质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

本期双语案例推送天津劝业华联集团有限公司与烟台市振华百货集团股份有限公司股权转让纠纷申请案等质押合同类案例。

目录

Contents

1.天津劝业华联集团有限公司与烟台市振华百货集团股份有限公司股权转让纠纷申请案

Tianjin Quanye Hualian Group Co., Ltd. v. Yantai Zhenhua Merchandise Group Co., Ltd. (application for a retrial of dispute regarding equity transfer)

2. 新疆维吾尔自治区农村社会养老保险基金管理中心与乌鲁木齐市商业银行股份有限公司科技支行存单纠纷案

Rural Social Pension Insurance Fund Management Center of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. Keji Sub-branch of Bank of Urumqi Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a deposit certificate)

3. 深圳市佳穗投资发展有限公司诉交通银行中山分行、交通银行中山分行三乡支行及第三人深圳市宝安万延工业城有限公司、中山市万延电子厂、中山市巨龙工贸有限公司存单纠纷案

Shenzhen Jiasui Investment and Development Co., Ltd. v. Zhongshan Branch of Bank of Communications, Sanxiang Sub-Branch of Zhongshan Branch of Bank of Communications, and Shenzhen Bao'an Wanyan Industrial City Co., Ltd., Zhongshan Wanyan Electronics Factory, and Zhongshan Julong Industry and Trade Co., Ltd (as a third party) (case regarding dispute over a deposit certificate)

二、新疆维吾尔自治区农村社会养老保险基金管理中心与乌鲁木齐市商业银行股份有限公司科技支行存单纠纷案

Rural Social Pension Insurance Fund Management Center of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. Keji Sub-branch of Bank of Urumqi Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a deposit certificate)

【裁判要旨】

根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百一十四条规定，当事人可以约定一方违约时应当根据违约情况向对方支付一定数额的违约金，也可以约定因违约产生的损失赔偿额的计算方法。约定的违约金低于造成的损失的，当事人可以请求人民法院或者仲裁机构予以增加，约定的违约金过分高于造成的损失的，当事人可以请求人民法院或者仲裁机构予以适当减少。可知，我国合同法规定的违约金具有双重性质，即补偿性和惩罚性，但是系以补偿性为主要功能，对于数额过高或过低的违约金条款，均可以守约方的实际损失为参照标准，予以适当调整。因此，当约定的违约金数额明显超过实际损失时，违约方可以请求人民法院予以适当减少。

[Judgment Abstract]

According to Article 114 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China, the parties may agree that if one party breaches the contract, it shall pay a certain sum of liquidated damages to the other party in light of the circumstances of the breach, and may also agree on a method for the calculation of the amount of compensation for the damages incurred as a result of the breach. Where the amount of liquidated damages agreed upon is lower than the damages incurred, a party may petition the People's Court or an arbitration institution to make an increase; where the amount of liquidated damages agreed upon are significantly higher than the damages incurred, a party may petition the People's Court or an arbitration institution to make an appropriate reduction. Accordingly, the liquidated damages have two purposes, namely “compensation and punishment”, with the compensation as the main function. The amount of liquidated damages, irrespective of whether it is significantly higher or lower than the damages occurred, shall be appropriately adjusted by referring to the actual loss incurred to the non-breaching party. Therefore, where the amount of liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties are significantly higher than the actual losses incurred, the breaching party may petition a people's court to make an appropriate reduction.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2453954

[CLI Code] CLI.C.2453954(EN)

三、深圳市佳穗投资发展有限公司诉交通银行中山分行、交通银行中山分行三乡支行及第三人深圳市宝安万延工业城有限公司、中山市万延电子厂、中山市巨龙工贸有限公司存单纠纷案

Shenzhen Jiasui Investment and Development Co., Ltd. v. Zhongshan Branch of Bank of Communications, Sanxiang Sub-Branch of Zhongshan Branch of Bank of Communications, and Shenzhen Bao'an Wanyan Industrial City Co., Ltd., Zhongshan Wanyan Electronics Factory, and Zhongshan Julong Industry and Trade Co., Ltd (as a third party) (case regarding dispute over a deposit certificate)

【裁判要旨】

[Judgment Abstract]

In accordance with Article 6 of the Regulations on the Hearing of Cases Concerning Certificates of Deposit, cases involving certificates of deposit arising in the following circumstances are classified as loan disputes: (1) A lender of capital delivers the loan funds directly to the capital user to use, or has it passed on to the capital user to use by a financial institution, and (2) the financial institution issues to the capital lender the certificate of deposit, the credit advice sheet, the reconciliation sheet or concludes the deposit contract with the capital lender, and (3) the capital lender gains or agrees to gain a high margin from the capital user or from the financial institution. In view of the above, where a depositor delivers the funds directly to others to use after he has signed a deposit contract with a financial institution and agreed on a high margin, such an act fully conforms to the above provisions on classifying cases as disputes over loans manifested by certificates of deposit. Thus, any dispute arising in the above-mentioned circumstances by a party shall be classified as a loan dispute rather than a deposit dispute.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2453960

[CLI Code] CLI.C.2453960(EN)