Published: (2003-04-01 09:30:19)
Plaintiff: Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, Sage import and export company.
Legal representative: Zhang Jintang, general manager of the company.
Appointed agent: Fan Cheng Wei, Xiong Bin, Shenzhen Junlian Law Firm lawyers.
Defendant: Agricultural Bank of China Wuxi suburban sub-branch.
Representative: Zhu Binglun, the branch president.
Appointed agent: Cheng Mingshan, Agricultural Bank of China Wuxi suburban sub-branch staff.
Appointed agent: Song Zhengping, Jiangsu Province, Wuxi Jinhui Law Firm lawyers.
Plaintiff Shenzhen Sage Import & Export Company of Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as Sage) filed a lawsuit to Wuxi Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province due to the dispute of acceptance of bills with the defendant Agricultural Bank of China Wuxi Sub-district Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Sub-district Agricultural Bank).
Plaintiff Saige company claimed: I hold by the defendant stamped bank drafts and promises to pay at maturity of the bank acceptance of the valid bill of exchange to the defendant, the defendant unreasonably refused to pay. The defendant was ordered to pay the amount of 11 million yuan and interest on the delayed payment of 12,394,480 yuan as of March 17, 1998, and to bear the costs of this case.
The defendant Suburban Agricultural Bank did not reply.
Jiangsu Province, Wuxi City Intermediate People's Court found that:
January 22, 1996, the plaintiff Sage company with the outsiders in Shenzhen City, Lianjing Industry and Trade Company Limited and Wuxi Beitang Hengchang Vehicle Trade Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Hengchang) signed an agent of the import of motorcycle engine assembly agreement, the foreign letter of credit. To this end, Hengchang company in accordance with the agreement issued in the amount of 4.5 million yuan and 6.5 million yuan, the maturity date of November 16, December 16, respectively, the payee are Saige company's two bankers' acceptances, are the defendant suburb of the Farmers' Bank of the acceptance.
The two bankers' acceptances were lost by Hengchang before they were delivered to the plaintiff Saige. Hengchang company had on August 2, 1996 in the "south daily" newspaper declaration of the bill of exchange is invalid, and on September 2, the same year to the wuxi suburban people's court to apply for public notice. On the same day, the Wuxi Suburban District People's Court notified the defendant Suburban Agricultural Bank to stop payment. At the expiration of the period of public notice required by law, Hengchang did not apply to the Wuxi Suburban People's Court for a judgment of exclusion. Hengchang later delivered to the plaintiff SAGE, is the lost bank acceptance of the first joint (this joint by the accepting bank to pay the bill as a debit voucher) copy and the defendant suburbs of agricultural bank on August 28, 1996 issued a letter of explanation. In the banker's acceptance of the first copy of the bill of exchange on the bill of exchange issued by the signatory column, stamped the suburb of the agricultural bank of the bill of exchange special seal, but not Hengchang company's signature. The content of the explanation letter of the Suburban Agricultural Bank was: because the banker's acceptance was lost by the drawer, and the drawer had declared in the newspaper that it was invalid, so it agreed to stamp the special seal of the bank on the copy of the bottom coupon of the lost bill of exchange, which served as a valid basis for the payee to collect the money from the bank; after the expiration of the bill of exchange, the payee had to send an officer to settle the amount of money on the face of the bill on the basis of this copy. According to the date recorded in the photocopy, Segal Company held the photocopy of the first coupon of the lost bill of exchange after the maturity date and prompted the Suburban Agricultural Bank for payment, but the Suburban Agricultural Bank refused to pay the bill, so it filed a lawsuit.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidence: 1. the agency agreement signed by SAGE, Hengchang and Lianjing on January 22, 1996; 2. a copy of the first link of the two banker's acceptances issued by Hengchang on July 16, 1996, on which there is a special seal of the bill of exchange stamped by the Suburban Agricultural Bank; 3. a letter of clarification issued by the Suburban Agricultural Bank on August 28, 1996; and 4. a copy of the first link of the banker's acceptance issued by Hengchang, Evidence relating to Hengchang's application for public notice; 5. Testimony of Hengchang.
The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court held that Article 20 of the Bills of Exchange Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Issuance of a bill is the act of issuing a bill by the biller and delivering it to the payee." Although the outsider Hengchang company issued and by the defendant suburban agricultural bank acceptance of two bankers acceptances, but these two bankers acceptances in the delivery to the plaintiff Sage company before the loss of Hengchang company, so Hengchang company did not complete the bill of the bill of the bill of the act, the Sage company did not actually hold the bankers acceptances. Now Sage company based on the claim of the right of the note, only Hengchang company to the first copy of the banker's acceptance. The copy of the word "bill of exchange", the amount, the name of the payer, the name of the payee and other copy content, but there is no drawer Hengchang company's signature, and without the suburb agreed to acceptance of the agricultural bank, another attached to the suburb of the agricultural bank to explain the letter to the payment of the limited conditions, these contents do not comply with the provisions of article 22 of the bill of exchange, the bill of exchange. Therefore, although the copy of the bill of exchange stamped by the Suburban Agricultural Bank, can not be used as a valid bill of exchange. SAGE's request to exercise the right of bill with this copy does not comply with the provisions of Article 4(2) of the bill law, and should be rejected. Accordingly, Wuxi Intermediate People's Court ruled on July 24, 1998:
Dismissing the plaintiff SAGE's claim. The case acceptance fee of 71,210 RMB was borne by the plaintiff SAGE. After the judgment of the first trial, SAGE was not convinced and appealed to the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court. The reason is: from the content of August 28, 1996, the appellee suburb agricultural bank acceptance of the meaning of the expression is true, the legal formalities are also complete, in line with the spirit of the provisions of Article 18 of the bill of lading law; appellant held the suburb agricultural bank stamped with the special seal of the bill of exchange of the first copy of the first link should be regarded as with the bill of exchange of the second link with the same legal effect; the original judgment to reject the appellant's litigation request, the reason can not be Established. Request to revoke the original judgment, according to law.
The appellee Suburban Agricultural Bank replied that the judgment of the original trial found the facts to be clear, the applicable law is correct, the appeal should be rejected, and the original judgment should be upheld.
Jiangsu Higher People's Court held that the original trial found the facts clear, the evidence is true and sufficient. The note is a major form of securities, the production of the note must strictly comply with the provisions of the law. Appellant SAGE got the copy of the first link of the bank acceptance bill from the outsider Hengchang Company, which did not conform to the provisions of the bill of exchange law, and was not a valid bill, and SAGE could not claim to exercise the right of the bill on the basis of it. The trial judgment dismissing Sage's claim was correct and should be upheld. Article 18 of the Bills Law stipulates: "If the bearer of the bill loses the right to the bill due to exceeding the limitation period of the right to the bill or due to the lack of matters recorded in the bill, he still enjoys the civil rights and may request the drawer or the acceptor to return to him the benefit equivalent to the amount of the unpaid bill." Hengchang Company issued the bill of exchange to Saige Company because Saige Company imported the motorcycle engine assembly for its agent. Although Saige lost its right to the note because it was invalid, its claim against Hengchang because of its agency behavior was not lost, and the trial did not negate this civil right of Saige. When SAGE sued, it only claimed to exercise its right to the note against the appellee, Suburban Agricultural Bank, and the case was filed as a dispute over the note accordingly. The debt between Saige and Hengchang is a cause relationship, which is adjusted by civil law, and has nothing to do with the note relationship in this case, so it should not be tried together, and Saige can sue separately. The appeal reason of Saige Company could not be established and should be rejected. Accordingly, the Jiangsu Higher People's Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 153(1)(1) of the Chinese People's **** and National Civil Procedure Law, ruled on October 15, 1998 that:
The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. The second instance case acceptance fee of 71,210 RMB shall be borne by the appellant SAGE.