2022年第5期最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网推出“法宝双语案例”栏目。本栏目选取近期热门司法案例进行双语发布，每两周一期，欢迎关注！感谢新老朋友对北大法律信息网的大力支持，我们会持续为大家提供更好的法律信息服务。本周推送第七十九期，主要关注2022年第5期最高院公报案例！

本期双语案例推送郑诗琦诉三星财产保险(中国)有限公司财产保险合同纠纷案等2022年第5期最高院公报案例。

目录

Contents

1.郑诗琦诉三星财产保险(中国)有限公司财产保险合同纠纷案

Zheng Shiqi v. Samsung Property & Casualty Insurance Company (China), Ltd. (Dispute over Property Insurance Contracts)

2.江苏中讯数码电子有限公司与山东比特智能科技股份有限公司因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷案

Jiangsu Zhongxun Digital Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Shandong Bit Smart Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over liability for damage caused by maliciously bringing an intellectual property action)

3.上海友民房地产开发有限公司诉宝山区杨行镇北宗村村民委员会借款合同纠纷案

Shanghai Youmin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. The Villagers’ Committee of Beizong Village, Yanghang Township, Baoshan District (case regarding dispute over a loan contract)

一、郑诗琦诉三星财产保险(中国)有限公司财产保险合同纠纷案

Zheng Shiqi v. Samsung Property & Casualty Insurance Company (China), Ltd. (Dispute over Property Insurance Contracts)

【裁判摘要】

被保险人将约定用途为“非营业个人”的被保险车辆出租给他人，并允许承租人通过网络向不特定用户转租，系以获取租金收益为目的的商业性使用，改变了保险标的的用途，且超出保险合同订立时保险人预见或应当预见的保险合同的承保范围，属于保险法第五十二条危险程度显著增加的情形。

[Judgment Abstract]

The insured leases out the insured vehicle agreed upon to be used for “non-business individuals” to another person, and allows the lessee to sublet it to unspecified users through the Internet, which constitutes a commercial use for the purpose of obtaining rental income. It changes the use of the subject of insurance, and exceeds the coverage of the insurance contract foreseen or should be foreseen by the insurer when the insurance contract is concluded, which falls under the circumstances where the degree of peril of the subject matter insured greatly increases as prescribed in Article 52 of the Insurance Law.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第5期（总第309期）第40-42页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2022 (Total No. 309) Page 40-42

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.418884608

[CLI Code] CLI.C.418884608 (EN)

二、江苏中讯数码电子有限公司与山东比特智能科技股份有限公司因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷案

Jiangsu Zhongxun Digital Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Shandong Bit Smart Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over liability for damage caused by maliciously bringing an intellectual property action)

【裁判摘要】

行为人在明知系争商标为他人在先使用并具有一定影响力的情况下，抢先注册系争商标并获得的商标权不具有实质上的正当性。行为人据此向在先使用人许可的关联方提起商标侵权诉讼的，该诉讼行为应认定为恶意提起知识产权诉讼，由此造成他人损害的，应当承担损害赔偿责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

If an actor still registers early the disputed trademark despite the knowledge that the disputed trademark has enjoyed certain popularity and has been used by another party, then the trademark rights he obtains are not justified essentially. If the actor files a trademark infringement lawsuit on this ground against relevant parties who hold the authorization of the prior user of the trademark, the actor should be deemed to maliciously bring an intellectual property action, and should bear compensation liability if any party suffers from losses due to the action.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第5期（总第309期）第28-35页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2022 (Total No. 309) Page 28-35

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.418884603

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 418884603 (EN)

三、上海友民房地产开发有限公司诉宝山区杨行镇北宗村村民委员会借款合同纠纷案

Guo v. Huang (retrial of case regarding dispute over legal succession)

【裁判要旨】

农村集体所有制企业的资产属于村民集体所有，该企业被征收后的补偿款亦属于村民集体所有。未经村民会议授权，村民委员会擅自对外签章承诺将该村集体企业的部分财产份额或企业被征收后的部分补偿款份额转让给他人的，违反了村民委员会组织法的规定，该承诺或约定应属无效。

[Judgment Abstract]

The assets of a rural enterprise under collective ownership are collectively owned by villagers, and the compensation for the enterprise’s expropriation should also belong to the collective. If without the authorization of the Villagers’ Assembly, the Villagers’ Committee signs an agreement of commitment transferring to another person a portion of the enterprise's property or part of compensation for the expropriation of the enterprise, such agreement should be deemed as violating the provisions of the Law on the Organization of the Villagers’ Committees, and the commitment or agreement should be null and void too.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第5期（总第309期）第36-39页

Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 5, 2022 (Total No. 309) Page 36-39

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.418884606

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 418884606 (EN)

更多详情请关注我们的海外社交平台，有更多的双语资讯内容等着您！（PS：Facebook和Twitter需要外网访问权限）

LinkedIn

北京北大英华

科技有限公司

LinkedIn

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

Facebook

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

Twitter

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

-END-

责任编辑 | 金梦洋稿件来源 | 北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）审核人员 | 伍小凤 张文硕▼往期精彩回顾▼双语案例推送之社会保险纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例服务合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例股权转让纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
劳动纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
仿冒混淆不正当竞争案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
环境损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
子女抚养纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
继承纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
人身损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
离婚财产分割案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
担保合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
垄断纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例环境公益诉讼案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例房屋拆迁安置补偿合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例工伤保险待遇纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
破产纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例著作权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例商标权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

关注下方公众号，获取更多法律信息

点击「在看」，就是鼓励