金融案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网 2021-09-21

目录
Contents

1. 郭秀兰诉光大证券股份有限公司、上海证券交易所、中国金融期货交易所期货内幕交易责任纠纷案
Guo Xiulan v. Everbright Securities Co., Ltd., Shanghai Stock Exchange, and China Financial Futures Exchange (case of dispute over the liabilities for futures insider trading)

2. 香港上海汇丰银行有限公司上海分行与景轩大酒店（深圳）有限公司、万轩置业有限公司金融借款合同纠纷案
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Shanghai Branch v. Jingxuan Hotel Co.,Ltd. & Wanxuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. (dispute over a financial loan contract)

3. 李杰与辽宁金鹏房屋开发有限公司金融不良债权追偿纠纷案
Li Jie v. Liaoning Jinpeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (dispute over recovery of financial distressed debt)

一、郭秀兰诉光大证券股份有限公司、上海证券交易所、中国金融期货交易所期货内幕交易责任纠纷案

Guo Xiulan v. Everbright Securities Co., Ltd., Shanghai Stock Exchange, and China Financial Futures Exchange (case of dispute over the liabilities for futures insider trading)

【裁判要旨】

证券交易所、期货交易所的法律性质为证券自律管理组织，在行使法定自律监管职权时，若其行为的程序正当、目的合法，且不具有主观故意，则交易所不应对投资者损失承担民事侵权责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

The legal nature of a stock exchange or a futures exchange is a securities self-regulation organization. When exercising its statutory self-regulatory supervisory authority in due procedure, for a lawful purpose, and without any subjective intention, the exchange shall not bear the civil tort liabilities for investors' losses.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2018年第12期（总第266期）第37-44页

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 12, 2018

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.67642859

[CLI Code] CLI.C.67642859(EN)

二、香港上海汇丰银行有限公司上海分行与景轩大酒店（深圳）有限公司、万轩置业有限公司金融借款合同纠纷案

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Shanghai Branch v. Jingxuan Hotel Co.,Ltd. & Wanxuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. (dispute over a financial loan contract)

【裁判要旨】

根据国家外汇管理局颁布的《境内机构对外担保管理办法实施细则》第八条第二款规定，外商独资企业可以自行提供对外担保，无需得到外汇局逐笔批准。同时，依据《境内机构对外担保管理办法》第十四条及最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国担保法>若干问题的解释》第六条的规定，担保人提供对外担保后，应当到所在地的外汇局办理担保登记手续。未经国家有关主管部门批准或者登记对外担保的，对外担保合同无效。由此可知，外商独资企业对外提供担保，虽然不需要逐笔审批，但仍然需要进行登记，未经国家有关主管部门登记的，该担保合同应认定为无效。

[Judgment Abstract]

Under Article 8 Paragraph 2 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Administrative Measures for the Provision of Cross Boarder Guarantees by On-shore Institutions, a wholly foreign owned enterprise can provide cross boarder guarantees without being required to obtain the account by account approval of the foreign exchange administration bureau? Meanwhile, under Article 14 of the Administrative Measures for the Cross Boarder Guarantees Provided by On-shore Institutions and Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Regarding Application of Security Law of the People's Republic of China, after providing a cross boarder guarantee, the guarantors should complete the guarantee registration with the local State Administration of Foreign Exchange office. A cross boarder guarantee contract shall be void if the guarantee is not approved by or registered with competent authorities. Therefore, cross boarder guarantees provided by wholly foreign owned enterprises shall be registered although not be required to be subject to account by account examination and approval. A guarantee that is not registered in competent authorities shall be held void.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》 2014年第6期(总第212期)

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 6, 2014

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2827012

[CLI Code] CLI.C.2827012(EN)

三、李杰与辽宁金鹏房屋开发有限公司金融不良债权追偿纠纷案

Li Jie v. Liaoning Jinpeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (dispute over recovery of financial distressed debt)

【裁判摘要】

根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十八条、最高人民法院《关于当事人对具有强制执行效力的公证债权文书的内容有争议提起诉讼人民法院是否受理问题的批复》的规定，具有强制执行效力的公证债权文书与生效判决书、仲裁裁决书一样，是人民法院的执行依据，当事人可以据此申请强制执行。对于有强制执行效力的公证债权文书，发生争议后债权人应当申请强制执行，直接提起诉讼的，人民法院不予受理。

根据最高人民法院、司法部《关于公证机关赋予强制执行效力的债权文书执行有关问题的联合通知》第一条的规定，赋予强制执行效力的公证债权文书必须符合当事人已经就强制执行问题在债权文书中达成书面合意的条件。如果仅有公证的形式，而没有当事人关于执行问题的特殊合意，也不能产生可以申请强制执行的效果。因此，合同当事人的意思表示是赋予强制执行效力的公证债权文书强制执行效力的重要来源，当事人可以通过合意的方式约定直接申请强制执行的内容，法律亦不禁止当事人变更直接申请强制执行的内容，放弃对债权的特殊保障。在存在有强制执行效力的公证债权文书的情况下，双方当事人后又对部分债权约定可以采取诉讼方式解决纠纷，是通过合意的方式变更了可以直接申请强制执行的内容，当事人可以就该部分债权提起诉讼。

[Judgment Abstract]

Under Article 238 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and provisions of the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of Whether a People's Court Should Accept a Lawsuit Filed by a Party for Any Disputed Content of an Enforceable Notarized Debt Instrument, an enforceable notarized debt instrument is the same as an effective judgement or an arbitration award in being the enforcement basis of a people's court, and a party may hereby apply for enforcement. For an enforceable notarized debt instrument, after any dispute arose, a creditor shall apply for enforcement. If a creditor directly files a lawsuit, a people's court will not accept it.

Under Article 1 of the Joint Notice of the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice on Issues concerning the Enforcement of a Debt Instrument with Enforceability Granted by a Notary Public, an enforceable notarized debt instrument shall satisfy the condition that parties concerned have reached a written consensus on the enforcement in the debt instrument. If there is only the notarization in form and no special consensus on enforcement between parties concerned, the effect to apply for enforcement will not come into being. Therefore, the declaration of intention of parties under the contract is an important source to give compulsory execution effect to an enforceable notarized debt instrument. Parties may agree on the content of direct application for enforcement by way of consensus and change the said content to abandon the special guarantee of the creditor's rights. Where there is an enforceable notarized debt instrument, and later on, both parties agree that for some creditor's rights, litigation is available for them to settle the dispute. That is, the content that parties can directly apply for enforcement is changed by means of consensus and thus parties concerned may file a lawsuit against the above-mentioned claims.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2016年第4期（总第234期）

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 4, 2016

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8323516

[CLI Code] CLI.C.8323516(EN)

责任编辑：李泽鹏

稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）

审核人员：张文硕

更多精彩，请点击菜单栏“法宝盘点-法宝原创-双语新闻”：

▼往期精彩回顾▼

百万法律人都在用的北大法宝详细介绍！

保险合同类型案件汇编

知识产权侵权类型案件汇编