Case of Opposition Concerning Jurisdiction over Loan Contract Dispute between China International Iron & Steel Investment Corporation and Japan Corporation Kangyo Bank, etc.

中国国际钢铁投资公司与日本国株式会社劝业银行等借款合同纠纷管辖权异议案

Case of Opposition Concerning Jurisdiction over Loan Contract Dispute between China International Iron & Steel Investment Corporation and Japan Corporation Kangyo Bank, etc.

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

(No.12 [2001] of the trial of final instance by the Civil Division)

Appellant (Defendant of the original trial): China International Iron & Steel Investment Corporation.Place of domicile: Yard No.2, Shenggu Zhuang, Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality.

Legal Representative: Yangzhen, vice general manager of the corporation.

Appellee (Plaintiff of the original trial): Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank Corporation Shanghai Branch.Place of domicile: 25th Floor, Shanghai Mori Building, No.101 Yicheng East Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai Municipality.

Representative: Koga Yasuma, president of the bank.

Appellee (Plaintiff of the original trial): Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd. Beijing Branch.Place of Domicile: Changfugong Office Building 8F. Jia No.26, Jianguomenwai Avenue, Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality.

Representative: Kohtaro Nakazawa, president of the bank.

Appelee (Plaintiff of the original trial): Sanwa Bank Ltd. Shanghai Branch.Place of Domicile: Marine Tower 16F, Pudong Avenue No.1, Pudong New Area, Shanghai Municipality.

Representative: Sukun Gote, president of the bank.

Appellee (Plaintiff of the original trial): Yamaguchi Bank Ltd. Qingdao Branch.Place of Domicile: Room 651, Hyton Hotel, Hong Kong West Road No.50, Qingdao City, Shandong Province.

Representative: Jindai president of the bank.

The appellant, China International Iron & Steel Investment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Steel Corp.), refused to accept the No.539 civil ruling (2000) of the trial of first instance made by the Economic Division of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality on the case of loan contract dispute between the appellant and the appellees, Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank Corporation Shanghai Branch (hereinafter referred to as Kangyo Bank), Industrial Bank of Japan Ltd. Beijing Branch (hereinafter referred to as Industrial Bank), Sanwa Bank Ltd. Shanghai Branch (hereinafter referred to as Sanwa Bank) and Yamaguchi Bank Ltd. Qingdao Branch (hereinafter referred to as Yamaguchi Bank), and made an appeal to this Court, claiming that: though it was indicated in the loan agreement that the power of judicial review was non-exclusive, the contents of the agreement were subject to the jurisdiction of the law of Hong Kong, and the appellant and the appellees obviously had the common understanding that all the legal disputes shall be first settled in the court of Hong Kong. Under the principle of fairness, it would make the court proceedings more complicated and tedious to try the case in Beijing by applying the law of another place, and increase the burden and pressure on the court and the parties to the suit. Moreover, the status of the appellees as branches in China of foreign banks were confirmative, and according to Articles 21 and 22 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Commercial Banks, though the appellees had drawn business licenses from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, they didn't have the status as legal persons. According to Article 13 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 2 of the General Rules of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the appellees were unqualified to be the subjects of lawsuit, they signed loan contract with the appellant as agents of their head offices abroad, because the appellees were unqualified to be the subjects of lawsuit, it was against the law for their head offices to alter the terms of the contracts and file the action as the subjects of lawsuit by themselves without reaching agreements with the appellant on the alteration of the contracts. On these grounds, the appellant asked the court to cancel the original ruling and dismiss the claims of the appellees in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

The appellees, Kangyo Bank, Industrial Bank, Sanwa Bank and Yamaguchi Bank pleaded that: 1. the appellate causes of the appellant were untenable. The court of Hong Kong only had “non-exclusive” jurisdiction over the dispute of this case, the appellees had the right to file the action with a court of Hong Kong or a court of any other legal system that had the jurisdiction. In addition, the place of contract making, the place of contract performance and the place of domicile of the appellant in this case were all in the mainland of China, thus the Higher People's Court of Beijing's hearing of this case would be more conducive to the timely settlement of it, and to the execution of the judgment of this case.2. It was completely unnecessary for the appellant to worry that trying the case in Beijing by applying the law of another place would make the court proceedings more complicated and tedious, and increase the burden and pressure on the court and the parties to the suit, because it was not the first time to try civil and commercial cases in the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality by applying the law of other places, and at the same time, the worry of the appellant was not a statutory cause for changing the jurisdiction.3. The appellant completely lacked factual and legal basis to claim that: “according to Articles 21 and 22 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Commercial Banks, though the appellees had drawn business licenses from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, they didn't have the status as legal persons. According to Article 13 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 2 of the General Rules of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the appellees were unqualified to be the subjects of lawsuit. ”According to the Reply on the Civil Liabilities of the Branches of Commercial Banks of the People's Bank of China: “pursuant to Article 49 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 40 of the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China of the Supreme People's Court, ……when the branch of a commercial bank does business within the scope authorized by the head office, if any civil suit arises from dispute between the branch and other citizen, legal person or other organization, the subject of the suit shall be the branch, not its head office.” The appellees were completely qualified to be the subjects of lawsuit. Therefore, they asked the court to reject the appellate claims of the appellant.

This court finds through the review that: the parties to this case agreed upon in Article 23 (B) of the loan contract that: “the parties to this agreement irrevocably agree that, the court of Hong Kong shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide any accusation, lawsuit or legal proceeding arising from or in connection with this agreement, and to settle any relevant dispute (lawsuit), and the parties to this agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of such court for this purpose and for the interests of other parties. ” As the parties have agreed that the jurisdiction of the court of Hong Kong is non-exclusive, therefore, the jurisdiction of other courts enjoyed according to law shall not be excluded. And the parties to this case have agreed upon in Article 23 (D) of the loan contract that: “any party may file an action with the court of the competent place of jurisdiction it selects other than any place of jurisdiction listed in Article 23 (B).” Therefore, the appellees shall have the right to file an action over the loan contract dispute with other court that has the jurisdiction other than the court of Hong Kong.In this case, the appellees filed the action with the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality, which is in the place of domicile of the appellant, and the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality, as the court of the place of domicile of the defendant of this case, shall have the right to accept this case. The argument of the appellant that the appellant and the appellees obviously had the common understanding that all the legal disputes shall be first settled in the court of Hong Kong was untenable. Moreover, it is a subjective assumption of the appellant to claim that under the principle of fairness, it would make the court proceedings more complicated and tedious to try the case in Beijing by applying the law of another place, and increase the burden and pressure on the court and the parties to the suit, and the argument is not able to constitute the basis for the claim that the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality doesn't have the jurisdiction over this case, this appellate cause of the appellant is also untenable.

According to Article 49 of the General Rules of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, other organizations may be the parties to a civil suit. While according to Article 40 of Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China of the Supreme People's Court, the appellees are other organizations that may be the parties to a civil suit, and under the guidance of the Reply on the Civil Liabilities of the Branches of Commercial Banks of the People's Bank of China, the appellees of this case, while not their head offices, may be the subjects of lawsuit. The appellate cause of the appellant that the appellees are unqualified to be the subjects of lawsuit is also untenable.

In accordance with Articles 24, 38 and 158 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this court makes the following ruling:

Ignore the appeal and sustain the original ruling.

The acceptance fee of the case of second instance RMB 50 yuan shall be borne by China International Iron & Steel Investment Corporation.

This ruling shall be the final ruling.

Presiding Judge: Wang Yun

Deputy Judge: Ren Xuefeng

Deputy Judge: Chen Jizhong

Date: May 21, 2001

Court Clerk: Gao Xiaoli

中国国际钢铁投资公司与日本国株式会社劝业银行等借款合同纠纷管辖权异议案
（法公布（2001）第45号）

中华人民共和国最高人民法院
民事裁定书

（2001）民四终字第12号

　　上诉人（原审被告）：中国国际钢铁投资公司。
　　法定代表人：杨真，该公司副总经理。
　　被上诉人（原审原告）：株式会社第一劝业银行上海分行。
　　代表人：古贺保马，该行行长。
　　被上诉人（原审原告）：日本兴业银行北京分行。
　　代表人：中泽幸太郎，该行行长。
　　被上诉人（原审原告）：株式会社三和银行上海分行。
　　代表人：御手洗彻，该行行长。
　　被上诉人（原审原告）：株式会社山口银行青岛分行。
　　代表人：神代纯英，该行行长。
　　上诉人中国国际钢铁投资公司（以下简称钢铁公司）因与被上诉人株式会社第一劝业银行上海分行（以下简称劝业银行）、日本兴业银行北京分行（以下简称兴业银行）、株式会社三和银行上海分行（以下简称三和银行）、株式会社山口银行青岛分行（以下简称山口银行）借款合同纠纷一案，不服北京市高级人民法院（2000）高经初字第539号民事裁定，向本院提起上诉称：尽管贷款协议中司法审核权载明为无排他性，但协议内容以香港法律管辖，上诉人和被上诉人明显有共识应先在香港法庭解决法律纠纷。而且在公平的原则下，在北京使用异地法律审理将令法庭的审判过程更为繁复冗长，并加重法院和诉讼双方的负担及压力。并且被上诉人为外国银行在中国的分行地位是确定无疑的，根据《中华人民共和国商业银行法》第二十一条、第二十二条之规定，被上诉人尽管在国家工商管理总局领取了营业执照，也不具备法人地位。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》第十三条、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第二条之规定，被上诉人不具备法律诉讼的主体资格，其与上诉人签署借款合同的行为，是代理其在国外的总行所进行的，由于被上诉人不具备法律诉讼的主体资格，且其总行与上诉人没有就修改合同达成协议，而其以自身作为诉讼主体，更改合同的约定，提起诉讼的行为是违反法律规定的。据此，根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第二款之规定，请求撤销原审裁定，驳回被上诉人的诉讼请求。
　　被上诉人劝业银行、兴业银行、三和银行、山口银行答辩称：一、上诉人的上诉理由不能成立。香港法院对本案争议仅有“非专属”、“非排他性”的管辖权，被上诉人有权在香港法院或者其他任何有管辖权的法域的法院提起诉讼。另，本案合同的签订地、履行地及上诉人的住所地都在中国大陆，所以由北京市高级人民法院审理本案，将更有利于及时处理本案争议，同时也将有利于本案判决的执行。二、上诉人顾虑在公平的原则下，在北京使用异地法律审理将令法庭的审判过程更为繁复冗长，并加重法院和诉讼双方的负担及压力，是完全没有必要的，因为在北京市高级人民法院使用异地法律审理民商事案件并非是第一次，同时，上诉人的顾虑也不是改变管辖的法定理由。三、上诉人称：“根据《中华人民共和国商业银行法》第二十一条、第二十二条之规定，被上诉人尽管在国家工商管理总局领取了营业执照。也不具备法人地位。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》第十三条、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第二条之规定，被上诉人不具备法律诉讼的主体资格。”是完全没有事实和法律依据的。根据中国人民银行《关于对商业银行分支机构民事责任问题的复函》规定：“根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第四十九条和最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国民事诉讼法＞若干问题的意见》第四十条的规定，……商业银行的分支机构在总行授权范围内开展业务时，与其他公民、法人和其他组织发生纠纷引起民事诉讼的，应以分支机构作为诉讼主体，而不应以其总行作为诉讼主体。”被上诉人完全具备法律诉讼的主体资格。故请求依法驳回上诉人的上诉请求。
　　本院经审查认为：本案当事人在贷款合同第23（B）条中约定：“本协议各方不可撤销地同意，香港的法院拥有非排他性司法管辖权以听证并决定产生于或关于本协议的任何起诉、诉讼或诉讼程序并解决任何有关争议（诉讼），并且为此目的并为其它各方的利益本协议各方服从此类法院的司法管辖。”由于当事人约定香港法院享有的管辖权是非排他性的司法管辖权，因此不能非除其他依法享有管辖权的法院的司法管辖权。且本案当事人在贷款合同第23（D）条约定：“在任何第23（B）条中所列的司法管辖地进行诉讼不排除任何方在其它任何该方选择的有权司法管辖地进行诉讼。”因此，被上诉人有权在香港法院以外的其他依法有管辖权的法院就贷款合同纠纷提起诉讼。本案中被上诉人向上诉人钢铁公司住所地的北京市高级人民法院提起诉讼，北京市高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二十四条的规定，作为本案被告住所地法院，有权受理此案。上诉人称上诉人和被上诉人明显有共识应先在香港法庭解决法律纠纷的理由不能成立。另，上诉人称在公平的原则下，在北京使用异地法律审理将令法庭的审判过程更为繁复冗长，并加重法院和诉讼双方的负担及压力，系其主观猜测，并不能构成北京市高级人民法院对本案不享有管辖权的理由，上诉人这一上诉理由亦不能成立。
　　根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第四十九条的规定，其他组织可以作为民事诉讼的当事人。而根据最高人民法院《关于适用＜中华人民共和国民事诉讼法＞若干问题的意见》第四十条的规定，本案被上诉人属于可以作为民事诉讼当事人的其他组织，且根据中国人民银行《关于对商业银行分支机构民事责任问题的复函》的精神，本案被上诉人可以作为诉讼主体，而不应以其总行作为诉讼主体。上诉人关于被上诉人不具备法律诉讼的主体资格的上诉理由亦不能成立。本院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二十四条、第三十八条、第一百五十八条之规定，裁定如下：
　　驳回上诉，维持原裁定。
　　二审案件受理费人民币50元由上诉人中国国际钢铁投资公司承担。
　　本裁定为终审裁定。

审　判　长　　王　玧
代理审判员　　任雪峰
代理审判员　　陈纪忠
二00一年五月二十一日
书　记　员　　高晓力