the rights of its guarantee. In addition, the Construction Contract and the
letter of guarantee do not stipulate that the above report must be issued by
AIA International Architects or an international member of the American
Institute of Architects. Therefore, whether Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora have
the International Membership of the American Institute of Architects It does
not affect the project supervision report issued by the project supervision
personnel as the contractor. Foreign Economic Corporation of Jose Brenes and
Mauricio Mora are the Employer project supervisors identity is knowingly, when
it issued "project inspection reports," and receive project funds and
supervision of Jose Brenes identity Mauricio Mora is recognized, evidence which
is sufficient to prove itself recognized Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora supervision
of the identity of evidence to the contrary Jose Brenes and Mauricio Mora
issued a "project inspection report" false, can not logically
self-consistent. Because the foreign economic group company failed to provide
other evidence to prove that Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd. has no factual
basis or submitted false or forged documents, the Oriental Real Estate Company
has a factual basis for applying to the Costa Rican Bank for the realization of
the guarantee.
In summary, the "Project Engineering Inspection
Report" constitutes the prima facie evidence of the breach of contract
under the basic contract of the foreign economic group company. The evidence
provided by the foreign economic group company is insufficient to prove that
the above report is false or forged, and it is not enough to prove that
Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd. knows The counterparty of the underlying
contract does not have the fact of default under the underlying contract or
does not have other facts that result in the payment of the independent
guarantee. Based on the breach of contract under the basic contract of Foreign
Economic Group Corporation, Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd., according to the
provisions of the contract, proposes that the realization of the rights under
the independent guarantee does not constitute a letter of guarantee fraud.
Third, whether the default situation under the
basic contract of the beneficiary of the independent letter of guarantee will
necessarily constitute a fraudulent payment under the independent guarantee.
Foreign Economic Group believes that according
to Article 12, Item 3, Item 4 and Item 5 of the Supreme People's Court
Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Independent Guarantee
Letter Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the Judicial Interpretation of the
Independent Guarantee Letter), Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd. The company
constitutes an independent letter of fraud. According to the provisions of
Article 25 of the judicial interpretation of the independent guarantee, the
court explained that the foreign economic group company still insisted that the
handling of this case should not violate the spirit of the judicial
interpretation of the independent guarantee. In conjunction with the claims of
the Foreign Economic Group Corporation, the Supreme People's Court further
explained the relevant issues concerning the judicial interpretation of the
independent guarantee.
The independent guarantee is independent of
the basic transaction between the principal and the beneficiary. The bank
issuing the independent guarantee is only responsible for reviewing whether the
documents submitted by the beneficiary meet the requirements of the terms of
the guarantee and have the right to decide whether to pay or not. The guarantee
obligation of the guarantee bank is not entrusted. The impact of the right of
defense under the underlying transaction between the person and the
beneficiary. As a beneficiary, Orient Real Estate Co., Ltd., when submitting
prima facie evidence of the existence of engineering quality problems, does not
affect the realization of its letter of guarantee rights even if it does not
initiate any dispute resolution procedures such as litigation or arbitration
and confirms the breach of contract by the above procedures. Even if there is
an ongoing litigation or arbitration procedure in the underlying contract, as
long as the relevant dispute resolution procedure has not yet made the final
determination of the underlying transaction debtor's failure to pay or compensation,
it does not affect the realization of the beneficiary's guarantee right. In
other words, even if the effective judgment or arbitral award determines that
the beneficiary constitutes a breach of contract under the underlying contract,
the existence of the fact of default does not necessarily constitute a
sufficient and necessary condition for the “ fraud ” of the letter of guarantee
.
In this case, the guarantee of the guarantee
is the quality of construction and other breach of contract, and there is no
logical causal relationship between the fact of default of the beneficiary's
failure to pay the project and the quality of the project. Dongfang Real Estate
Co., Ltd. as the beneficiary, its own underlying contract The breach of
contract in the performance does not necessarily constitute a fraudulent claim
under the independent guarantee. The independent protection letter judicial
interpretation of the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 3, the conditions for
the identification of the independent guarantee fraud is limited to "the
court judgment or arbitral award determines that the underlying transaction
debtor has no payment or liability " , therefore, unless otherwise agreed
in the letter of guarantee,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。 Although the Costa Rican Association of United Architects and
engineers make an arbitral award, the Oriental Land Company finds breach of
contract during the performance of the contract, but these arbitration
proceedings in 2012 Nian 2 Yue 7 launch date by the Foreign Economic
Corporation, Oriental Land Company did not make a counterclaim , 2013 Nian 7
Yue 9 arbitration day made the decision only finds Oriental Land company for
breach of the company's request for foreign economic issues, but not recognized
by the presence of Foreign Economic Corporation and other breach of payment or
exempt from liability. Therefore, it cannot be determined according to the
content of the above arbitral award that Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd.
constitutes the letter of guarantee fraud under Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the
Judicial Interpretation of the Independent Guarantee.
In addition, the facts of the dispute between
the two parties on the quality of the project and the statement on the quality
of the project in the Arbitration Award made by the Center for Dispute
Resolution of the Association of Architects and Engineers of Costa Rica can be
corroborated by the Foreign Construction Central American Company in the
Construction Contract. The obligations under it have not been fully fulfilled.
In this case, there is no situation in which Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd.
confirms that the underlying transaction debt has been fully fulfilled or that
the payment due event has not occurred. The existing evidence also does not
prove that Orient Real Estate Company knows that it has no right to pay and
still abuses its rights. As a beneficiary, Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd., its
own breach of contract in the performance of the basic contract, although
confirmed by the arbitral award, did not exempt the group company from payment
or liability. In summary, even if the judicial interpretation of the
independent guarantee letter is applied in accordance with the claim of the
foreign economic group company, the case does not constitute a letter of
guarantee fraud.
Fourth,
regarding the issue of the independent counter-guarantee letter related to the
independent guarantee in this case.
Based on the characteristics of the
independent guarantee, the guarantor constitutes the direct payment
responsibility to the beneficiary outside the debtor, and there is no right of
defense between the independent guarantee and the main debt, even if the debtor
exercises the right of defense in a dispute resolution procedure, and It does
not of course give the independent guarantor the benefit of the defence. In
addition, even if there is a fraudulent claim by the beneficiary under the
independent guarantee, it cannot be presumed that the guarantee bank
constitutes a fraudulent claim under the independent counter-guarantee letter.
Only when the guarantee bank knows that the beneficiary is fraudulent and pays
in violation of the principle of good faith, and asserts the amount under the
independent counter-guarantee letter to the counter-guarantee bank, can the
secured bank constitute a fraudulent claim under the independent
counter-guarantee letter.
The foreign economic group company filed the
lawsuit on the grounds of letter of guarantee fraud, which should prove that
the Costa Rican bank knew that there was an independent letter of guarantee
fraud in the case of Dongfang Real Estate Co., Ltd., and still paid in
violation of the principle of good faith, and then acted as a beneficiary to
pay for the independent counter-guarantee. A request for a claim is made under
the letter and constitutes a fraudulent claim under the counter-guarantee
letter. At present, the foreign economic group company can not only prove that
the Costa Rican bank has fraudulently paid the amount of the independent
guarantee letter to the Oriental Real Estate Company, nor has it proved that
the Costa Rican bank has fraudulent claims under the independent
counter-guarantee letter, and its claim to stop the independent
counter-guarantee. There is no factual basis for the amount under the letter.
(Effective referee judges: Chen Jizhong, Yang
Honglei, Yang Xingye)
__________
指导案例110号
交通运输部南海救助局诉阿昌格罗斯投资公司、
香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处
海难救助合同纠纷案
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:21:12 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
1. 《1989年国际救助公约》和我国海商法规定救助合同“无效果无报酬”，但均允许当事人对救助报酬的确定可以另行约定。若当事人明确约定，无论救助是否成功，被救助方均应支付报酬，且以救助船舶每马力小时和人工投入等作为计算报酬的标准时，则该合同系雇佣救助合同，而非上述国际公约和我国海商法规定的救助合同。
2. 在《1989年国际救助公约》和我国海商法对雇佣救助合同没有具体规定的情况下，可以适用我国合同法的相关规定确定当事人的权利义务。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国合同法》第8条、第107条
《中华人民共和国海商法》第179条
基本案情
交通运输部南海救助局（以下简称南海救助局）诉称：“加百利”轮在琼州海峡搁浅后，南海救助局受阿昌格罗斯投资公司(以下简称投资公司)委托提供救助、交通、守护等服务，但投资公司一直未付救助费用。请求法院判令投资公司和香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处（以下简称上海代表处）连带支付救助费用7240998.24元及利息。
法院经审理查明：投资公司所属“加百利”轮系希腊籍油轮，载有卡宾达原油54580吨。2011年8月12日0500时左右在琼州海峡北水道附近搁浅，船舶及船载货物处于危险状态，严重威胁海域环境安全。事故发生后，投资公司立即授权上海代表处就“加百利”轮搁浅事宜向南海救助局发出紧急邮件，请南海救助局根据经验安排两艘拖轮进行救助，并表示同意南海救助局的报价。
8月12日2040时，上海代表处通过电子邮件向南海救助局提交委托书，委托南海救助局派出“南海救116”轮和“南海救101”轮到现场协助“加百利”轮出浅，承诺无论能否成功协助出浅，均同意按每马力小时3.2元的费率付费，计费周期为拖轮自其各自的值班待命点备车开始起算至上海代表处通知任务结束、拖轮回到原值班待命点为止。“南海救116”轮和“南海救101”轮只负责拖带作业，“加百利”轮脱浅作业过程中如发生任何意外南海救助局无需负责。另，请南海救助局派遣一组潜水队员前往“加百利”轮探摸，费用为：陆地调遣费10000元；水上交通费55000元；作业费每8小时40000元，计费周期为潜水员登上交通船开始起算，到作业完毕离开交通船上岸为止。8月13日，投资公司还提出租用“南海救201”轮将其两名代表从海口运送至“加百利”轮。南海救助局向上海代表处发邮件称，“南海救201”轮费率为每马力小时1.5元，根据租用时间计算总费用。
与此同时，为预防危险局面进一步恶化造成海上污染，湛江海事局决定对“加百利”轮采取强制过驳减载脱浅措施。经湛江海事局组织安排，8月18日“加百利”轮利用高潮乘潮成功脱浅，之后安全到达目的港广西钦州港。
南海救助局实际参与的救助情况如下：
南海救助局所属“南海救116”轮总吨为3681，总功率为9000千瓦（12240马力）。“南海救116”轮到达事故现场后，根据投资公司的指示，一直在事故现场对“加百利”轮进行守护，共工作155.58小时。
南海救助局所属“南海救101”轮总吨为4091，总功率为13860千瓦（18850马力）。该轮未到达事故现场即返航。南海救助局主张该轮工作时间共计13.58小时。
南海救助局所属“南海救201”轮总吨为552，总功率为4480千瓦（6093马力）。8月13日，该轮运送2名船东代表登上搁浅船，工作时间为7.83小时。8月16日，该轮运送相关人员及设备至搁浅船，工作时间为7.75小时。8月18日，该轮将相关人员及行李运送上过驳船，工作时间为8.83小时。
潜水队员未实际下水作业，工作时间为8小时。
另查明涉案船舶的获救价值为30531856美元，货物的获救价值为48053870美元，船舶的获救价值占全部获救价值的比例为38.85%。
裁判结果
广州海事法院于2014年3月28日作出(2012)广海法初字第898号民事判决:一、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬6592913.58元及利息；二、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。投资公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2015年6月16日作出（2014）粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决:一、撤销广州海事法院（2012）广海法初字第898号民事判决;二、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬2561346.93元及利息；三、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。南海救助局不服二审判决，申请再审。最高人民法院于2016年7月7日作出（2016）最高法民再61号民事判决: 一、撤销广东省高级人民法院（2014）粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决；二、维持广州海事法院（2012）广海法初字第898号民事判决。
裁判理由
最高人民法院认为，本案系海难救助合同纠纷。中华人民共和国加入了《1989年国际救助公约》（以下简称救助公约），救助公约所确立的宗旨在本案中应予遵循。因投资公司是希腊公司，“加百利”轮为希腊籍油轮，本案具有涉外因素。各方当事人在诉讼中一致选择适用中华人民共和国法律，根据《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第三条的规定，适用中华人民共和国法律对本案进行审理。我国海商法作为调整海上运输关系、船舶关系的特别法，应优先适用。海商法没有规定的，适用我国合同法等相关法律的规定。
海难救助是一项传统的国际海事法律制度，救助公约和我国海商法对此作了专门规定。救助公约第十二条、海商法第一百七十九条规定了“无效果无报酬”的救助报酬支付原则，救助公约第十三条、海商法第一百八十条及第一百八十三条在该原则基础上进一步规定了报酬的评定标准与具体承担。上述条款是对当事人基于“无效果无报酬”原则确定救助报酬的海难救助合同的具体规定。与此同时，救助公约和我国海商法均允许当事人对救助报酬的确定另行约定。因此，在救助公约和我国海商法规定的“无效果无报酬”救助合同之外，还可以依当事人的约定形成雇佣救助合同。
根据本案查明的事实，投资公司与南海救助局经过充分磋商，明确约定无论救助是否成功，投资公司均应支付报酬，且“加百利”轮脱浅作业过程中如发生任何意外，南海救助局无需负责。依据该约定，南海救助局救助报酬的获得与否和救助是否有实际效果并无直接联系，而救助报酬的计算，是以救助船舶每马力小时，以及人工投入等事先约定的固定费率和费用作为依据，与获救财产的价值并无关联。因此，本案所涉救助合同不属于救助公约和我国海商法所规定的“无效果无报酬”救助合同，而属雇佣救助合同。
关于雇佣救助合同下的报酬支付条件及标准，救助公约和我国海商法并未作具体规定。一、二审法院依据海商法第一百八十条规定的相关因素对当事人在雇佣救助合同中约定的固定费率予以调整，属适用法律错误。本案应依据我国合同法的相关规定，对当事人的权利义务予以规范和确定。南海救助局以其与投资公司订立的合同为依据，要求投资公司全额支付约定的救助报酬并无不当。
综上，二审法院以一审判决确定的救助报酬数额为基数，依照海商法的规定，判令投资公司按照船舶获救价值占全部获救财产价值的比例支付救助报酬，适用法律和处理结果错误，应予纠正。一审判决适用法律错误，但鉴于一审判决对相关费率的调整是以当事人的合同约定为基础，南海救助局对此并未行使相关诉讼权利提出异议，一审判决结果可予维持。
（生效裁判审判人员：贺荣、张勇健、王淑梅、余晓汉、郭载宇）
Guidance Case No. 110
Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of
Transport v. Achang Gross Investment Co.,
Hong Kong Anda Ossen Co., Ltd. Shanghai
Representative Office
Shipwreck rescue contract dispute
(Supreme People's Court Judicial Committee
discussed and approved 2019 Nian 2 Yue 25 release date)
2019-02-25 11:21:12 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
1. " 1989 International Convention on Salvage," and our
maritime salvage contract provisions " no cure no pay " , but allows
the determination of both parties to a salvage reward can be agreed. If the
parties expressly agree that the rescued party shall pay remuneration
regardless of whether the rescue is successful or not, and that the rescued
ship’s horsepower per hour and labor input are used as the standard for
calculating remuneration, the contract is a employment assistance contract
instead of the above-mentioned international conventions and China. A bailout
contract stipulated by the Maritime Law.
2. In the
case that the International Convention on Relief in 1989 and the Maritime Law
of China have no specific provisions on employment assistance contracts, the
relevant provisions of China's contract law may be applied to determine the
rights and obligations of the parties.
Related law
Articles
8 and 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 179 of the Maritime Law of the
People's Republic of China
Basic case
The
South China Sea Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport (hereinafter
referred to as the South China Sea Rescue Bureau) alleged that: After the “ Gabriel
” round was stranded in the Qiongzhou Strait, the Nanhai Rescue Bureau was
commissioned by Achang Gross Investment Company ( hereinafter referred to as
the investment company ) to provide assistance, transportation and protection.
Waiting for services, but the investment company has not paid the bailout fee.
The court was ordered to order the investment company and the Hong Kong Anda
Ossen Co., Ltd. Shanghai Representative Office (hereinafter referred to as the
Shanghai Representative Office) to pay the rescue fee of 7,240,998.24 yuan and
interest.
The
court found through trial that the “ Gabriel ” wheel of the investment company
was a Greek tanker carrying 54580 tons of Cabinda crude oil . 2011 Nian 8 Yue
12 Ri 0500 at around near the Qiongzhou Strait North Channel aground, and the
goods on board the ship at risk, a serious threat to the environment safe
waters. After the accident, immediately authorized investment company Shanghai
representative office to " Gabriel " round stranded matters issued an
urgent message to the South China Sea Rescue Bureau, the South China Sea Rescue
Bureau were requested relief arrangements based on experience two tugs, and
agreed to offer South China Sea Rescue Bureau.
8 Yue 12 Ri
2040 , the Shanghai representative office in South China Sea Rescue Bureau to
submit a power of attorney by e-mail, commissioned by the South China Sea
Rescue Bureau sent a " South China Sea rescue 116" round and "
South China Sea rescue 101" turn to the scene to help , " Gabriel
," rounds out the light Commitment, regardless of whether it can
successfully assist in the light, agree to pay at a rate of 3.2 yuan per
horsepower hour . The billing cycle is for the tugboat to start from the time
of the standby duty station to the Shanghai representative office, and the
tugboat returns. The original duty is on standby. The “ Nanhai Rescue 116” and
“ Nanhai Rescue 101” rounds are only responsible for towing operations. If
there is any accident during the “ Gabriel ” wheel deviation operation, the
South China Sea Rescue Bureau is not responsible. In addition, please ask the
Nanhai Rescue Bureau to send a group of diving members to the " Gabriel
" round of exploration, the cost is: land transfer fee of 10,000 yuan;
water transportation fee of 55,000 yuan; operating fee of 40000 per 8 hours
Yuan, the billing cycle starts when the diver boardes the traffic ship, and
leaves the traffic ship ashore until the operation is completed. On August 13 ,
the investment company also proposed to rent the " Nanhai Rescue 201"
round to transport its two representatives from Haikou to the " Gabriel
" round. The South China Sea Rescue Bureau sent an email to the Shanghai
Representative Office saying that the “ Nanhai Rescue 201” round rate is 1.5 yuan
per horsepower hour , and the total cost is calculated based on the rental
time.
At the same time, in order to prevent further
deterioration of the dangerous situation and cause marine pollution, the
Zhanjiang Maritime Safety Administration decided to take measures to force
offloading and de-loading the " Gabriel " round. By Zhanjiang
Maritime Bureau organization, 8 Yue 18 Ri " Gabriel " round off the
successful use climax tide shallow, after the safe arrival destination Qinzhou
Port.
The actual assistance of the South China Sea
Rescue Bureau is as follows:
The total capacity of the Nanhai Rescue
Bureau's “ Nanhai Rescue 116” is 3681 , and the total power is 9000 kW ( 12,240
hp). After the " Nanhai Rescue 116" round arrived at the scene of the
accident, according to the instructions of the investment company, the "
Gabriel " round was guarded at the scene of the accident , working a total
of 155.58 hours.
South
China Sea Rescue Bureau belongs to " the South China Sea rescue 101"
round gross tonnage is 4091 , the total power of 13860 kW ( 18,850 hp). The
round returned to the scene of the accident. The South China Sea Rescue Bureau
claimed that the total working time of the round was 13.58 hours.
The South China Sea Rescue Bureau's “ Nanhai
Rescue 201” has a total tonnage of 552 and a total power of 4,480 kW ( 6093
hp). On August 13 , the ship transported two shipowners to board the stranded
ship, working for 7.83 hours. On August 16 , the ship transported relevant
personnel and equipment to the stranded ship, and the working time was 7.75
hours. On August 18th , the relevant personnel and baggage were transported to
the barge, and the working time was 8.83 hours.
The
diving team did not actually work in the water, and the working time was 8
hours.
It was
also found that the salvage value of the vessel involved was $ 305,31856 , the
salvage value of the cargo was $ 480,538,700 , and the salvage value of the
ship accounted for 38.85% of the total salvage value .
Referee
result
Guangzhou
Maritime Court in 2014 Nian 3 Yue 28 to May (2012) wide Haifa Chu Zi 898 No
civil judgments : First, the investment company pay to salvage the South China
Sea Rescue Bureau 6592913.58 million and interest; Second, dismissed the other
claims of the South China Sea Rescue Bureau request. The investment company
refused to accept the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal. Guangdong
Provincial Higher People's Court in 2015 Nian 6 Yue 16 to May ( 2014 )
Guangdong Supreme Min Si Zhong Zi 117 No civil judgments : First, remove
(Guangzhou Maritime Court 2012 ) wide Haifa Chu Zi 898 number of civil
judgments ; Second, investment The company paid the rescue fee of 2,561,134.93
yuan and interest to the Nanhai Rescue Bureau ; 3. Dismissed other claims from
the Nanhai Rescue Bureau. The South China Sea Rescue Bureau refused to accept
the second instance judgment and applied for retrial. Supreme People's Court in
2016 Nian 7 Yue 7 a day to make ( 2016 ) and then up to France and China 61 No.
Civil Judgment : 1. Cancellation of the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's
Court ( 2014 ) Guangdong Gao Famin Si Zhong Zi No. 117 Civil Judgment; 2.
Maintaining the Civil Judgment of the Guangzhou Maritime Court ( 2012 )
Guanghai Fa Chu Zi No. 898 .
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that this case
is a shipwreck rescue contract dispute. The People’s Republic of China has
acceded to the International Convention on Relief of 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as the bailout convention), and the purposes established by the bailout
convention should be followed in this case. Since the investment company is a
Greek company, the “ Gabriel ” round is a Greek-based tanker. This case has
foreign-related factors. The parties concerned unanimously chose to apply the
laws of the People's Republic of China in the lawsuit, and the law of the
People's Republic of China shall be applied to hear the case in accordance with
the provisions of Article 3 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the
Application of Foreign-related Civil Relations Law. China's maritime law, as a
special law to adjust the relationship between maritime transport and ships,
should be applied first. If there is no stipulation in the Maritime Law, the
provisions of the relevant laws of China's contract law shall apply.
Shipwreck rescue is a traditional
international maritime legal system. The bailout convention and China’s
maritime law have made special provisions. Article 12 of the Salvation
Convention and Article 179 of the Maritime Law stipulate the principle of “ no
effect and no remuneration ” for the payment of salvage remuneration, Article
13 of the Salvation Convention, Article 180 of the Maritime Law and the one
hundred and eighty Article 13 further stipulates the evaluation criteria and
specific commitments of remuneration on the basis of this principle. The
above-mentioned clauses are specific provisions for the shipwreck rescue
contract for the parties to determine the salvage compensation based on the
principle of “ no effect and no remuneration ” . At the same time, both the
bailout convention and the Chinese maritime law allow parties to agree on the
determination of salvage remuneration. Therefore, in addition to the “ no
effect and no remuneration ” bailout contract stipulated in the bailout
convention and China’s maritime law , an employment bailout contract can be
formed according to the agreement of the parties.
According
to the facts ascertained in this case, the investment company and the Nanhai
Rescue Bureau have fully negotiated that the investment company should pay the
remuneration regardless of the success of the rescue, and if there is any
accident during the “ Gabriel ” round of the shallow operation, the South China
Sea rescue The bureau does not need to be responsible. According to the
agreement, there is no direct connection between the acquisition of the
remuneration of the South China Rescue Bureau and the actual effect of the
rescue. The calculation of the salvage remuneration is based on the fixed rate
and cost agreed upon per hour of horsepower and labor input. As a basis, it is
not related to the value of the property being rescued. Therefore, the bailout
contract involved in this case does not belong to the “ no effect and no
remuneration ” bailout contract stipulated in the bailout convention and
China’s maritime law , but is an employment bailout contract.
There are no specific provisions on the
payment terms and standards for remuneration under the employment assistance
contract, the bailout convention and the Chinese Maritime Law. The first and
second instance courts adjust the fixed rate agreed upon by the parties in the
employment assistance contract in accordance with the relevant factors
stipulated in Article 180 of the Maritime Law, which is an error in applicable
law. This case shall be based on the relevant provisions of China's contract
law, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be standardized and
determined. The South China Sea Rescue Bureau relies on its contract with the
investment company to require the investment company to pay the agreed salvage
payment in full.
To sum up, the court of second instance, based
on the amount of salvage compensation determined in the first instance
judgment, in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Law, the investment
company is ordered to pay salvage remuneration in proportion to the value of
the salvage value of the ship in the total value of the salvage property, and
the applicable law and the result of the treatment are wrong. correct. The
first-instance judgment applies a legal error, but in view of the fact that the
first-instance judgment adjusts the relevant rate based on the contractual
agreement of the parties, the Nanhai Rescue Bureau has not challenged the
relevant litigation rights, and the judgment of the first instance can be
maintained.
(Effective referee judges: He Rong, Zhang
Yongjian, Wang Shumei, Yu Xiaohan, Guo Zaiyu)
__________
指导案例111号
中国建设银行股份有限公司广州荔湾支行诉广东
蓝粤能源发展有限公司等信用证开证纠纷案
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:22:58 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
1.提单持有人是否因受领提单的交付而取得物权以及取得何种类型的物权，取决于合同的约定。开证行根据其与开证申请人之间的合同约定持有提单时，人民法院应结合信用证交易的特点，对案涉合同进行合理解释，确定开证行持有提单的真实意思表示。
2.开证行对信用证项下单据中的提单以及提单项下的货物享有质权的，开证行行使提单质权的方式与行使提单项下货物动产质权的方式相同，即对提单项下货物折价、变卖、拍卖后所得价款享有优先受偿权。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国海商法》第71条
《中华人民共和国物权法》第224条
《中华人民共和国合同法》第80条第1款
基本案情
中国建设银行股份有限公司广州荔湾支行（以下简称建行广州荔湾支行）与广东蓝粤能源发展有限公司（以下简称蓝粤能源公司）于2011年12月签订了《贸易融资额度合同》及《关于开立信用证的特别约定》等相关附件，约定该行向蓝粤能源公司提供不超过5.5亿元的贸易融资额度，包括开立等值额度的远期信用证。惠来粤东电力燃料有限公司（以下简称粤东电力）等担保人签订了保证合同等。2012年11月，蓝粤能源公司向建行广州荔湾支行申请开立8592万元的远期信用证。为开立信用证，蓝粤能源公司向建行广州荔湾支行出具了《信托收据》，并签订了《保证金质押合同》。《信托收据》确认自收据出具之日起，建行广州荔湾支行即取得上述信用证项下所涉单据和货物的所有权，建行广州荔湾支行为委托人和受益人，蓝粤能源公司为信托货物的受托人。信用证开立后，蓝粤能源公司进口了164998吨煤炭。建行广州荔湾支行承兑了信用证，并向蓝粤能源公司放款84867952.27元，用于蓝粤能源公司偿还建行首尔分行的信用证垫款。建行广州荔湾支行履行开证和付款义务后，取得了包括本案所涉提单在内的全套单据。蓝粤能源公司因经营状况恶化而未能付款赎单，故建行广州荔湾支行在本案审理过程中仍持有提单及相关单据。提单项下的煤炭因其他纠纷被广西防城港市港口区人民法院查封。建行广州荔湾支行提起诉讼，请求判令蓝粤能源公司向建行广州荔湾支行清偿信用证垫款本金84867952.27元及利息；确认建行广州荔湾支行对信用证项下164998吨煤炭享有所有权，并对处置该财产所得款项优先清偿上述信用证项下债务；粤东电力等担保人承担担保责任。
裁判结果
广东省广州市中级人民法院于2014年4月21日作出（2013）穗中法金民初字第158号民事判决，支持建行广州荔湾支行关于蓝粤能源公司还本付息以及担保人承担相应担保责任的诉请，但以信托收据及提单交付不能对抗第三人为由，驳回建行广州荔湾支行关于请求确认煤炭所有权以及优先受偿权的诉请。建行广州荔湾支行不服一审判决，提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2014年9月19日作出（2014）粤高法民二终字第45号民事判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。建行广州荔湾支行不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2015年10月19日作出（2015）民提字第126号民事判决，支持建行广州荔湾支行对案涉信用证项下提单对应货物处置所得价款享有优先受偿权，驳回其对案涉提单项下货物享有所有权的诉讼请求。
裁判理由
最高人民法院认为，提单具有债权凭证和所有权凭证的双重属性，但并不意味着谁持有提单谁就当然对提单项下货物享有所有权。对于提单持有人而言，其能否取得物权以及取得何种类型的物权，取决于当事人之间的合同约定。建行广州荔湾支行履行了开证及付款义务并取得信用证项下的提单，但是由于当事人之间没有移转货物所有权的意思表示，故不能认为建行广州荔湾支行取得提单即取得提单项下货物的所有权。虽然《信托收据》约定建行广州荔湾支行取得货物的所有权，并委托蓝粤能源公司处置提单项下的货物，但根据物权法定原则，该约定因构成让与担保而不能发生物权效力。然而，让与担保的约定虽不能发生物权效力，但该约定仍具有合同效力，且《关于开立信用证的特别约定》约定蓝粤能源公司违约时，建行广州荔湾支行有权处分信用证项下单据及货物，因此根据合同整体解释以及信用证交易的特点，表明当事人真实意思表示是通过提单的流转而设立提单质押。本案符合权利质押设立所须具备的书面质押合同和物权公示两项要件，建行广州荔湾支行作为提单持有人，享有提单权利质权。建行广州荔湾支行的提单权利质权如果与其他债权人对提单项下货物所可能享有的留置权、动产质权等权利产生冲突的，可在执行分配程序中依法予以解决。
（生效裁判审判人员：刘贵祥、刘敏、高晓力）
Guidance Case No. 111
China Construction Bank Corporation Guangzhou
Liwan Branch v. Guangdong
Lan Yue Energy Development Co., Ltd. and other
letters of credit issue dispute
(Supreme People's Court Judicial Committee
discussed and approved 2019 Nian 2 Yue 25 release date)
2019-02-25 11:22:58 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
1. Whether
the holder of the bill of lading obtains the property right and the type of
property acquired due to the delivery of the bill of lading depends on the
contract. When the issuing bank holds the bill of lading according to the
contract between the issuing bank and the applicant for the issuing of the
certificate, the people's court shall, in conjunction with the characteristics
of the letter of credit transaction, reasonably interpret the contract and
determine the true meaning of the bill of lading held by the issuing bank.
2. The issuing bank has the pledge of the bill of lading and the goods
under the bill of lading in the documents under the letter of credit, and the
issuing bank exercises the pledge of the bill of lading in the same way as the
pledge of the movable property of the bill of lading, ie the bill of lading
Under the item, the price of the goods will be discounted, sold, and auctioned.
Related law
Article
71 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 224 of the Property Law of the
People's Republic of China
Article 80 , paragraph 1, of the Contract Law
of the People's Republic of China
Basic case
China
Construction Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan (hereinafter referred to as
Construction Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan) and Guangdong Guangdong Blue
Energy Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to Guangdong Blue Energy
Company) in 2011 Nian 12 Yue signed a "Trade Financing Line Contract"
and "About Open Relevant annexes to the L/C and other relevant agreements
stipulate that the bank will provide Lan Yue Energy Company with a trade
financing limit of not more than 550 million yuan, including the opening of a
forward letter of credit equivalent. Huilai Yuedong Electric Fuel Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Yuedong Electric Power Co., Ltd.) and other
guarantors signed a guarantee contract. 2012 Nian 11 months, the blue energy
companies to Guangdong Construction Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan apply to
open 8592 million in long-term credit. In order to open a letter of credit,
Lanyue Energy Company issued the “Trust Receipt” to the CCB Guangzhou Liwan
Branch and signed the “Margin Pledge Contract”. The "Trust Receipt"
confirms that from the date of receipt of the receipt, CCB Guangzhou Liwan
Sub-branch will obtain the ownership of the documents and goods under the
above-mentioned letter of credit, CCB Guangzhou Liwan Branch actee and
beneficiary, Lan Yue Energy Company as trust goods trustee. After the letter of
credit was opened, Lan Yue Energy Company imported 164,998 tons of coal. CCB
Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch accepted the letter of credit and loaned
84,868,552.27 yuan to Lanyue Energy Co., Ltd. , which was used by Lanyue Energy
to repay the letter of credit of CCB Seoul Branch. After the CCB Guangzhou
Liwan Sub-branch fulfilled its obligation to issue certificates and pay, it
obtained a full set of documents including the bill of lading involved in the
case. Lan Yue Energy Company failed to pay the redemption order due to the
deterioration of its operating conditions. Therefore, CCB Guangzhou Liwan
Sub-branch still holds the bill of lading and related documents during the
trial. The coal under the bill of lading was seized by the People's Court of the
Port Area of Fangchenggang City, Guangxi due to other disputes. Construction
Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan filed a lawsuit requesting an order Blue
Guangdong energy company repay the principal amount of the letter of credit
advances to the China Construction Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan 84,867,952.27
Yuan and interest; confirm that CCB Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch has ownership of
164,998 tons of coal under the letter of credit , and preferentially pay off
the debts under the above-mentioned letters of credit for the disposal of the
property; guarantors such as Yuedong Power assume the guarantee responsibility.
Referee
result
Guangzhou
City, Guangdong Province, Intermediate People's Court in 2014 Nian 4 Yue 21
made (May 2013 ) Golden Spike France Minchuzi first 158 No. civil judgments,
support Construction Bank branch in Guangzhou Liwan Guangdong on Blue Energy
guarantor debt service and undertake corresponding security responsibility The
petition, but the receipt of the trust receipt and the bill of lading could not
be against the third party, dismissed the claim of the CCB Guangzhou Liwan
Sub-branch for requesting confirmation of coal ownership and priority
repayment. CCB Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch refused to accept the first-instance
judgment and filed an appeal. Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court in
2014 Nian 9 Yue 19 to May ( 2014 ) Yue Gao Fa Min Er Zhong Zi 45 No. civil
judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. CCB Guangzhou
Liwan Sub-branch refused to accept the second-instance judgment and applied to
the Supreme People's Court for retrial. Supreme People's Court in 2015 Nian 10
Yue 19 made (May 2015 ) Min Ti Zi of 126 No. civil judgments, Liwan, Guangzhou
Branch of China Construction Bank support for the case involving letters of
credit under the bill of lading proceeds from the disposal of goods that have
priority claim, dismissed its The case involves a claim for ownership of the
goods under the bill of lading.
Referee
reason
The Supreme People's Court held that the bill
of lading has the dual attributes of the creditor's right certificate and the
title certificate, but it does not mean that whoever holds the bill of lading
will of course have ownership of the goods under the bill of lading. For holders
of bills of lading, whether they can acquire property rights and what type of
property rights are obtained depends on the contractual agreement between the
parties. CCB Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch fulfilled the obligation of issuing
documents and payment and obtained the bill of lading under the letter of
credit. However, because the parties did not transfer the ownership of the
goods, it could not be considered that the CCB Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch
obtained the bill of lading and obtained the goods under the bill of lading.
ownership. Although the "Record Receipt" stipulates that CCB
Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch obtains the ownership of the goods and entrusts Lan
Yue Energy Company to dispose of the goods under the bill of lading, according to
the statutory principle of property rights, the agreement cannot be effective
because it constitutes a guarantee. However, although the agreement on the
guarantee can not be effective, but the agreement still has the effect of the
contract, and the “Special Agreement on Opening a Letter of Credit” stipulates
that the Lan Yue Energy Company defaults, the CCB Guangzhou Liwan Branch has
the right to dispose of the letter of credit. According to the overall
interpretation of the contract and the characteristics of the letter of credit
transaction, it indicates that the true meaning of the party is to establish
the bill of lading by the circulation of the bill of lading. The case is in
line with the written pledge contract and property rights disclosure required
for the establishment of the right pledge. The CCB Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch
is the holder of the bill of lading and enjoys the right of pledge of the bill
of lading. The pledge of the bill of lading rights of CCB Guangzhou Liwan
Sub-branch may be resolved in accordance with the law in the implementation of
the distribution procedure if it conflicts with other creditors’ rights to
liens and movable property rights to the goods under the bill of lading.
(Effective referee judges: Liu Guixiang, Liu
Min, Gao Xiaoli)
__________
指导案例112号
阿斯特克有限公司申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金案
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2019年2月25日发布）
2019-02-25 11:24:16 | 来源：最高人民法院
裁判要点
海商法第二百一十二条确立海事赔偿责任限制实行 “一次事故，一个限额，多次事故，多个限额”的原则。判断一次事故还是多次事故的关键是分析事故之间是否因同一原因所致。如果因同一原因发生多个事故，且原因链没有中断的，应认定为一次事故。如果原因链中断并再次发生事故，则应认定为形成新的独立事故。
相关法条
《中华人民共和国海商法》第212条
基本案情
阿斯特克有限公司向天津海事法院提出申请称，其所属的“艾侬”轮收到养殖损害索赔请求。对于该次事故所造成的非人身伤亡损失，阿斯特克有限公司作为该轮的船舶所有人申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金，责任限额为422510特别提款权及该款项自2014年6月5日起至基金设立之日止的利息。
众多养殖户作为利害关系人提出异议，认为阿斯特克有限公司应当分别设立限制基金，而不能就整个航次设立一个限制基金。
法院查明：涉案船舶韩国籍“艾侬”轮的所有人为阿斯特克有限公司，船舶总吨位为2030吨。2014年6月5日，“艾侬”轮自秦皇岛开往天津港装货途中，在河北省昌黎县、乐亭县海域驶入养殖区域，造成了相关养殖户的养殖损失。
另查明，“艾侬”轮在本案损害事故发生时使用英版1249号海图，该海图已标明本案损害事故发生的海域设置了养殖区，并划定了养殖区范围。涉案船舶为执行涉案航次所预先设定的航线穿越该养殖区。
再查明，郭金武与刘海忠的养殖区相距约500米左右，涉案船舶航行时间约2分钟；刘海忠与李卫国等人的养殖区相距约9000米左右，涉案船舶航行时间约30分钟。
裁判结果
天津海事法院于2014年11月10日作出（2014）津海法限字第1号民事裁定：一、准许阿斯特克有限公司提出的设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的申请。二、海事赔偿责任限制基金数额为422510特别提款权及利息（利息自2014年6月5日起至基金设立之日止，按中国人民银行确定的金融机构同期一年期贷款基准利率计算）。三、阿斯特克有限公司应在裁定生效之日起三日内以人民币或法院认可的担保设立海事赔偿责任限制基金（基金的人民币数额按本裁定生效之日的特别提款权对人民币的换算办法计算）。逾期不设立基金的，按自动撤回申请处理。郭金武、刘海忠不服一审裁定，向天津市高级人民法院提起上诉。天津市高级人民法院于2015年1月19日作出（2015）津高民四终字第10号民事裁定：驳回上诉，维持原裁定。郭金武、刘海忠、李卫国、赵来军、齐永平、李建永、齐秀奎不服二审裁定，申请再审。最高人民法院于2015年8月10日作出（2015）民申字第853号民事裁定，提审本案，并于2015年9月29日作出（2015）民提字第151号民事裁定：一、撤销天津市高级人民法院（2015）津高民四终字第10号民事裁定。二、撤销天津海事法院（2014）津海法限字第1号民事裁定。三、驳回阿斯特克有限公司提出的设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的申请。
裁判理由
最高人民法院认为，海商法第二百一十二条确立海事赔偿责任限制实行事故原则，即“一次事故，一个限额，多次事故，多个限额”。判断一次还是多次事故的关键是分析两次事故之间是否因同一原因所致。如果因同一原因发生多个事故，但原因链没有中断，则应认定为一个事故。如果原因链中断，有新的原因介入，则新的原因与新的事故构成新的因果关系，形成新的独立事故。就本案而言，涉案“艾侬”轮所使用的英版海图明确标注了养殖区范围，但船员却将航线设定到养殖区，本身存在重大过错。涉案船舶在预知所经临的海域可能存在大面积养殖区的情形下，应加强瞭望义务，保证航行安全，避免冲撞养殖区造成损失。根据涉案船舶航行轨迹，涉案船舶实际驶入了郭金武经营的养殖区。鉴于损害事故发生于中午时分，并无夜间的视觉障碍，如船员谨慎履行瞭望和驾驶义务，应能注意到海面上悬挂养殖物浮球的存在。在昌黎县海洋局出具证据证明郭金武遭受实际损害的情形下，可以推定船员未履行谨慎瞭望义务，导致第一次侵权行为发生。依据航行轨迹，船舶随后进入刘海忠的养殖区，由于郭金武与刘海忠的养殖区毗邻，相距约500米，基于船舶运动的惯性及船舶驾驶规律，涉案船舶在当时情形下无法采取合理措施避让刘海忠的养殖区，致使第二次侵权行为发生。从原因上分析，两次损害行为均因船舶驶入郭金武养殖区之前，船员疏于瞭望的过失所致，属同一原因，且原因链并未中断，故应将两次侵权行为认定为一次事故。船舶驶离刘海忠的养殖区进入开阔海域，航行约9000米，时长约半小时后进入李卫国等人的养殖区再次造成损害事故。在进入李卫国等人的养殖区之前，船员应有较为充裕的时间调整驾驶疏忽的心理状态，且在预知航行前方还有养殖区存在的情形下，更应加强瞭望义务，避免再次造成损害。涉案船舶显然未尽到谨慎驾驶的义务，致使第二次损害事故的发生。两次事故之间无论从时间关系还是从主观状态均无关联性，第二次事故的发生并非第一次事故自然延续所致，两次事故之间并无因果关系。阿斯特克有限公司主张在整个事故发生过程中船员错误驶入的心理状态没有变化，原因链没有中断的理由不能成立。虽然两次事故的发生均因“同一性质的原因”，即船员疏忽驾驶所致，但并非基于“同一原因”，引起两次事故。依据“一次事故，一次限额”的原则，涉案船舶应分别针对两次事故设立不同的责任限制基金。一、二审法院未能全面考察养殖区的位置、两次事故之间的因果关系及当事人的主观状态，作出涉案船舶仅造成一次事故，允许涉案船舶设立一个基金的认定错误，依法应予纠正。
（生效裁判审判人员：王淑梅、傅晓强、黄西武）
Guidance Case No. 112
Astek Co., Ltd. applied for the establishment
of a maritime liability limitation fund case
(Supreme People's Court Judicial Committee
discussed and approved 2019 Nian 2 Yue 25 release date)
2019-02-25 11:24:16 | Source: Supreme People's
Court
Referee points
Article
211 of the Maritime Law establishes the principle of “ one accident, one limit,
multiple accidents, multiple limits ” for the limitation of liability for
maritime claims . The key to judging an accident or multiple accidents is to
analyze whether the accidents are caused by the same cause. If multiple
accidents occur for the same reason and the cause chain is not interrupted, it
shall be considered as an accident. If the cause chain is interrupted and an
accident occurs again, it should be considered as a new independent incident.
Related
law
Article
212 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China
Basic case
Astek
Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Tianjin Maritime Court, claiming that
its “ Ai ” round received a claim for aquaculture damage claim. For
non-personal injury losses caused by the accident, Aspen Turk Co., Ltd. as the
owner of the application round Limitation of Liability for Maritime Fund, the
limits of liability to 422,510 Special Drawing Rights and the sum since 2014
Nian 6 Yue 5 Interest from the date of the establishment of the fund to the
date of establishment of the fund.
Many
farmers have raised objections as interested parties and believe that Astike
Co., Ltd. should set up a restricted fund separately, instead of setting up a
restricted fund for the entire voyage.
The court found that the owner of the vessel
involved in the Korean “ Ai ” round was Astike Co., Ltd., with a total tonnage
of 2030 tons. 2014 Nian 6 Yue 5 days, " Ai Lennon " round the way
from Qinhuangdao cargo bound for the port of Tianjin, into the farming region
in Changli County, Hebei Province, Leting County waters, resulting in losses
related to aquaculture farmers.
It was
also found that the " Ai Wei " round used the English version of No.
1249 in the event of the damage in this case . The chart has indicated that the
aquaculture zone has been set up in the sea area where the accident occurred,
and the scope of the culture zone has been delineated. The ship involved in the
case crosses the breeding area for the route pre-set by the voyage involved.
It was
further found that Guo Jinwu and Liu Haizhong's breeding area are about 500
meters apart , and the sailing time of the ship involved is about 2 minutes;
Liu Haizhong and Li Weiguo and other people's breeding areas are about 9000
meters away, and the sailing time of the ship involved is about 30 minutes.
Referee result
Tianjin Maritime Court in 2014 Nian 11 Yue 10
to May ( 2014 ) Zi Jin Haifa limit 1 Hao civil ruling: First, permit
restrictions apply for the fund for maritime claims liability Aspen Turk Co.
raised. Second, limit the amount of liability for maritime claims fund 422 510
Special Drawing Rights and interest (interest since 2014 Nian 6 Yue 5 day stop
until the establishment of the fund, financial institutions, according to
People's Bank of China to determine the one-year benchmark lending rate
calculated over the same period) . 3. Astike Co., Ltd. shall establish a
maritime liability limitation fund within three days from the date of the entry
into force of the ruling by the renminbi or a court-approved guarantee (the
renminbi amount of the fund shall be converted into RMB according to the
special drawing right on the effective date of this ruling. Method
calculation). If the fund is not established within the time limit, it shall be
processed according to the automatic withdrawal of the application. Guo Jinwu
and Liu Haizhong refused to accept the first-instance ruling and appealed to
the Tianjin Higher People's Court. Tianjin Higher People's Court in 2015 Nian 1
Yue 19 a day to make ( 2015 ) Tianjin Gao Min Zhong Zi four 10 Hao civil
ruling: dismiss the appeal and upheld the original ruling. Guo Jinwu, Liu
Haizhong, Li Weiguo, Zhao Laijun, Qi Yongping, Li Jianyong and Qi Xiukui
refused to accept the second instance ruling and applied for retrial. Supreme
People's Court in 2015 Nian 8 Yue 10 a day to make ( 2015 ) Min Shen Zi 853 No.
civil ruling, arraignment the case, and in 2015 Nian 9 Yue 29 made (May 2015 )
Min Ti Zi of 151 No civil ruling: First, remove the Tianjin Higher People's
Court ( 2015 ) Gao Min Tsu four Final Word No. 10 Civil Ruling. 2. Revocation
of the Tianjin Maritime Court ( 2014 ) Jinhai Law Limited Word No. 1 Civil
Ruling. 3. Rejecting the application for the establishment of a maritime
liability limitation fund proposed by Astike Co., Ltd.
Referee
reason
The
Supreme People's Court held that Article 221 of the Maritime Law establishes
the principle of accidents for the limitation of maritime claims, that is,
" one accident, one limit, multiple accidents, multiple limits " .
The key to judging one or more accidents is to analyze whether the two
accidents are caused by the same reason. If multiple accidents occur for the
same reason, but the cause chain is not interrupted, it should be considered an
accident. If the cause chain is interrupted and there are new reasons for
intervention, the new cause constitutes a new causal relationship with the new
accident and forms a new independent accident. As far as this case is
concerned, the English version of the chart used in the " Ai Wei "
round clearly marked the scope of the breeding area, but the crew set the route
to the breeding area, which itself has major faults. In the case that the
vessel involved in the case may have a large-scale aquaculture area in the sea
area where the foresight is to be carried out, the obligatory obligation should
be strengthened to ensure safe navigation and avoid damage caused by collision
with the farming area. According to the trajectory of the ship involved in the
case, the ship involved in the case actually entered the breeding area operated
by Guo Jinwu. In view of the fact that the damage occurred at noon, there was
no nighttime visual impairment. If the crew carefully performed their
expectations and driving duties, they should be able to notice the presence of
suspended culture floats on the surface of the sea. In the case that the
Changli County Marine Bureau issued evidence to prove that Guo Jinwu suffered
actual damage, it can be presumed that the crew did not fulfill the cautious
obligatory obligation, resulting in the first infringement. According to the
trajectory of the voyage, the ship then entered the breeding area of Liu
Haizhong. Since Guo Jinwu and Liu Haizhong's breeding area are adjacent to each
other, about 500 meters apart , based on the inertia of the ship's motion and
the law of ship driving, the ship involved in the case could not take
reasonable measures to avoid it. Liu Haizhong’s breeding area caused the second
infringement to take place. From the analysis of the reasons, the two damages
were caused by the negligence of the crew before the ship entered the Guo Jinwu
breeding area, and the cause chain was not interrupted. Therefore, the two
infringements should be recognized as one time. accident. The ship sailed away
from the breeding area of Liu Haizhong and entered the open sea, sailing
about 9000. After about half an hour, the meter entered the breeding area of
Li Weiguo and others and caused another damage accident. Before entering the
breeding area of Li Weiguo and others, the crew should have more time to
adjust the psychological state of driving negligence, and in the case of
pre-knowing that there is a breeding area in front of the voyage, it is
necessary to strengthen the obligatory obligation to avoid causing damage
again. The ship involved in the case apparently failed to fulfill the
obligation to drive cautiously, resulting in the second damage accident. There
was no correlation between the two accidents in terms of time and subjective
state. The second accident was not caused by the natural continuation of the
first accident. There was no causal relationship between the two accidents.
Astek Co., Ltd. advocated that the psychological state of the crew entering the
wrong state during the whole accident did not change, and the reason why the
chain of reasons did not break could not be established. Although the occurrence
of both accidents was caused by “the same nature ” , that is, the crew’s
negligent driving, it was not based on “the same reason ” and caused two
accidents. According to the principle of “ one accident, one limit ” , the ship
involved in the case should set up different liability limitation funds for the
two accidents. The courts of the first and second courts failed to
comprehensively examine the location of the aquaculture area, the causal
relationship between the two accidents, and the subjective state of the
parties. The ship involved in the case only caused an accident and allowed the
vessel involved in the case to establish a fund with a wrong determination,
which should be corrected according to law.
(Effective referee judges: Wang Shumei, Fu
Xiaoqiang, Huang Xiwu)
No comments:
Post a Comment