双语案例推送之质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

一、厦门鑫油造漆工业有限公司诉厦门福邦典当有限责任公司抵押权案

【裁判要旨】

抵押合同是抵押人与抵押权人就抵押权达成的合意。作为抵押合同当事人之一的抵押人必须具备两个条件：一是必须有完全民事行为能力，二是须对抵押财产有处分权。此外，抵押合同作为担保合同的一种，还应符合以下几个条件：当事人的意思表示真实、内容合法、形式符合法律要求、代订担保合同的须为有效代理。而善意取得，是指无权处分人在不法将其受托占有的他人的财物转让给第三人的，如受让人在取得该动产时系出于善意，则受让人取得该物的所有权，原权利人丧失所有权。犯罪嫌疑人使用伪造的文件以公司的名义与第三人签订房屋抵押合同时，该公司已注销的，民事主体资格已经丧失，抵押合同已然无效，且犯罪嫌疑人的代理权系基于其伪造委托书、公证书等文件取得的，属于非法取得，故第三人不能适用善意取得制度。

[Judgment Abstract] 

A mortgage contract is an expression of consensus reached between the mortgagor and the mortgagee on the mortgage right. The mortgagor, as a party to the mortgage contract, must meet two conditions: on the one hand, he must have full civil capacity; on the other, he must have the right to dispose of the mortgaged property. In addition, as a kind of guaranty contract, a mortgage contract shall entail the true intention of the parties, lawful content, legal form, and valid proxy in the guaranty contract to be concluded. The bona fide acquisition applies to a circumstance where, if a person without the right of disposition transfers the entrusted property of another person to a third party in violation of the law, the transferee can obtain the ownership of the property and the original oblige loses his ownership, provided that the transferee acquires the property bona fide. In the case where the suspect signs a housing mortgage contract with a third person in the name of a company by using forged documents, but the company has been deregistered to the extent of which its civil subject qualification has been deprived and the mortgage contract is null and void, and the suspect's proxy is illegally obtained through the forgery of documents such as the letter of authorization and the notarial certificate, such proxy is in violation of laws and therefore the bona fide acquisition does not apply to such third party.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.840472

[CLI Code] CLI.C.840472(EN)

二、莱芜市钢源金属制品有限公司与中国农业银行股份有限公司莱芜钢都支行存单纠纷再审案

Laiwu Gangyuan Metal Products Co., Ltd. v. Laiwu Steel City Sub-Branch of Agricultural Bank of China Co., Ltd. (retrial of case regarding a deposit certificate)

【裁判摘要】

存单纠纷，是指在储贷过程中，金融机构的违规操作和不正当竞争，引发的存款人或出资人、金融机构、用资人之间以存单为主要表现形式的纠纷，是市场经济发展的产物。《最高人民法院关于审查存单纠纷案件的若干规定》第一条和第二条分别对存单纠纷案件的范围和案由作出了明确规定，并且着重强调了人民法院在实际审理该类纠纷时应以其案件中真实存在的法律关系为基础。据此可知，在审理存单纠纷的过程中，人民法院可以对该纠纷所涉及的其他法律关系进行审理。

[Judgment Abstract]

As a product of market economy development, a deposit certificate dispute refers to a dispute manifested mainly in the form of deposit certificate arising between depositors or investors, financial institutions and capital users as a consequence of violations and unfair competition of the financial institution in the course of saving and lending. Article 1 and Article 2 of Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Hearing Cases on Disputes over Deposit Certificates specify the scope and cause of action of deposit certificate dispute, and emphasize that a people's court shall go through an actual hearing of such disputes based on the legal relations actually existing in the case. Hence, a people's court may hear other legal relations involved in such a deposit certificate dispute.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2228486

[CLI Code] CLI.C.2228486(EN)

三、山西临猗湖滨果汁有限公司与中国工商银行股份有限公司三门峡湖滨支行案外人执行异议纠纷案

Shanxi Linyi Hubin Juice Co., Ltd. v. Sanmenxia Hubin Sub-branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (case regarding dispute over objection to enforcement raised by a party not involved in the case)

【裁判要旨】

抵押物分别存放于两个以上不同登记机关辖区时，依据中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理局《企业动产抵押物登记管理办法》（2000年修订）第二条第二款的规定，由主要抵押物所在地的市、县工商行政管理局登记，并将登记情况抄送抵押人登记注册机关和其他抵押物所在地的登记机关。未按规定程序办理抄送手续，不影响抵押的效力。

《中华人民共和国公司法》(1999年修订)第二十四条第一款、二十五条第一款、二十七条第一款规定：“股东以实物出资的，必须进行评估作价，核实财产，依法办理财产权的转移手续。”出资人在出资前对其所有的财产有合法的处分权，其所设立的抵押权亦是合法有效的。因此，股东出资的实物并移交其所有权之前已经登记设立的抵押权溯及转让后的财产。

[Judgment Abstract]

Where collaterals are separately stored in two different registration authority jurisdictions, the administration for industry and commerce of the city or town where the main collaterals are located shall handle the registration, and shall send a copy of the registration to the mortgage registration authority and the registration authorities where other collaterals are located in accordance with the provisions of Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the Measures for the Administration of the Registration of Enterprise Chattels Under Mortgage (2000 Revision) by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. However, a failure to send a copy in accordance with the prescribed procedures does not affect the validity of the mortgage.

Under the provisions of Article 24 Paragraph 1, Article 25 Paragraph 1 and Article 27 Paragraph 1 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (1999 Amendment), “Where a shareholder makes a capital contribution in kind, which shall be correctly assessed and verified, the procedures for transfer of the property rights shall be completed according to laws”. An investor has a legal disposition right to all of their properties before the capital contribution, so the mortgage right set up by the investor is legal and valid. Therefore, mortgage rights of a shareholder's contribution in kind that have been registered and established before the transfer of the ownership are retroactive to the properties transferred.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.631309

[CLI Code] CLI.C.631309(EN)