This case is a case in which the Hebei High Court and the Beijing High Court failed to negotiate on jurisdictional matters and submitted to the Supreme People's Court for designated jurisdiction, providing guidance for unifying the jurisdiction of financial loan dispute cases.
Source丨Judgment Document Network
▍Basic facts of the case:
1. The plaintiff's lender is domiciled in Wuchang, Hubei Province, and the defendant's borrower is domiciled in Zhao County, Hebei.
2. The "Personal Consumption Loan Contract" signed by both parties stipulates that the place of signing the contract is the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing.
3. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Internet Court, demanding that the defendant repay the loan, interest, penalty interest, liquidated damages, lawyer's fees, etc.
▍Referee's point of view:
If there is no actual connection with the dispute in this case, the jurisdiction clause of the agreement in question is invalid. For disputes over such financial loan contracts, the Supreme People's Court unifies the adjudication criteria and serves financial supervision, and considers it appropriate for the jurisdiction of the court where the party receiving the currency is located. Prevent a large number of "off-site" cases from entering the agreed court through agreement jurisdiction, undermining the normal public law order of civil litigation jurisdiction.
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
Civil ruling
(2023) Supreme People's Court No. 26
Plaintiff: Hubei Consumer Finance Co., Ltd., domiciled on the 37th floor of the Great Wall Hui T1 office building, No. 9 Zhongbei Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province.
Legal representative: Zhou Nan, chairman of the company.
Defendant: Qin Xiaoqiang, male, born on October 16, 1978, Han nationality, lives at No. 6, Zhengtong South Street, Xijiang Village, Gaocun Township, Zhao County, Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province.
Defendant: Beijing Deli Zhongtian Asset Management Co., Ltd., domiciled at 201, 2nd floor, Building 20, Yacheng Erli, Chaoyang District, Beijing.
Legal representative: Cai Lulu.
Defendant: Cai Lulu, female, born on May 31, 1986, Han nationality, lives at No. 48, Lantern Lane, Shuitou Town, Pingyang County, Zhejiang Province.
The Beijing Internet Court filed a case on October 9, 2020 in a dispute over a loan contract between the plaintiff Hubei Consumer Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hubei Consumer Finance Company) and the defendant Qin Xiaoqiang, Beijing Deli Zhongtian Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Deli Zhongtian Company) and Cai Lulu Financial Finance.
Hubei Consumer Finance Company alleged: In November 2016, Hubei Consumer Finance Company and Deli Zhongtian Company signed the Personal Loan Guarantee Business Cooperation Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement, stipulating that Deli Zhongtian Company would provide irrevocable joint and several liability guarantees for personal loan customers who provided loans to Hubei Consumer Finance Company. At the same time, Cai Lulu, the legal representative of Deli Zhongtian Company, issued the "Personal Unlimited Joint and Several Liability Commitment Letter" to Hubei Consumer Finance Company, promising to provide a counter-guarantee for the guarantee of Deli Zhongtian Company. In addition, Deli Zhongtian Company is a one-person limited liability company, and Cai Lulu is a shareholder of Deli Zhongtian Company, so Cai Lulu should be jointly and severally liable for the debts of Deli Zhongtian Company. On January 30, 2018, Hubei Consumer Finance Company signed a personal consumption loan contract with Qin Xiaoqiang, a customer defendant recommended by Deli Zhongtian Company, to issue loans, but since March 11, 2019, Qin Xiaoqiang has stopped repayment, which constitutes a serious breach of contract. Therefore, a lawsuit was filed in this case, requesting that the defendant Qin Xiaoqiang be ordered to repay the loan principal and interest, penalty interest and liquidated damages totaling 99,491.11 yuan owed as of December 25, 2019, and that Deli Zhongtian Company be ordered to assume joint and several guarantee liability for the aforementioned debts, that Cai Lulu bear joint and several guarantee liability for the debts of Deli Zhongtian Company, and that the three defendants be ordered to bear legal fees of 1,000 yuan.
After review, the Beijing Internet Court held that the loan contract between Hubei Consumer Finance Company and Qin Xiaoqiang was the main contract, and the guarantee contract with Deli Zhongtian Company and Cai Lulu was a subsidiary contract, and Hubei Consumer Finance Company sued the borrower and guarantor together in this case, and should determine the competent court according to the main contract. The contract signed between Hubei Consumer Finance Company and the borrower Qin Xiaoqiang stipulates that disputes arising from the performance of the contract shall be resolved through negotiation, and if the negotiation fails, the two parties agree to file a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing, where the contract is signed. According to Hubei Consumer Finance Company's claim and factual reasons, combined with the existing facts of this case, Hubei Consumer Finance Company failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the consumer loan contract involved in this case was actually signed in Xicheng District, Beijing, and at the same time, the place where the contract was signed was not the domicile of the parties and other places that are actually connected to the dispute, so the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the Personal Consumer Loan Contract was invalid, and the Beijing Internet Court did not have jurisdiction over the case, so it made (2020) One of the rulings of Jing 0491 Minchu No. 30575 transferred the case to the Zhao County People's Court in Hebei Province for handling. The Zhao County People's Court of Hebei Province found that the transfer was improper and reported it to the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province.
After review, the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province held that this case was a dispute over a loan contract brought by the lender against the borrower and the guarantor, and that the jurisdiction of the case should be determined in accordance with the main contract. Article 13 of the Personal Consumption Loan Contract (i.e. the main contract) signed between Hubei Consumer Finance Company and Qin Xiaoqiang clearly stipulates that disputes arising from the performance of the contract between the two parties shall be resolved through negotiation; If the negotiation fails, the two parties agree to file a lawsuit with the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing where the contract is signed. The Beijing Internet Court ruled that there was no legal basis for transferring the case to the Zhao County People's Court in Hebei Province on the grounds that the actual place where the contract was signed was not in Beijing and that Xicheng District of Beijing was not the actual place of connection with the dispute. After unsuccessful consultation with the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court, it requested this court to designate jurisdiction.
The court held that this case was a dispute over a financial loan contract. Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the parties to a dispute over a contract or other property rights and interests may, by written agreement, choose the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place where the defendant is domiciled, where the contract is performed, where the contract is signed, where the plaintiff is domiciled, where the subject matter is located, and other places that are actually related to the dispute, provided that this Law must not violate the provisions of this Law on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction. In this case, the loan contract between Hubei Consumer Finance Company and Qin Xiaoqiang was the main contract, and the guarantee contract with Deli Zhongtian Company and Cai Lulu was a subsidiary contract. Article 13 of the Personal Consumer Loan Contract (i.e. the main contract) signed between Hubei Consumer Finance Company and Qin Xiaoqiang clearly stipulates that disputes arising from the performance of the contract between the two parties shall be resolved through negotiation; If the negotiation fails, the two parties agree to file a lawsuit with the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing where the contract is signed. However, Hubei Consumer Finance Company did not provide evidence to prove that the actual place of signing of the contract involved in the case was Xicheng District, Beijing, and at the same time, Hubei Consumer Finance Company was domiciled in Wuchang District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, and the borrower Qin Xiaoqiang's domicile was in Zhao County, Hebei Province, neither of which was located in Xicheng District, Beijing, and Xicheng District of Beijing had no actual connection with the dispute in this case. Although the agreement to choose the jurisdiction of the Beijing Xicheng District People's Court is an explicit agreement between the parties in the contract involved in the case, in the absence of evidence materials that can be used to prove that the Xicheng District of Beijing has an actual connection with the dispute in this case, it is determined that the Beijing Internet Court is the competent court in this case, which is bound to result in a large number of "off-site" cases entering the agreed court through the jurisdiction of the agreement. Disrupting the normal civil litigation jurisdiction public law order, the agreement jurisdiction clause involved in the case is invalid. Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that lawsuits arising from contract disputes shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the place where the defendant is domiciled or where the contract is performed. In this case, the subject matter of the dispute was the payment currency, and the Wuchang District People's Court of Wuhan City, where Hubei Consumer Finance Company was located, the party receiving the currency, as the people's court of the place of contract performance, and the Zhao County People's Court, where Qin Xiaoqiang was domiciled, had jurisdiction over the case. This case is a financial loan contract dispute, the domicile of one of the lenders is located in Wuchang District, Wuhan City, and there are many borrowers with scattered domiciles similar to the situation in this case, in order to unify the adjudication criteria and serve financial supervision, it is appropriate for this case to be under the jurisdiction of the Wuchang District People's Court of Wuhan City.
In summary, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>Articles 40 and 41 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application, this court rules as follows:
1. Revoke one of the civil rulings of Beijing Internet Court (2020) Jing 0491 Minchu No. 30575;
2. The case was heard by the Wuchang District People's Court of Wuhan City, Hubei Province.
This ruling shall take legal effect once it is rendered.
Presiding Judge: Li Shengye
Judge Jayachi
Judge Zhang Hansong
March 8, 2023
Clerk Xing Lijuan