盈科|期刊 《商业法律动态观察》——2019年6月刊
已被浏览804次
更新日期：2019-11-20
来源：盈科律师事务所
【立法动态 Judicial News】
背景摘要：日前，国务院国有资产监督管理委员会发出《关于做好中央企业违规经营投资责任追究工作体系建设有关事项的通知》（下称《通知》）。
Background Information：The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission ("SASAC") of the State Council has recently issued the Circular on Matters Concerning Effectively Building a Working System for Accountability for Unlawful Operations and Investment of Centrally-administered Enterprises (the "Circular").
《通知》提出：一、进一步提高对责任追究工作重要性的认识。二、深入推进组织体系建设。三、持续完善责任追究制度体系。四、扎实做好违规问题线索查处。五、探索工作方式方法。六、不断健全以追责促发展的长效机制。其中，根据《通知》，各中央企业要加快构建内容协调、流程清晰、配套完备、有效管用的责任追究制度体系，不断提高工作规范化、制度化、科学化水平。研究制定损失认定、责任认定、离职退休人员违规责任追究处理等实施细则，规范工作流程和标准，实现责任追究工作标准一致、有章可循、规范有序。
The Circular calls for efforts to: 1. further raise awareness of the importance of accountability; 2. deepen the building of the organizational structure; 3. constantly improve the framework of accountability systems; 4. search for and deal with clues to potential violations; 5. explore effective work approaches and methods; and 6. persistently optimize the long-term mechanism that promotes development via accountability. According to the Circular, all centrally-administered enterprises shall accelerate building an effective framework of accountability systems that features definite contents, clear procedures and adequate supporting measures, and make continual efforts to ensure their work becomes more standardized, institution-based and scientific. Research will be conducted to formulate implementing rules in respect to determination of losses, determination of liability, and accountability for violations of those individuals who have left or retired from the enterprises, with a view to standardizing work procedures and criteria and ensuring the consistency of accountability criteria and the well-founded and orderly accountability.
2.最高院发布《人民法院执行工作纲要（2019-2023）》
2.SPC Releases Outline of Enforcement Work of People's Courts (2019-2023)
背景摘要：日前，最高人民法院印发《关于深化执行改革健全解决执行难长效机制的意见——人民法院执行工作纲要（2019—2023）》（下称《纲要》）。
Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Opinions on Deepening the Enforcement Reform and Improving the Long-term Mechanism for Resolving Difficulties in Enforcement – Outline of Enforcement Work of People's Courts (2019-2023) (the "Outline").
《纲要》由总体要求、主要任务和组织实施三部分组成。主要内容包括强调从源头解决执行难、以信息化实现执行模式的现代化、对消极执行等不规范执行行为“零容忍”和深入推进执行改革等。《纲要》指出，推动出台地方性法规、规范性文件，推进完善强制执行法律体系及配套制度，2019年底之前完成民事强制执行法调研起草工作。完善“1+2+N”执行信息化系统，包括完善人民法院网络执行查控系统、完善失信惩戒系统、建设并全面推行执行财产评估系统和加强网络司法拍卖系统建设。《纲要》强调，实行“一案双查”工作机制，落实信访案件倒查机制。实行以法官为主导的“法官+法官助理（执行员）+法警+书记员”团队办案模式。
The Outline is comprised of three parts, namely, General Requirements, Main Tasks, and Implementation and Organization. The main contents emphasize finding and eliminating root causes to resolve difficulties in enforcement, adopting information technologies to modernize modes of enforcement, showing "zero tolerance" for enforcement irregularities, such as passive enforcement, and deepening the enforcement reform. The Outline states that efforts will be made to push the introduction of local regulations and normative documents, move forward with improvement to the legal system for compulsory enforcement and the supporting systems, and complete the research into and the drafting of the law on compulsory enforcement in civil cases by the end of 2019. The "1+2+N" enforcement information systems will be optimized, the system involves improving the inquiry and control systems for online enforcement by people's courts, improving the punishment systems for dishonest acts, developing and fully promoting the appraisal systems for property subject to enforcement, and stepping up the development of online judicial sale systems. Furthermore, the Outline highlights the adoption of the "one case, dual investigations" mechanism, under which both violations of party members and cadres and disciplinary offence of discipline inspectors will be investigated in a single case, and calls for looking into and pursuing liability to respond to complaint letters and visits. Cases will be handled in a group-based style, and such group will be led by the judge and formed by "the judge, the assistant to the judge (or the enforcement officer), the bailiff and the court clerk".
【经典案例 Representative Case】
No Validity of Real Right Transfer if the Holder of Maximum Mortgage Changes the Debtor without the Registration Alteration
——甲银行诉乙公司、丙公司等金融借款合同纠纷案
——Bank A Vs. Company B,C,e.t over Financial Loan Contract
最高额抵押权人与原债务人、抵押人及新债务人协商一致，将其对新债务人的债权纳入最高额抵押债权范围，但未办理抵押变更登记手续的，不发生物权变动的效力，抵押权人不能就其对新债务人的债权行使抵押权。
When the holder of maximum mortgage has reached a consensus with the original debtor, the mortgagor and the new debtor that incorporates the creditor’s rights against new debtor into scope of the maximum mortgage without altering the registration, it shall not amount to the transfer of real right. Therefore, the mortgagee cannot exercise the right of mortgage against the new debtor.
2014年4月8日，甲银行与乙公司签订《基本额度授信合同》，约定甲银行向乙公司提供授信额度1.4亿元，借款期限2014年4月8日至2015年4月7日。同日，丙公司与甲银行签订《最高额抵押合同》，约定丙公司以其名下某房产为前述《基本额度授信合同》及其项下的全部债权提供最高额抵押担保。同年5月10日，甲银行与丙公司办理抵押登记，登记他项权利种类为最高额抵押权、他项权利人为甲银行。
Bank A signed up the Basic Amount Credit Contract with Company B and agreed to provide line of credit of 140 million Yuan on April 8th, 2014, the loan term duration is from April 8th, 2014 to April 7th, 2015. On the same day, Company C signed the Maximum Mortgage Contract with Bank A and agreed to provide the mortgage of maximum amount guarantee for the former mentioned Basic Amount Credit Contract and all claims thereunder with its real estate. Bank A proceeded mortgage registration with Company C on May 10th, 2014. The category of registered right is the mortgage of maximum amount and the mortgagee of the right is Bank A.
2014年11月5日，甲银行与丁公司签订《流动资金借款合同》，约定丁公司向甲银行借款2,800万元，期限自2014年11月5日至2015年11月4日。同日，甲银行与乙公司、丙公司及丁公司签订《补充协议》，确认前述《流动资金借款合同》系甲银行与乙公司之间《基本额度授信合同》项下分合同，属于《最高额抵押合同》项下的债权范围。后甲银行按约放款。
Bank A singed a Liquidity Loan Contract with Company D agreed that Company D shall borrow 28 million yuan from Bank A, with its duration from November 5th, 2014 to November 4th, 2015. On the same day, Bank A signed Supplementary Agreement with Company B, Company C and Company D, and confirmed the foregoing Liquidity Loan Contract was part of Basic Amount Credit Contract between bank A and Company B, which belonged to mortgage scope under the Maximum Mortgage Contract. Then, Bank A granted loan as agreed.
借款到期后，丁公司未按约归还本金、支付全部到期利息。甲银行诉至法院，请求判令丁公司归还借款本金及支付利息、律师费，并要求乙公司等对丁公司上述付款义务承担连带清偿责任，对丙公司名下某房产行使抵押权等。
Till the due date, Company D didn't pay all the interest due, nor the principal. Bank A brought a lawsuit against Company D for repaying the principal, interest of the loan and attorney’s fee, requiring Company B and other companies to undertake joint liability for satisfaction for Company D’s payment obligations, and to exercise the right to mortgage to the real estate which is under the name of Company B.
上海市静安区人民法院于2017年1月19日作出（2015）静民四（商）初字第6508号民事判决：丁公司应于判决生效之日起十日内归还甲银行借款本金2,800万元及利息、逾期利息、律师费；乙公司对丁公司上述付款义务承担连带清偿责任，并在承担责任后有权向丁公司追偿；对甲银行其它诉讼请求不予支持。甲银行、丁公司不服一审判决提起上诉。上海市第二中级人民法院于2017年9月30日作出（2017）沪02民终2890号终审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
The People's Court of Jing’an District of Shanghai made a civil judgment [Jiang’an, Commercial, no. 6508(2015) ]on January 19, 2017 that Company D shall repay the interest and principal of 28million borrowed from bank A, overdue interest and attorney’s fee within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the judgment. Company B shall undertake joint liability for satisfaction for Company D’s payment obligations. Other claims of bank A were not supported. Bank A and Company D appealed after the first instance judgment. Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on September 30th, 2017 [Shanghai, 02, Civil, Final, No. 2890(2017)] that dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first instance judgment.
法院认为，本案的主要争议焦点在于甲银行是否可根据《补充协议》对系争贷款享有最高额抵押权，即涉及最高额抵押中债务人能否变更问题，应从债权与物权两个层面分析。债权层面，《补充协议》由各方共同签署，反映了各方真实意思表示，该协议合法有效，应予遵守。因此，对于违反协议的行为，守约方可以要求违约方承担相应责任。物权层面，我国《物权法》第二百零五条仅规定抵押权人与抵押人可通过协议变更“债权范围”，并未明确允许变更“债务人”，而本案中当事人协议变更了债务人，由此产生了能否把“债务人”的变更理解为“债权范围”变更的问题。从立法沿革来看，1995年颁布的《中华人民共和国担保法》与2007年颁布的《中华人民共和国物权法》关于最高额抵押担保的规定均强调被担保的债权“连续发生”，“连续发生”应当指双方之间一种不断沿袭交易的状态，如果变更了债务人，新的债务与以前的债务相比，难以认定为“连续发生”。从比较法来看，即便允许变更最高额抵押债务人的国家或地区，其法律制度也强调应当进行变更登记，不经变更登记，无法行使优先受偿权。
Our court holds that the issue in this case is that whether Bank A is entitled to enjoy the mortgage rights of maximum amount in respect of the disputed loans under the Supplementary Agreement, that is, whether the debtor can change in maximum mortgage. It should be analyzed from the two aspects of creditor's rights and property rights. At the level of creditor's rights, the Supplementary Agreement is signed by all parties and reveals true intentions of all parties, so the agreement is legal and valid and shall be observed by all parties. Therefore, for any violations, the observant party may hold the breaching party liable for the breach of agreement. At the level of property rights, Article 205 of Property Law only provides that the mortgagee and the mortgagor can change the “scope of claims” by agreement, but it does not explicitly allowed to the change the “debtor”. In this case, the parties agreed to change the debtor. This raises the question of whether the change of the “debtor” can be interpreted as change of the “scope of claims”. From the aspects of legislation evolution, the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China promulgated in 1995 and the Property Law of the People's Republic of China promulgated in 2007 on the maximum mortgage guarantees emphasize that the secured claims "continuously occur", and "continuous occurrence" should refer to a state of continuous follow-up transactions between the two parties. If the debtor changed, the new debt is difficult to be identified as “continuous occurrence” compared with the previous debt. From the perspective of comparative law, even if the country or region that allow the change of the maximum mortgage debtor, its legal system emphasizes that registration of alteration should also proceed, otherwise the priority of compensation cannot be exercised.
综上，尽管从债权层面《补充协议》合法有效，但从物权层面，结合立法沿革及立法比较来看，当事人协议变更最高额抵押权的债务人且未办理变更登记手续，将不发生物权变动的效力。故法院判决支持了甲银行要求丁公司归还借款本金及支付利息的诉请，对于甲银行要求实现抵押权的诉请，不予支持。
To conclude, although the Supplementary Agreement is legal and effective from the creditor's level, from the perspective of property rights, combined with legislative evolution and legislative comparison, the agreements that changed the maximum mortgage right without the alter of registration process will not produce the real right transfer. Therefore, the court's decision supported the claim that Bank A required Company D to return the principal of the loan and pay interest. And the court does not support the request of Bank A for the realization of the mortgage.
本案涉及最高额抵押的协议变更的效力问题。我国物权法对于是否可以协议变更最高额抵押的主债务人以及变更主债务人是否需要办理登记等问题并无明确规定。本案判决认为，如果未进行变更登记，允许抵押合同当事人随意将本不属于最高额抵押担保范围的其他债权纳入担保范围，可能会损害其他第三方的利益，如在后顺位抵押权人的利益，或者是抵押人之普通债权人的利益，故最终认定对未办理变更登记的新债务人的债务，银行无权行使抵押权。本案对细化最高额抵押相关的司法规则有一定探索意义，有利于规范金融参与主体的融资行为，提高借贷企业的“去杠杆”意识，有效防控金融风险。
The case involves the validity of changing agreement of maximum mortgage. Chinese property law does not provide clearly that whether the chief debtor can be changed in agreement of mortgage of maximum amount or whether the change of chief debtor need alter the registration. This case holds that, if the parties to a mortgage contract are allowed to incorporate creditor’s rights against other debtors that do not fall within maximum mortgage into guarantee scope without altering the registration, it may harm the interest of other third parties such as the subsequent mortgage and the ordinary creditor (the mortgagor). Therefore, the court ruled that the bank has no right to exercise the mortgage against the debt of the new debtor who has not gone through the registration alteration. This case is insightful to clarify the judicial rules on maximum mortgage, and it is helpful to regulate the financing behavior of financial participants, to improve the developing awareness of lending enterprises and to effectively prevent and control financial risks.
本文版权归作者所有，对于本文有任何意见或者建议，欢迎和作者取得联系。沈彦炜，全球合伙人，邮箱：shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com
All right reserved. If you have any suggestion, please feel free to contact me. Sean Shen, Global Partner, E-mail: shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com
