最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送富滇银行股份有限公司大理分行与杨凤鸣、大理建标房地产开发有限公司案外人执行异议之诉案等最高人民法院公报案例。
目录
Contents
1.富滇银行股份有限公司大理分行与杨凤鸣、大理建标房地产开发有限公司案外人执行异议之诉案 Dali Sub-Branch of Fudian Bank Co., Ltd. v. Yang Fengming and Dali Jianbiao Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over objection to enforcement by a party not involved in the case) 2.江苏省高科种业科技有限公司诉南通市粮棉原种场植物新品种追偿权纠纷案 Jiangsu Gaoke Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Nantong Grain and Cotton Stock Farm (case regarding dispute over claim for compensation for a new plant variety) 3.中国长城资产管理股份有限公司山西省分公司与山西朔州平鲁区华美奥崇升煤业有限公司等借款合同纠纷案 Shanxi Branch of China Great Wall Asset Management Co., Ltd. v. Huamei Aochongsheng Coal Industry Co., Ltd. of Pinglu District, Shuozhou, Shanxi, et al. (case regarding dispute over a loan contract)
一、富滇银行股份有限公司大理分行与杨凤鸣、大理建标房地产开发有限公司案外人执行异议之诉案
【裁判要旨】
保证人与债权银行之间约定设立保证金账户，按比例存入一定金额的保证金用于履行某项保证责任，未经同意保证人不得使用保证金，债权银行有权从该账户直接扣收有关款项，并约定了保证期间等，应认定双方存在金钱质押的合意。保证金账户内资金的特定化不等于固定化，只要资金的浮动均与保证金业务对应、有关，未作日常结算使用，即应认定符合最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国担保法〉若干问题的解释》第八十五条规定的金钱以特户形式特定化的要求。如债权银行实际控制和管理保证金账户，应认定已符合对出质金钱占有的要求。
[Judgment Abstract]
Where a guarantor and a creditor bank agree to set up a margin account into which the guarantor should deposit a certain sum of guaranty money pro rata for the performance of a certain guarantee obligation, if it is agreed that the guarantor should not use the guaranty money without the approval of the creditor bank while the creditor bank is entitled to directly deduct the corresponding guaranty money from the margin account, with the period of guarantee stipulated, both parties should be deemed to have reached a consensus on the pledge of money. Specification of the funds in the margin account does not mean that such funds are immobilized. Provided that the funds are floating in correspondence with or related to the margin business instead of being used for daily settlement, it should be deemed that the guaranty money meets the requirement for specification of money in the form of a special account as set forth in Article 85 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Regarding the Application of Security Law of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, if the margin account is actually under the control and management of the creditor bank, it should be determined that the bank has met the requirement for possessing the pledged money.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第6期（总第284期）第44-48页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 6, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.103282995
[CLI Code] CLI.C.103282995(EN)
二、江苏省高科种业科技有限公司诉南通市粮棉原种场植物新品种追偿权纠纷案
Jiangsu Gaoke Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Nantong Grain and Cotton Stock Farm (case regarding dispute over claim for compensation for a new plant variety)
【裁判摘要】
植物新品种实行“早期公开、延迟审查”制度。品种权被授予后，品种权人依据《植物新品种保护条例》第三十三条规定，主张在植物新品种申请公布日至授权公告日期间未经申请人许可，为商业目的生产、销售授权品种繁殖材料的单位或个人支付使用费的，人民法院可以综合考虑有关植物新品种实施许可费、品种类型和价值、实施者的经营规模等因素合理确定。
[Judgment Abstract]
The system of “early publication and delayed examination” should be implemented for new plant varieties. After the variety rights have been granted, the variety rights owner, in accordance with Article 33 of the Regulation on Protection of New Varieties of Plants, argues that any units or persons who have produced or sold the propagating materials of the protected variety in question for commercial purposes without consent for the period beginning on the date on which an acceptable application was published on preliminary examination and ending on the date of grant of variety rights shall pay an exploitation fee. A people's court may reasonably determine the damages on the basis of the fee for licensing use of the new plant variety, the type and value of the plant, and the business scope of the violators.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第7期（总第285期）第45-48页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 7, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.108771440
[CLI Code] CLI.C.108771440(EN)
三、中国长城资产管理股份有限公司山西省分公司与山西朔州平鲁区华美奥崇升煤业有限公司等借款合同纠纷案
Shanxi Branch of China Great Wall Asset Management Co., Ltd. v. Huamei Aochongsheng Coal Industry Co., Ltd. of Pinglu District, Shuozhou, Shanxi, et al. (case regarding dispute over a loan contract)
【裁判要旨】
在最高额保证合同关系中，如果合同明确约定所担保的最高债权额包括主债权的数额和相应的利息、违约金、损害赔偿金以及实现债权的费用，保证人即应当依照约定对利息、违约金、损害赔偿金以及实现债权的费用承担保证责任，而不受主债权数额的限制。
[Judgment Abstract]
In a contract of maximum-amount suretyship, if the contract specifies that the maximum amount of claim includes the amount of principal obligation and its interest, liquidated damages, damages, and the cost of realizing the obligation, the guarantor should assume the suretyship for such amount as agreed within the scope of suretyship, without being subject to the restriction of the principal obligation.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2020年第5期（总第283期）第28-36页
Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.99845412
[CLI Code] CLI.C.99845412(EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
知识产权类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
租赁合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
技术合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
票据类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例商业秘密类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉港澳台案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例证券案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉外商事案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
物权案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例最高院公报案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉垄断类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能