摘要： 最高人民法院借款擔(dān)保合同糾紛案件判決書(shū) （中英文） CIVIL JUDGMENT OF LOAN GUARANTEE CONTRACT 本案系中國(guó)工商銀行股份有限公司三門(mén)峽車站支行與三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司、三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司借款擔(dān)保合同糾紛案 Case of dispute over loan gua
最高人民法院借款擔(dān)保合同糾紛案件判決書(shū) （中英文）
CIVIL JUDGMENT OF LOAN GUARANTEE CONTRACT
本案系中國(guó)工商銀行股份有限公司三門(mén)峽車站支行與三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司、三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司借款擔(dān)保合同糾紛案
Case of dispute over loan guarantee contracts among Sanmenxia Station Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. v. Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited and Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd.
最高人民法院Supreme People’s Court
民事判決書(shū)Civil Judgment
(2008)民二終字第81號(hào)No.81 [2008], Final, Civil Division II, SPC
上訴人(原審原告)：中國(guó)工商銀行股份有限公司三門(mén)峽車站支行。住所地：河南省三門(mén)峽市崤山中路7號(hào)。
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Sanmenxia Station Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd.Address: 7 Xiaoshan Middle Road, Sanmenxia City, Henan Province.
負(fù)責(zé)人：董超群，該支行行長(zhǎng)。Person in charge: Dong Chaoqun, head of this branch.
委托代理人：柴軼，中國(guó)工商銀行三門(mén)峽分行職員。
Authorized representative: Chai Yi, employee of this branch.
委托代理人：許欣海，北京市遠(yuǎn)東律師事務(wù)所律師。
Attorney: Xu Xinhai, lawyer of Beijing Far East Law Firm.
被上訴人(原審被告)：三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司。住所地：河南省三門(mén)峽市東風(fēng)南路10號(hào)。
Appellee (Defendant in the Original Instance): Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited.Address: 10 Dongfeng South Road, Sanmenxia City, Henan Province.
法定代表人：李和平，該公司董事長(zhǎng)。
Legal representative: Li Heping, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
委托代理人：宋東珉，該公司職員。
Authorized representative: Song Dongmin, employee of this company.
委托代理人：郭亞平，河南世紀(jì)通律師事務(wù)所北京分所律師。
Attorney: Guo Yaping, lawyer from the Beijing Branch of Henan Shijitong Law Office.
原審被告：三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司。住所地：河南省三門(mén)峽市東風(fēng)南路 10號(hào)。
Defendant in the Original Instance: Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd.Address: 10 Dongfeng South Road, Sanmenxia City, Henan Province.
法定代表人：朱強(qiáng)，該公司董事長(zhǎng)。
Legal representative: Zhu Qiang, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
上訴人中國(guó)工商銀行股份有限公司三門(mén)峽車站支行(以下簡(jiǎn)稱三門(mén)峽車站工行)為與被上訴人三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司(以下簡(jiǎn)稱天元股份公司)，原審被告三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司(以下簡(jiǎn)稱天元集團(tuán)公司)、原三門(mén)峽天成電化有限公司 (已破產(chǎn)終結(jié)，以下簡(jiǎn)稱天成電化公司)借款擔(dān)保合同糾紛一案，不服河南省高級(jí)人民法院(2006)豫法民二初字第44號(hào)民事判決，向本院提起上訴。本院依法組成由審判員張樹(shù)明擔(dān)任審判長(zhǎng)，代理審判員王華菊、代理審判員沙玲參加的合議庭進(jìn)行了審理。書(shū)記員趙穗軍擔(dān)任記錄。本案現(xiàn)已審理終結(jié)。
For disputes over loan guarantee contracts with the appellee, Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Tianyuan Joint-stock Company”), and the defendants in the original instance, Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianyuan Group Company”) and former Sanmenxia Tiancheng Electrochemical Co., Ltd. (having been terminated under bankrupt procedures, hereinafter referred to as “Tiancheng Electrochemical Company”), the appellant, Sanmenxia Station Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC”) appealed the civil judgment (No. 44 [2006], First Instance, Civil Division II, Higher People’s Court of Henan Province) to this Court. This Court legally formed a collegial panel consisting of chief judge Zhang Shuming, acting judge Wang Huaju and acting judge Sha Ling to try this case, with court clerk Zhao Suijun keeping the court record. So far, the trial of this case has been concluded.
原審法院審理查明：2000年9月22日，三門(mén)峽車站工行與天元集團(tuán)公司簽訂 (2000)三工車信字第010號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款 1700萬(wàn)元，借款用途為借新還舊，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至2002年9月21日。同日，三門(mén)峽車站工行向天元集團(tuán)公司發(fā)放了該筆借款。2002年9月11日，天元集團(tuán)公司償還了該筆借款。次日，雙方又簽訂了 (2002)三工車信字第039-1號(hào)、第039-2號(hào)借款合同，分別約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款900萬(wàn)元和800萬(wàn)元，用途均為借新還舊，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至2003年9月5日。三門(mén)峽車站工行于簽約當(dāng)日發(fā)放了該兩筆借款。2003年9月3日，天元集團(tuán)公司償還了該兩筆共計(jì)1700萬(wàn)元借款。2003年9月5日，雙方簽訂了 (2003)三工車信字第039號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款 1600萬(wàn)元，用途為購(gòu)原材料，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至2004年8月25日。三門(mén)峽車站工行于簽約當(dāng)日發(fā)放了該筆借款。2004年8月3日，天元集團(tuán)公司償還了該筆借款。2004年8月5日，雙方簽訂(2004)三工車信字第37號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款1590萬(wàn)元，用途為購(gòu)原材料，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至 2005年8月3日。
Upon trial, the court of the original instance found that: on September 22, 2000, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC concluded a loan contract (No. 010 [2000] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC) with Tianyuan Group Company, agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 17 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for the purpose of repayment of old ones, and the term of the loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to September 21, 2002. On the same day, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC released this loan to Tianyuan Group Company. On September 11, 2002, Tianyuan Group Company repaid this loan. On the next day, both parties concluded two loan contracts (No. 039-1 and No. 039-2 [2002] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing respectively that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 9 million yuan and 8 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for repayment of old ones, and the term of loans should be from the date of conclusion of the contracts to September 5, 2003. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC released the two loans on the date of conclusion of the contracts. On September 3, 2003, Tianyuan Group Company repaid these two loans totaling 17 million yuan. On September 5, 2003, both parties concluded a loan contract (No. 039 [2003] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 16 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for purchasing raw materials, and the term of loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to August 25, 2004. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC released this loan on the date of conclusion of the contract. On August 3, 2004, Tianyuan Group Company repaid this loan. On August 5, 2004, both parties concluded a loan contract (No. 37 [2004] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 15.9 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for purchasing raw materials, and the term of loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to August 3, 2005.
2000年9月25日，雙方簽訂(2000)三工車信字第009號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款1647萬(wàn)元，用途為借新還舊，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至2002年9月24日。三門(mén)峽車站工行于簽約當(dāng)日發(fā)放了該筆借款。2002年9月11日，雙方簽訂了(2002)三工車信字第038- 1號(hào)和(2002)三工車信字第038-2號(hào)借款合同，分別約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款1200萬(wàn)元和800萬(wàn)元，用途均為“還舊借新，購(gòu)原材料”，借款期限自簽約當(dāng)日至2003年9月10日。三門(mén)峽車站工行于簽約當(dāng)日發(fā)放了該兩筆借款。天元集團(tuán)公司收到2000萬(wàn)元借款的次日償還了 (2000)三工車信字第009號(hào)借款合同項(xiàng)下的1647萬(wàn)元借款。天元集團(tuán)公司于2003年8月4日向三門(mén)峽車站工行償還了220萬(wàn)元，于2003年9月8日向三門(mén)峽車站工行償還1200萬(wàn)元、800萬(wàn)元。2003年8月 7日，雙方簽訂(2003)三工車信字第35號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款710萬(wàn)元，用途為購(gòu)原材料，借款期限自簽約之日至2004年8月6日。 2003年8月29日，雙方簽訂(2003)三工車信字第38號(hào)借款合同，約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款1490萬(wàn)元，用途為購(gòu)原材料，借款期限自簽約之日至2004年8月29日。該兩筆借款均于簽約當(dāng)日發(fā)放。天元集團(tuán)公司于2004年8月5日分別償還了該兩筆借款。2004年8月6日，三門(mén)峽車站工行與天元集團(tuán)公司又簽訂了 (2004)三工車信字第38號(hào)和第39號(hào)借款合同，分別約定天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行借款1480萬(wàn)元和700萬(wàn)元，該兩筆借款于2005年8月5日到期。
On September 25, 2000, both parties concluded a loan contract (No. 009 [2000] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 16.47 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for repayment of old ones, and the term of loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to September 24, 2002. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC released this loan on the date of conclusion of the contract. On September 11, 2002, both parties concluded two loan contracts (No. 038-1 [2002] and No. 038-2 [2002] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing respectively that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 12 million yuan and 8 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for “repaying old loans and purchasing raw materials”, and the term of loans should be from the date of conclusion of the contracts to September 10, 2003. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC released these two loans on the date of conclusion of the contracts. Tianyuan Group Company repaid the loan of 16.47 million yuan under the loan contract No. 009 [2000] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC the next day after it received the loans of 20 million yuan. Tianyuan Group Company repaid 2.2 million yuan to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on August 4, 2003, and 12 million yuan and 8 million yuan to it on September 8, 2003. On August 7, 2003, both parties concluded a loan contract (No. 35 [2003] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 7.1 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for purchasing raw materials, and the term of loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to August 6, 2004. On August 29, 2003, both parties concluded a loan contract (No. 38 [2003] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 14.9 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC for purchasing raw materials, and the term of loan should be from the date of conclusion of the contract to August 29, 2004. Both loans were released on the date of conclusion of contracts. Tianyuan Group Company repaid these two loans respectively on August 5, 2004. On August 6, 2004, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and Tianyuan Group Company concluded two loan contracts (No. 38 and No. 39 [2004] of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), agreeing respectively that Tianyuan Group Company would borrow 14.8 million yuan and 7 million yuan from Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, and these two loans should mature on August 5, 2005.
上述三筆借款均由天成電化公司提供連帶責(zé)任擔(dān)保。
Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, as the guarantor, assumed the joint and several liability for the repayment of the aforesaid three loans.
原審法院另查明：天元股份公司于 2000年8月由天元集團(tuán)公司、白銀氟化鹽有限責(zé)任公司、焦作市冰晶石廠、河南省第六建筑工程公司、焦作市焦鋁碳素廠五家法人股東設(shè)立的股份有限公司，注冊(cè)資金 6800萬(wàn)元。天元集團(tuán)公司出資65 176 184元，占總股本的95．84％。亞太評(píng)估事務(wù)所以1999年11月30日為基準(zhǔn)日對(duì)天元集團(tuán)公司的資產(chǎn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估，結(jié)論為天元集團(tuán)公司的凈資產(chǎn)為9232．6萬(wàn)元。2000年9月 21日，天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具的承諾書(shū)載明：天元集團(tuán)公司以現(xiàn)有優(yōu)良資產(chǎn)(電解一分廠、電解二分廠、動(dòng)力車間等輔助車間)作為股份投入，投資金額占 95．84％。2000年11月16日，天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司共同向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》，該書(shū)面承諾第二條內(nèi)容為：“為了使三門(mén)峽車站工行的債權(quán)不受天元集團(tuán)公司改制的影響，確保三門(mén)峽車站工行信貸資產(chǎn)安全，天元集團(tuán)公司再以十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁擴(kuò)建工程竣工后總資產(chǎn)作為償還三門(mén)峽車站工行債務(wù)的保證，如果天元集團(tuán)公司確實(shí)無(wú)力歸還三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)，那么由天元股份公司負(fù)責(zé)歸還。”
The court of the original instance also found that: Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was a joint stock limited company formed by five legal person shareholders: Tianyuan Group Company, Silver Fluoride Salt Limited Liability Company, Jiaozuo Cryolite Factory, Henan No.6 Construction Company and Jiaozuo Coke Aluminum Carbon Factory, and its registered capital was 68 million yuan. Tianyuan Group Company invested 65,176,184 yuan in the company, which accounted for 95.84% of the total capital stock of the company. According to the results of assessment conducted by Asia-pacific Assessment Office of the assets of Tianyuan Group Company with November 30, 1999 being the benchmark date, the value of net assets of Tianyuan Group Company was 92,326,000 yuan. On September 21, 2000, Tianyuan Group Company issued a letter of commitment to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, stating that: Tianyuan Group Company invested its current good assets (the first branch of electrolysis factory, the second branch of electrolysis factory, power workshop and other auxiliary workshops) for shares of the above company, and the amount of investment accounted for 95.84%. On November 16, 2000, Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company jointly issued a Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Article 2 of which provided that: “For purposes of preventing the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC from being affected by the systematic restructuring of Tianyuan Group Company and ensuring the safety of credit assets of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Tianyuan Group Company shall provide its total assets after the completion of the 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum expansion project as a guarantee for repaying its debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, and if Tianyuan Group Company is unable to repay its debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company shall be liable for repayment thereof.”
天成電化公司已于2007年5月12日破產(chǎn)還債。
Tiancheng Electrochemical Company went bankrupt for repaying debts on May 12, 2007.
三門(mén)峽車站工行于2006年8月28日向原審法院提起訴訟，請(qǐng)求判令：天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司共同償還貸款本金 3770萬(wàn)元，利息3 754 860．16元(該利息計(jì)算至2006年7月20日，此后利息繼續(xù)計(jì)算)；判令天成電化公司對(duì)上述債務(wù)在其擔(dān)保的范圍內(nèi)承擔(dān)連帶清償責(zé)任。
Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC instituted a lawsuit in the court of the original instance on August 28, 2006, requesting the court to rule that: Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should jointly repay 37.7 million yuan of loan principal and 3,754,860.16 yuan of interest (which was calculated until July 20, 2006, and the interest thereafter should continue to be calculated) and Tiancheng Electrochemical Company should assume the joint and several liability for repaying the above debts within the extent of guarantee that it provided.
原審法院經(jīng)審理認(rèn)為：三門(mén)峽車站工行訴請(qǐng)?zhí)煸瘓F(tuán)公司償還3770萬(wàn)元本金及3 754 860．16元利息，提供了借款合同、借據(jù)及逾期貸款催收通知書(shū)，證據(jù)充分，對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行的該項(xiàng)訴訟請(qǐng)求予以確認(rèn)。天元股份公司與天元集團(tuán)公司于2000年11月16日向其出具的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》中關(guān)于“如果天元集團(tuán)公司確實(shí)無(wú)力歸還三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)，那么由天元股份公司負(fù)責(zé)歸還”的承諾，該承諾具有保證的性質(zhì)。因本案貸款是2000年的舊貸款經(jīng)多次以貸還貸逐步演化而來(lái)并非 2004年發(fā)生的新貸款，天元股份公司在 2000年11月承諾與天元集團(tuán)公司共同償還的借款已經(jīng)償還，天元股份公司不應(yīng)對(duì) 2004年發(fā)生的本案貸款承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。從天元集團(tuán)公司2000年9月21日向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具的承諾書(shū)中載明的“天元集團(tuán)公司以現(xiàn)有優(yōu)良資產(chǎn)(電解一分廠、電解二分廠、動(dòng)力車間等輔助車間)作為股份投入”的內(nèi)容可以認(rèn)定，天元集團(tuán)公司以其優(yōu)良資產(chǎn)與他人組建了天元股份公司。從天元股份公司的工商登記材料看，其主要股東是天元集團(tuán)公司，其投入天元股份公司 65 176 184元，占總股本的95．84％，而經(jīng)亞太評(píng)估事務(wù)所以1999年11月30日為基準(zhǔn)日對(duì)其資產(chǎn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估，其凈資產(chǎn)價(jià)值為9232．6萬(wàn)元，由此可以認(rèn)定天元集團(tuán)公司將其大部分資產(chǎn)投入了天元股份公司。故天元集團(tuán)公司應(yīng)以其資產(chǎn)包括其擁有的天元股份公司的股權(quán)對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)承擔(dān)責(zé)任。由于本案貸款是2000年的舊貸款經(jīng)多次以貸還貸逐步演化而來(lái)的，三門(mén)峽車站工行不能舉證證明保證人天成電化公司對(duì)以新貸償還舊貸明知或同意，也不能證明舊貸款的保證人同為天成電化公司，根據(jù)最高人民法院《關(guān)于適用＜中華人民共和國(guó)擔(dān)保法＞若干問(wèn)題的解釋》第三十九條第一款關(guān)于“主合同當(dāng)事人雙方協(xié)議以新貸償還舊貸，除保證人知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道的外，保證人不承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任”的規(guī)定，天成電化公司對(duì)本案借款不承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。
Upon trial, the court of the original instance was of the opinion that: for its claim against Tianyuan Group Company for repayment of 37.7 million yuan of loan principal and 3,754, 860.16 yuan of interest, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC provided the loan contracts, receipts for the loans and notices of collection of overdue loans. Since the evidence was sufficient, this claim of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC should be affirmed. The commitment in the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements issued jointly by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company and Tianyuan Group Company to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on November 16, 2000 that “If Tianyuan Group Company is unable to repay the debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company shall be liable for the repayment thereof” was of a nature of guarantee. Because the alleged loans in this case were loans gradually evolving from the old loans in 2000 through several times of repayment of old loans with new ones and were not new loans made in 2004, and the loans which Tianyuan Joint-stock Company promised in November 2000 to repay jointly with Tianyuan Group Company had already been repaid, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should not assume the guarantee liability for the alleged loans in this case made in 2004. In view of the statement in the letter of commitment issued by Tianyuan Group Company to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on September 21, 2000 that “Tianyuan Group Company invested its current good assets (the first branch of electrolysis factory, the second branch of electrolysis factory, power workshop and other auxiliary workshops) for shares”, it may be confirmed that Tianyuan Group Company formed Tianyuan Joint-stock Company with its good assets jointly with others. According to the industry and commerce registration materials of Tianyuan Joint-stock company, its major shareholder was Tianyuan Group Company, which invested 65,176,184 yuan in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company, accounting for 95.84% of the total capital stock of it. According to the assessment conducted by Asia-Pacific Assessment Office of the assets of Tianyuan Group Company with November 30, 1999 being the benchmark date, its net asset value was 92,326,000 yuan. It may be determined that Tianyuan Group Company had invested most of its assets in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company. Therefore, Tianyuan Group Company should be liable for its debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC with its assets including the equities that it held in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company. The alleged loans in this case were loans gradually evolving from the old loans in 2000 through several times of repayment of old loans with new ones, and Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC could neither prove that the guarantor, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, had known or consented to the repayment of old loans with new ones nor prove that the guarantors of the old loans were also Tiancheng Electrochemical Company. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Regarding the Application of the Guarantee Law of the People’s Republic of China, “Where the parties to the principal contract agree to repay an old loan with a new one, the guarantor shall not bear the civil liability for it unless the guarantor knows or should have known it”, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company should not bear the guarantee liability for the loans in this case.
原審法院依照《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第二百零五條、第二百零六條，《中華人民共和國(guó)擔(dān)保法》第二十四條，最高人民法院《關(guān)于適用＜中華人民共和國(guó)擔(dān)保法＞若干問(wèn)題的解釋》第三十九條第一款，《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第一百三十條、第一百三十四條、第一百三十八條、第一百四十七條、第二百三十二條之規(guī)定，判決：一、天元集團(tuán)公司于判決生效后十日內(nèi)向三門(mén)峽車站工行償還借款3770萬(wàn)元本金及 3 754 860．16元利息(該利息計(jì)算至2006年7月20日，自2006年7月21日起的利息按照中國(guó)人民銀行規(guī)定的同期逾期貸款利率計(jì)算至本判決限定的債務(wù)履行期限屆滿之日止)。對(duì)上述給付款項(xiàng)，當(dāng)事人如果未按照本判決指定的期間履行給付金錢義務(wù)，應(yīng)當(dāng)依照《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第二百三十二條的規(guī)定，加倍支付遲延履行期間的債務(wù)利息；二、駁回三門(mén)峽車站工行的其他訴訟請(qǐng)求。一審案件受理費(fèi) 217 284．3元，由天元集團(tuán)公司負(fù)擔(dān)。
In accordance with Articles 205 and 206 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 24 of the Guarantee Law of the People’s Republic of China, paragraph 1 of Article 39 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Regarding the Application of the Guarantee Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Articles 130, 134, 138, 147 and 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court of the original instance ruled that: (1) Tianyuan Group Company should repay 37.7 million yuan of loan principal and 3,754, 860.16 yuan of interest (which was calculated until July 20, 2006, and the interest from July 21, 2006 should be calculated until the date of expiration of the time limit for performance of the debt prescribed in this judgment at the overdue loan rate over the same period as prescribed by the People’s Bank of China) to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC within ten days after this judgment came into force. For the aforesaid payments, if the party concerned failed to perform the obligation of pecuniary payment within the time limit as prescribed in this judgment, it shall, in accordance with 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, pay double debt interest for the period of delay in performance. (2) Other claims of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC should be overruled. Tianyuan Group Company should pay the case acceptance fee of 217,284.3 yuan for the trial of the first instance of this case.
三門(mén)峽車站工行不服原審法院上述民事判決，向本院提起上訴稱：一、原審法院已支持了三門(mén)峽車站工行關(guān)于本案3770萬(wàn)元貸款本金實(shí)際上形成于2000年，是 2000年舊貸款經(jīng)多次以貸還貸的方式演化而來(lái)，并非是2004年新發(fā)生的貸款的主張，卻又認(rèn)定天元股份公司在2000年11月承諾與天元集團(tuán)公司共同償還的借款已經(jīng)償還，據(jù)此判決天元股份公司不應(yīng)對(duì) 2004年發(fā)生的本案貸款承擔(dān)還款責(zé)任，缺乏事實(shí)依據(jù)。天元集團(tuán)公司至今尚欠車站工行借款本金共計(jì)達(dá)23 081萬(wàn)元，天元股份公司提供的證據(jù)中沒(méi)有任何一份能夠證明三門(mén)峽車站支行在本案中主張的3770萬(wàn)元貸款，已由其或天元集團(tuán)公司償還完畢。天元股份公司應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》承擔(dān)還款責(zé)任。二、原審判決認(rèn)定三門(mén)峽車站工行不能舉證證明天成電化公司對(duì)本案以新貸償還舊貸明知或同意，也不能證明舊貸款的保證人同為該公司，故天成電化公司對(duì)本案貸款不承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任的認(rèn)定違反了“誰(shuí)主張，誰(shuí)舉證”的舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則。對(duì)以貸還貸的事實(shí)是否明知以及前貸與后貸的保證人是否同一的事實(shí)，依法應(yīng)由天成電化有限公司承擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任。天成電化有限公司作為擔(dān)保人未能舉證證明上述事實(shí)，應(yīng)依法對(duì)本案貸款承擔(dān)連帶的還款責(zé)任。請(qǐng)求二審依法改判由天元股份公司對(duì)天元集團(tuán)公司所欠借款本金3770萬(wàn)元及利息承擔(dān)連帶還款責(zé)任；改判天成電化公司對(duì)上述貸款本金及利息承擔(dān)連帶保證責(zé)任。
Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC appealed the aforesaid civil judgment of the court of the original instance to this Court, alleging that: (1) after sustaining the claim of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC that the loan principal of 37.7 million yuan in this case was actually formed in 2000, was loans gradually evolving from the old loans in 2000 through several times of repayment of old loans with new ones and was not new loans made in 2004 but holding that the loans which Tianyuan Joint-stock Company promised in November 2000 to repay jointly with Tianyuan Group Company had already been repaid, the court of the original instance ruled that Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should not assume the repayment liability for the alleged loans in this case made in 2004. Such a ruling lacked the factual basis. So far, Tianyuan Group Company still owed Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC loan principal totaling 230.81 million yuan, and no evidence provided by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company could prove that the loan of 37.7 million yuan alleged by Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC in this case had been fully repaid by it or Tianyuan Group Company. Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should bear the repayment liability under the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements. (2) The determination in the original judgment that Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC could neither prove that Tiancheng Electrochemical Company had known or approved the repayment of old loans with new ones in this case nor prove that the guarantors of the old loans were also Tiancheng Electrochemical Company and Tiancheng Electrochemical Company should therefore not bear the guarantee liability for the loans in this case was contrary to the doctrine “whoever asserts shall bear the burden of proof” for the allocation of burden of proof. The burden of proof on whether the guarantor had known the facts of repaying old loans with new ones and whether the guarantors of the old loans and the new loans were the same should rest on Tiancheng Electrochemical Company according to law. Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, as the guarantor, failed to adduce evidence to prove the aforesaid facts, so it should assume the joint and several liability for repaying the alleged loans in this case. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC requested the court of the second instance to change the original judgment and rule that: Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should assume the joint and several liability for repaying the loan principal of 37.7 million yuan and interest thereon owed by Tianyuan Group Company; Tiancheng Electrochemical Company as the guarantor should assume the joint and several liability for repaying the aforesaid loan principal and interest.
在本院二審過(guò)程中三門(mén)峽車站工行提出：鑒于天成電化公司已于2008年1月 22日被河南省陜縣人民法院裁定破產(chǎn)終結(jié)，申請(qǐng)撤回對(duì)天成電化公司的上訴請(qǐng)求。
During the trial of second instance by this Court, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC requested withdrawal of its appeal claims against Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, since Tiancheng Electrochemical Company was terminated for bankruptcy as ruled by the People’s Court of Shan County of Henan Province on January 22, 2008.
被上訴人天元股份公司答辯稱：一、 2000年7月，天元集團(tuán)公司系與其他五家法人共同發(fā)起設(shè)立天元股份公司。天元集團(tuán)公司以其經(jīng)評(píng)估價(jià)值為3億余元的資產(chǎn)作為股權(quán)投入天元股份公司。為了通過(guò)上市公司資格認(rèn)證，天元集團(tuán)公司于2000年 9月21日向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具《承諾書(shū)》，提出其投入天元股份公司的設(shè)備資產(chǎn)只對(duì)該行的2550萬(wàn)元債務(wù)承擔(dān)責(zé)任，其余的債務(wù)仍由天元集團(tuán)公司承擔(dān)，三門(mén)峽車站工行對(duì)此予以認(rèn)可。天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司及三門(mén)峽車站工行簽署了5份涉及金額為2550萬(wàn)元的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議》。 2000年11月16日天元股份公司的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》是基于天元股份公司接收天元集團(tuán)公司股權(quán)財(cái)產(chǎn)的不可分割性，而對(duì)其中2550萬(wàn)元有抵押的三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)出具的承諾，并不構(gòu)成對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行2000年11月以后與天元集團(tuán)公司之間其他借款承擔(dān)責(zé)任的承諾。天元股份公司不應(yīng)對(duì)本案所涉及的2004年 8月天元集團(tuán)公司與三門(mén)峽車站工行及擔(dān)保人天成電化公司間的借款承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任。天元股份公司為了履行上述《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》，于2001年9月14日與三門(mén)峽車站工行簽訂了借款用途為“為支持企業(yè)上市，轉(zhuǎn)移貸款”，借款金額為2550萬(wàn)元的三份《借款合同》。該2550萬(wàn)元借款分別于2001年9月25日、26日全部?jī)斶�，該事實(shí)證明《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》已實(shí)際履行，雙方間的權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系已解除。二、本案所涉及的三筆貸款是2004年8月天元集團(tuán)公司因生產(chǎn)購(gòu)買原材料與三門(mén)峽車站工行及擔(dān)保人天成電化公司之間發(fā)生的新的借貸法律關(guān)系，天元股份公司不是該借貸法律關(guān)系的當(dāng)事人，沒(méi)有法律上的直接關(guān)系，不存在與天元集團(tuán)公司承擔(dān)共同償還責(zé)任的事實(shí)和法律依據(jù)。原審判決認(rèn)定事實(shí)和適用法律正確，請(qǐng)求二審法院予以維持。
The appellee, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company, contended that: (1) In July 2000, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was formed by Tianyuan Group Company jointly with other five legal persons. Tianyuan Group Company invested its assets at the assessed value of more than 300 million yuan for equities in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company. For passing the certification of qualifications for a listed company, Tianyuan Group Company issued a Letter of Commitment to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on September 21, 2000, stating that the equipment and assets invested by it in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should be used only for its liability for the debt of 25.5 million yuan to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and other debts should still be assumed by Tianyuan Group Company, which was recognized by Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. Tianyuan Group Company, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company and Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC entered into five Debt Transfer Agreements involving an amount of 25.5 million yuan. The Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements issued by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company on November 16, 2000 was a specific commitment for the secured debt of 25.5 million yuan to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on the basis of the indivisibility of the assets for equities received by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company from Tianyuan Group Company, and did not constitute a commitment to assuming liabilities for other loans between Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and Tianyuan Group Company made after November 2000. Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should not assume the civil liability for the alleged loans made in August 2004 in this case among Tianyuan Group Company, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and the guarantor, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company. To perform the aforesaid Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company concluded three Loan Contracts with Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on September 14, 2001 for the purpose of “supporting the listing of the enterprise and transferring loans” in the amount of 25.5 million yuan. These loans of 25.5 million yuan were fully repaid on September 25 and 26, 2001, which proved that the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements had been actually performed, and the rights and obligations between two parties had been rescinded. (2) The alleged three loans in this case were new legal relationships of lending which occurred among Tianyuan Group Company, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and the guarantor, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, in August 2004 for purchasing raw materials for production. Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was not a party to this legal relationship of lending, had no direct legal relationship with the loans, so there was no factual and legal basis for Tianyuan Joint-stock Company to assume the repayment liability jointly with Tianyuan Group Company. The original judgment was correct in the fact finding and application of law. Therefore, it requested the court of the second instance to uphold the original judgment.
原審被告天元集團(tuán)公司經(jīng)本院合法傳喚，未到本院參與二審訴訟。
The defendant in the original instance, Tianyuan Group Company, failed to participate in the second instance proceedings after being legally summoned by this court.
本院二審除確認(rèn)原審查明的事實(shí)外，另查明：
In the trial of the second instance, this Court, in addition to confirming the facts found in the original instance, found that:
天元股份公司系在河南省注冊(cè)，在香港特別行政區(qū)創(chuàng)業(yè)板上市的股份有限公司。
Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was a joint stock limited company which was registered in Henan Province and listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
2000年9月21日天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具蓋有該公司公章并由該公司董事長(zhǎng)李永正簽字的《承諾書(shū)》稱：“為爭(zhēng)取企業(yè)上市，謀求更大發(fā)展，于2000年7月改制，經(jīng)河南省體改委批準(zhǔn)發(fā)起成立了天元股份公司，天元集團(tuán)公司以現(xiàn)有優(yōu)質(zhì)資產(chǎn)(電解一分廠、電解二分廠、動(dòng)力車間等輔助車間)作為股份投入，投資總額占股份公司總股本的95．84％。同時(shí)，為了通過(guò)上市公司資格認(rèn)證，確定將股份公司應(yīng)承擔(dān)的大部分負(fù)債留在集團(tuán)公司，股份公司只承擔(dān)銀行債務(wù)8232萬(wàn)元(其中有貴行 2550萬(wàn)元)，貴行原貸給我集團(tuán)公司的 13 420萬(wàn)元中所剩余的10 870萬(wàn)元債務(wù)仍由集團(tuán)公司承擔(dān)。為確保貴行的10 870萬(wàn)元信貸資產(chǎn)不因我公司改制而遭受損失，并使該貸款正常還本付息，我集團(tuán)鄭重承諾，對(duì)此10 870萬(wàn)元債務(wù)，我集團(tuán)公司以十萬(wàn)噸一期電解鋁擴(kuò)建工程(3．1萬(wàn)噸)竣工后總資產(chǎn)作為償還貴行債務(wù)保證，若該資產(chǎn)以后需要進(jìn)入股份公司，貴行債權(quán)將隨同該資產(chǎn)同步轉(zhuǎn)移”。三門(mén)峽車站工行對(duì)該承諾書(shū)的真實(shí)性無(wú)異議，但稱其從未接受該承諾，不同意天元股份公司只承擔(dān)天元集團(tuán)公司13 420萬(wàn)元債務(wù)中的2550萬(wàn)元的請(qǐng)求。
The Letter of Commitment issued by Tianyuan Group Company to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on September 21, 2000 and bearing the official seal of the company and the signature of Li Yongzheng, chairman of the board of directors of this company, stated that: “In order for the listing on the stock market and greater development of the enterprise, Tianyuan Group Company was restructured in July 2000, and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was formed upon the approval of the Commission for the Systematic Reform of Henan Province. Tianyuan Group Company invested its existing good assets (the first branch of electrolysis factory, the second branch of electrolysis factory, power workshop and other auxiliary workshops) for shares, and its total investment accounted for 95.84% of the total capital stock of the joint-stock company. At the same time, to pass the accreditation of a listed company, this company decided to leave most debts that the joint-stock company should assume to the group company, the joint-stock company should only assume 82.32 million yuan of bank debts (including 25.5 million yuan to your bank), and the remaining debt of 108.7 million yuan of the 134.20 million yuan loans granted by your bank to this group company should still be assumed by the group company. To prevent the 108.7 million yuan of credit assets of your bank from suffering any losses from the restructuring of this company and ensure the normal repayment of the loan principal and interest, this Group makes a solemn commitment to provide the total assets after the completion of the first phase of 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum expansion project (31,000 tons) as a guarantee for the repayment of the debt of 108.7 million yuan to your bank. If these assets need to enter the joint-stock company later, the creditor’s rights of your bank shall be transferred simultaneously along with these assets.” Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC raised no objection to the authenticity of this letter of commitment, but asserted that it had never accepted such commitment, and did not agree to the request that Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should only assume 25.5 million yuan of the debt of 134.2 million yuan of Tianyuan Group Company.
天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司簽署5份涉及上述三門(mén)峽車站工行2550萬(wàn)元貸款的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議》。在該五份協(xié)議的“銀行信貸部門(mén)簽章”處，三門(mén)峽車站工行未加蓋公章。
Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company concluded five Debt Transfer Agreements involving the aforesaid loans of 25.5 million yuan of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. On the places of “seal of bank credit department” of these five agreements, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC did not affix its official seal.
2000年11月16日，天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》。該補(bǔ)充承諾第一條稱：三門(mén)峽車站工行與天元集團(tuán)公司、天元股份公司三方所簽的債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移001、002、 003、004、005號(hào)協(xié)議僅是為了支持企業(yè)上市，不作為債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移的實(shí)質(zhì)依據(jù)，與車站工行的債權(quán)無(wú)關(guān)，集團(tuán)公司與股份公司共同對(duì)車站工行的債權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)；第三條稱：如十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁工程竣工后資產(chǎn)需進(jìn)入股份公司，車站工行債權(quán)隨同該資產(chǎn)同步轉(zhuǎn)移。
On November 16, 2000, Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company issued a Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. Article 1 of this supplementary letter of commitment stated that: The debt transfer agreements, No.001, 002, 003, 004 and 005, were concluded by Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company only for supporting the listing of the enterprise, should not be taken as the substantive basis for debt transfer, and had nothing to do with the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, and Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should be jointly liable for the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. Article 3 of it stated that: if the assets after the completion of the 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum project needed to enter the joint-stock company, the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC should be transferred simultaneously along with such assets.
根據(jù)天元股份公司2005年10月27日在香港聯(lián)交所發(fā)布的《非常重大收購(gòu)及關(guān)聯(lián)交易公告》，天元集團(tuán)公司自2004年 6月13日起租賃天元股份公司的3．1萬(wàn)噸電解鋁設(shè)備。雙方于公告日簽訂協(xié)議，天元股份公司以承擔(dān)天元集團(tuán)公司所欠金融機(jī)構(gòu)(不包括車站工行)債務(wù)、應(yīng)收賬款、采購(gòu)定金及現(xiàn)金支付等方式，以3．9078億元為對(duì)價(jià)收購(gòu)天元集團(tuán)公司3．1萬(wàn)噸電解鋁生產(chǎn)線及輔助設(shè)施及天元集團(tuán)公司的部分土地使用權(quán)。其中3．1萬(wàn)噸電解鋁生產(chǎn)線及輔助設(shè)施作價(jià)3．1496億元。
According to the Announcement on Very Substantial Acquisitions and Connected Transactions released by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company in Hong Kong Stock Exchange on October 27, 2005, Tianyuan Group Company had leased 31,000-ton electrolytic aluminum equipment to Tianyuan Joint-stock Company from June 13, 2004. On the date of announcement, both parties concluded an agreement stipulating that Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should purchase the production line of 31,000-ton electrolytic aluminum and auxiliary facilities as well as some land use rights of Tianyuan Group Company at a price of 390.78 million yuan through assuming debts owed by Tianyuan Group Company to financial institutions (excluding Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC), account receivables, purchase deposits and cash payments. In particular, the production line of 31,000-ton electrolytic aluminum and auxiliary facilities were priced at 314. 96 million yuan.
天元集團(tuán)公司已將持有的天元股份公司全部股權(quán)(占天元股份公司總股本的 67．2％)轉(zhuǎn)讓給案外人天瑞公司。
Tianyuan Group Company had transferred all the equities (accounting for 67.2% of total capital stock of Tianyuan Joint-stock Company) held by it in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company to a non-party to this case, Tianrui Company.
2007年5月25日，河南省陜縣人民法院裁定天成電化公司破產(chǎn)還債。2008年 1月22日該院裁定：宣告終結(jié)該破產(chǎn)案件，未得到清償?shù)膫鶛?quán)不再清償。根據(jù)該案破產(chǎn)管理人的破產(chǎn)資產(chǎn)分配方案，該案普通破產(chǎn)債權(quán)人的受償比例為零。
On May 25, 2007, the People’s Court of Shan County of Henan Province declared Tiancheng Electrochemical Company bankrupt for repayment of debts. On January 22, 2008, the court ruled that: the close of this bankruptcy case should be declared, and the unsettled creditor’s rights would not be settled any more. Under the bankruptcy asset allocation scheme of the bankruptcy administrator of this case, the repayment ratio for the ordinary creditors in this bankruptcy case was zero.
本院認(rèn)為：天元集團(tuán)公司未依約償還三門(mén)峽車站工行貸款3770萬(wàn)元本金及利息，構(gòu)成違約。本案各方當(dāng)事人對(duì)該項(xiàng)事實(shí)均無(wú)異議，故原審判決關(guān)于天元集團(tuán)公司的民事責(zé)任部分本院予以維持。本案二審的焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題是：天元股份公司是否應(yīng)對(duì)天元集團(tuán)公司的本案欠款承擔(dān)共同償還責(zé)任。
In the opinion of this Court, Tianyuan Group Company failed to repay loan principal of 37.7 million yuan and interest thereon to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC as agreed on, which constituted a breach of contract. All the parties to this case have no objection to this fact, so this Court upholds the original judgment in respect of the civil liabilities of Tianyuan Group Company. The focus of the trial of the second instance of this case is: whether Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should assume the liability for repaying the debt in this case jointly with Tianyuan Group Company.
(一)《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第八十四條規(guī)定：“債務(wù)人將合同的義務(wù)全部或者部分轉(zhuǎn)移給第三人的，應(yīng)當(dāng)經(jīng)債權(quán)人同意。”天元集團(tuán)公司以其優(yōu)良資產(chǎn)與他人組建天元股份公司，將凈值9232．6萬(wàn)元的資產(chǎn)投入到天元股份公司，導(dǎo)致其償還銀行債務(wù)的責(zé)任財(cái)產(chǎn)減少，清償債務(wù)的能力削弱。在股份制改造過(guò)程中，天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具《承諾書(shū)》，提出其投入天元股份公司的設(shè)備資產(chǎn)只對(duì)該行共計(jì) 13 420萬(wàn)元債務(wù)中的2550萬(wàn)元債務(wù)承擔(dān)責(zé)任，其余的債務(wù)仍由天元集團(tuán)公司承擔(dān)。對(duì)此承諾，三門(mén)峽車站工行未予接受，也未在天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司簽署的5份涉及三門(mén)峽車站工行2550萬(wàn)元貸款的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議》上加蓋公章，故該債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行未發(fā)生法律效力。
(1) Article 84 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that: “Where a debtor transfers all or any of its obligations under a contract to a third party, such a transfer shall be subject to the consent of the creditor.” Tianyuan Group Company established Tianyuan Joint-stock Company jointly with others with its good assets, and invested assets with a net value of 92.326 million yuan in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company, causing the reduction of its property with which it assumed the liability for repayment of bank debts and the weakening of its solvency. During the process of shareholding transformation, Tianyuan Group Company issued a Letter of Commitment to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, proposing that the equipment assets that it invested in Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should only correspond to its liabilities for 25.5 million yuan of 134.2 million yuan of its debts to the bank, and the remaining debts should be still assumed by Tianyuan Group Company. Because Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC neither accepted this commitment nor affixed its official seal to the five Debt Transfer Agreements concluded by Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company involving 25.5 million yuan of loans made by Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, such debt transfer agreements had no legal effect on Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC.
(二)天元集團(tuán)公司和天元股份公司于 2000年11月16日簽署的《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》實(shí)際上向三門(mén)峽車站工行承諾了以下三項(xiàng)內(nèi)容：其一為前述天元集團(tuán)公司、天元股份公司所簽訂的債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議僅是為了企業(yè)上市需要所作，不是債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移的實(shí)質(zhì)依據(jù)，即雙方已否定了五份債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議的法律效力，并承諾天元集團(tuán)公司與天元股份公司共同對(duì)車站工行的債權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)；其二，天元集團(tuán)公司以十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁擴(kuò)建工程竣工后總資產(chǎn)作為償還三門(mén)峽車站工行債務(wù)的保證，如果天元集團(tuán)公司無(wú)力歸還三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)，該債務(wù)由天元股份公司歸還；其三，如十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁工程竣工后資產(chǎn)需進(jìn)入股份公司，車站工行債權(quán)隨同該資產(chǎn)同步轉(zhuǎn)移。該承諾意思表示明確，第一條為并存的債務(wù)承擔(dān)，即債的加入，天元集團(tuán)公司不脫離原來(lái)的債務(wù)關(guān)系，天元股份公司加入到天元集團(tuán)公司對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行的債務(wù)當(dāng)中，承諾與天元集團(tuán)公司共同承擔(dān)還款責(zé)任。第二條為債的保證，即天元集團(tuán)公司以十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁的資產(chǎn)作為還款保證，在其不能償還債務(wù)的情況下，天元股份公司承擔(dān)保證責(zé)任。第三條實(shí)際為附條件的免責(zé)債務(wù)承擔(dān)，即以十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁的資產(chǎn)進(jìn)入天元股份公司為條件，當(dāng)該條件成就時(shí)，天元集團(tuán)公司脫離原來(lái)的債務(wù)關(guān)系，天元股份公司直接向三門(mén)峽車站工行承擔(dān)還款責(zé)任。三門(mén)峽車站工行認(rèn)可《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》，根據(jù)十萬(wàn)噸電解鋁的資產(chǎn)其中6．9萬(wàn)噸資產(chǎn)在天元股份公司成立時(shí)即進(jìn)入該公司，另 3．1萬(wàn)噸資產(chǎn)自2004年6月13日起由天元股份公司租賃，并于2005年10月27日以承擔(dān)天元集團(tuán)公司債務(wù)和支付部分現(xiàn)金等方式收購(gòu)的事實(shí)，認(rèn)為《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》所附條件已經(jīng)成就，要求天元股份公司承擔(dān)天元集團(tuán)公司本案?jìng)鶆?wù)的還款責(zé)任的上訴請(qǐng)求，本院予以支持。同時(shí)，天元集團(tuán)公司的還款責(zé)任本可以免除，但由于其未對(duì)此提起上訴，加之《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》第一條的承諾，故天元股份公司與天元集團(tuán)公司應(yīng)對(duì)本案3770萬(wàn)元本息承擔(dān)共同償還責(zé)任。
(2) The Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements concluded by Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company on November 16, 2000 actually contained commitments to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC in the following three aspects: firstly, the aforesaid debt transfer agreements were concluded by Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company only for the listing of the enterprise, and were not the substantive basis for debt transfer, that is, both parties had denied the legal effect of these five debt transfer agreements, and made a commitment that Tianyuan Group Company and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should be jointly liable for the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. Secondly, Tianyuan Group Company provided the total assets after the completion of the 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum expansion project as a guarantee for repaying the debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. If Tianyuan Group Company was unable to repay the debts to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should repay such debts. Thirdly, if the assets after the completion of the 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum project needed to enter the joint-stock company, the creditor’s rights of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC should be transferred simultaneously along with these assets. These commitments were clearly defined. The first aspect refers to a coexisting debt assumption, i.e., joining in debt repayment, Tianyuan Group Company did not get away from the original debt relationship, and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company joined the repayment of debts owed by Tianyuan Group Company to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC by promising to assume the liability of repaying debts jointly with Tianyuan Group Company. The second aspect refers to a guarantee for debts, i.e., Tianyuan Group Company provided the assets of 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum as a guarantee for repayment, and if it was unable to repay the debts, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should assume the guarantee liability. The third aspect actually refers to a conditional exemption of liability for debt assumption, i.e., the entry of assets of 100,000-tons electrolytic aluminum into Tianyuan Joint-stock Company is a condition, and when this condition is met, Tianyuan Group Company should separate itself from the original debt relationship, and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should directly assume the liability for debt repayment to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC accepted the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements, and according to the facts that the 69,000-ton assets of the 100,000-ton electrolytic aluminum assets entered Tianyuan Joint-stock Company when it was formed and the remaining 31,000-ton assets had been leased by Tianyuan Joint-stock Company from June 13, 2004 and were purchased by it on October 27, 2005 through assuming debts of Tianyuan Group Company, cash payment, etc., considered that the condition attached to the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements had been met, and requested Tianyuan Joint-stock Company to assume the liability for repaying the debts of Tianyuan Group Company in this case. This appellate claim of Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC should be sustained by this Court. The liability for debt repayment of Tianyuan Group Company should have been exempted, but since it failed to appeal in this regard, in view of the commitment in Article 1 of the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company and Tianyuan Group Company should jointly assume the liabilities for repaying loan principal of 37.7 million yuan and interest thereon in this case.
(三)關(guān)于天元股份公司提出的本案所涉及的三筆貸款是2004年8月天元集團(tuán)公司因生產(chǎn)購(gòu)買原材料與三門(mén)峽車站工行及擔(dān)保人天成電化公司之間發(fā)生的新的借貸法律關(guān)系，天元股份公司不是該借貸法律關(guān)系的當(dāng)事人，不應(yīng)承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任問(wèn)題。本院認(rèn)為，根據(jù)本案查明的事實(shí)，從本案合同約定的貸款目的及貸款、還款的操作方式，可以認(rèn)定：本案車站工行所訴天元集團(tuán)公司的三筆貸款即(2004)第37號(hào)、38號(hào)、 39號(hào)借款合同均系借新還舊借款合同。 (2004)第37號(hào)1590萬(wàn)元借款合同是經(jīng)數(shù)次借新還舊后對(duì)雙方2000年之前1700萬(wàn)元借款的借新還舊，而(2004)第38號(hào) 1480萬(wàn)元借款合同、第39號(hào)700萬(wàn)元借款合同系經(jīng)數(shù)次借新還舊后對(duì)雙方2000年之前1647萬(wàn)元借款合同的借新還舊。原審判決認(rèn)定本案貸款是2000年的舊貸款經(jīng)多次以貸還貸逐步演化而來(lái)是正確的。借新還舊系貸款到期不能按時(shí)收回，金融機(jī)構(gòu)又向原貸款人發(fā)放貸款用于歸還原貸款的行為。借新還舊與貸款人用自有資金歸還貸款，從而消滅原債權(quán)債務(wù)的行為有著本質(zhì)的區(qū)別。雖然新貸代替了舊貸，但貸款人與借款人之間的債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系并未消除，客觀上只是以新貸的形式延長(zhǎng)了舊貸的還款期限，故借新還舊的貸款本質(zhì)上是舊貸的一種特殊形式的展期。本案天元集團(tuán)公司的相關(guān)舊貸實(shí)際并未得到清償，天元股份公司對(duì)天元集團(tuán)公司的上述三筆貸款仍應(yīng)依其承諾，承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任。
(3) Tianyuan Joint-stock Company argued that the alleged three loans in this case were new legal relationships of lending which occurred among Tianyuan Group Company, Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and the guarantor, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company, in August 2004 for purchasing raw materials for production, and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company was not a party to any of these legal relationships of lending and should not assume civil liability. This Court considers that, based on the facts found in this case, it may be determined from the loan purpose as stipulated in the contracts in this case and the operational manners of loans and repayment that: the three loans in this case for which Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC sued Tianyuan Group Company, loan contracts No. 37, No. 38 and No. 39 [2004], were all loan contracts concluded for repaying old loans with new ones. The loan contract No. 37 [2004] of 15.9 million yuan was a contract for repaying old loans of 17 million yuan before 2000 between both parties with a new loan after several times of repayment of old loans with new ones, and the loan contract No. 38 [2004] of 14.8 million yuan and the loan contract No. 39 of 7 million yuan were contracts for repaying old loans of 16.47 million yuan before 2000 between both parties with new loans after several times of repayment of old loans with new ones. The conclusion in the original judgment that the alleged loans in this case were loans gradually evolving from old loans in 2000 after several times of repayment of old loans with new ones was correct. Repayment of old loans with new ones means that a financial institution grants a loan again to the original borrower for repaying former mature loans which cannot be recovered on time. Repayment of old loans with new ones is essentially different from the repayment of loans by the borrower with its own funds which causes the extinguishment of the original rights and debts. Although a new loan replaces the old ones, the rights and obligations between the lender and the borrower are not eliminated, and objectively, it merely causes the extension of the repayment period of old loans in the form of a new loan. Therefore, a loan made for the repayment of old loans with a new one is essentially a special form of extension of the old loans. The relevant old loans to Tianyuan Group Company in this case were not actually repaid, and Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should assume the civil liability for the aforesaid three loans to Tianyuan Group Company according to its commitment.
(四)天元股份公司在本院二審中提出，本案《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》是對(duì)天元股份公司同意接收的天元集團(tuán)公司 2550萬(wàn)元債務(wù)對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行出具的承諾，并不構(gòu)成對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行與天元集團(tuán)公司之間其他借款承擔(dān)責(zé)任的承諾。為了履行上述《債務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》，天元股份公司于2001年9月14日與三門(mén)峽車站工行簽訂了轉(zhuǎn)移貸款2550萬(wàn)元的三份借款合同，且該2550萬(wàn)元借款已全部?jī)斶��！秱鶛�(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》因已實(shí)際履行，雙方間的權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系已解除。對(duì)此，本院認(rèn)為，《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》并未明確約定天元股份公司只對(duì)天元集團(tuán)公司的2550萬(wàn)元債務(wù)對(duì)三門(mén)峽車站工行承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任。天元股份公司在二審中向本院提交了三份還款憑證，證明2000年9月 25日、2000年9月26日、2000年9月26日以轉(zhuǎn)移貸款名義，代天元集團(tuán)公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行還款2550萬(wàn)元。對(duì)此，三門(mén)峽車站工行未予否認(rèn)，雙方均認(rèn)可該還款并非本案欠款的還款，故本院對(duì)此事實(shí)予以確認(rèn)。但三筆還款均發(fā)生于2000年11月16日天元股份公司向三門(mén)峽車站工行出具《債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移協(xié)議補(bǔ)充承諾》之前，難以據(jù)此得出該項(xiàng)還款是為履行上述補(bǔ)充承諾的結(jié)論。故天元股份公司關(guān)于三門(mén)峽車站工行實(shí)際上默認(rèn)了天元股份公司只承擔(dān)天元集團(tuán)公司2550萬(wàn)元債務(wù)的請(qǐng)求，該協(xié)議因履行得以解除的主張，本院不予支持。
(4) In the trial of the second instance by this Court, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company argued that the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements was a commitment to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC that it agreed to accept the 25.5 million yuan of debt of Tianyuan Group Company, and did not constitute a commitment to assuming the liabilities for other loans between Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC and Tianyuan Group Company. For performing the aforesaid Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company concluded three loan contracts on transferring the loans of 25.5 million yuan with Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on September 14, 2001, and such loans of 25.5 million yuan had been repaid in full. The Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements had been actually fulfilled, so the rights and obligations between both parties were eliminated. This Court considers that the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements did not clearly stipulate that Tianyuan Joint-stock Company should only assume the civil liability for 25.5 million yuan of debt of Tianyuan Group Company to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC. In the trial of the second instance, Tianyuan Joint-stock Company submitted three repayment vouchers to this Court to prove that it repaid 25.5 million yuan to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC on behalf of Tianyuan Group Company on September 25, 2000, September 26, 2000 and September 26, 2000 in the name of transferred loans. Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC did not deny it, and both parties agreed that such repayments were not the repayment of the alleged debt in this case. So, this court confirmed such a fact. However, since all of the three repayments occurred before November 16, 2000 when Tianyuan Joint-stock Company issued the Supplementary Letter of Commitment to Debt Transfer Agreements to Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC, it is difficult to draw a conclusion that these repayments were made to perform the aforesaid supplementary letter of commitment. So, this Court should reject the claim of Tianyuan Joint-stock Company that Sanmenxia Station Branch of ICBC tacitly approved in fact the request of Tianyuan Joint-stock Company for assuming only 25.5 million yuan of the debt of Tianyuan Group Company and the agreements should be rescinded as a result of performance.
(五)關(guān)于天成電化公司的主體資格和民事責(zé)任問(wèn)題。鑒于在本院二審審理前，天成電化公司已于2008年1月22日被河南省陜縣人民法院裁定破產(chǎn)終結(jié)，其民事主體資格因破產(chǎn)程序終結(jié)歸于消滅，天成電化公司不能再作為本案的當(dāng)事人。
(5) As to the issues of the entity status and civil liability of Tiancheng Electrochemical Company. Before the trial of the second instance by this Court, Tiancheng Electrochemical Company was terminated after completing the bankruptcy procedures as ruled by the People’s Court of Shan County of Henan Province on January 22, 2008, and its civil entity status was extinguished upon the end of the bankruptcy procedures. Therefore, it shall no longer be regarded as a party to this case.
綜上，原審判決部分事實(shí)認(rèn)定不清、責(zé)任判處不當(dāng)。本院依照《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第一百五十三條第一款第(三)項(xiàng)之規(guī)定，判決如下：
In conclusion, the original judgment was unclear in the finding of some facts and improper in the determination of liabilities. In accordance with paragraph 1 (3) of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, this Court rules as follows:
一、維持河南省高級(jí)人民法院(2006)豫法民二初字第44號(hào)民事判決第二項(xiàng)；
1. Item (2) of the civil judgment (No. 44 [2006], First Instance, Civil Division II, Higher People’s Court of Henan Province) shall be sustained;
二、變更上述民事判決主文第一項(xiàng)為：三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司、三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司于本判決生效后十日內(nèi)向中國(guó)工商銀行股份有限公司三門(mén)峽車站支行償還借款本金3770萬(wàn)元及利息 3 754 860．16元(計(jì)算至2006年7月20日，自2006年7月21日起，按照中國(guó)人民銀行規(guī)定的同期逾期貸款利率分段計(jì)付至付清之日止)。上述給付義務(wù)人如未按照本判決確定的期間履行給付義務(wù)，應(yīng)當(dāng)依照《中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法》第二百三十二條的規(guī)定，加倍支付遲延履行期間的債務(wù)利息。
2. Item (1) of the main content of the aforesaid civil judgment shall be changed into: Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd. and Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited shall repay 37.7 million yuan of loan principal and 3,754,860.16 yuan of interest (which shall be calculated until July 20, 2006, and the interest from July 21, 2006 shall be calculated by segment at the overdue loan rate over the same period as prescribed by the People’s Bank of China until the date of full repayment) to Sanmenxia Station Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. within ten days after this judgment comes into force. If the aforesaid payers fail to perform the payment obligation within the period as determined in this judgment, they shall, in accordance with Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, pay double debt interest for the period of delay in performance.
本案一審案件受理費(fèi)217 284．3元，由三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司、三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司共同承擔(dān)；二審案件受理費(fèi)217 284．3元，由三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)集團(tuán)有限公司、三門(mén)峽天元鋁業(yè)股份有限公司共同承擔(dān)。
The acceptance fee of 217,284.3 yuan for the trial of the first instance of this case shall be jointly paid by Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd. and Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited; the acceptance fee of 217,284.3 yuan for the trial of the second instance of this case shall be jointly paid by Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Industry Group Co., Ltd. and Sanmenxia Tianyuan Aluminum Company Limited.
做專業(yè)的人工翻譯服務(wù)
