重磅！中英文对照版：第21批最高法指导性案例译文上线！| 法宝原创
【来源】北大法宝英文译本库、北大法宝法律法规库
【声明】本文由北大法宝编写，转载请注明来源。
北大法宝已于近日完成对最高人民法院第21批指导性案例的翻译工作。本批案例共有6篇，涉及国际货物买卖合同纠纷、货物运输合同纠纷、保函欺诈纠纷等法律问题。
本文截取部分内容推送给大家，查看完整中英文对照版请点击左下角的阅读原文查看！
指导案例107号：中化国际（新加坡）有限公司诉蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案
Guiding Case No. 107:Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte. Ltd v. ThyssenKrupp Metallurgical Products GmbH (dispute over a contract for the international sale of goods）
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/国际货物买卖合同/联合国国际货物销售合同公约/法律适用/根本违约
Civil; a contract for international sale of goods; United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; application of law; fundamental breach of contract
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
国际货物买卖合同的当事各方所在国为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国，应优先适用公约的规定，公约没有规定的内容，适用合同中约定适用的法律。国际货物买卖合同中当事人明确排除适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的，则不应适用该公约。
Where the countries of the parties to a contract for the international sale of goods are contracting countries of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the provisions of the CISG should preferentially apply. For the content where there are no provisions in the CISG, the law as agreed in the contract shall apply. Where the parties have explicitly excluded the application of the CISG in the contract for international sale of goods, the CISG shall not apply
......
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国民法通则》第145条
Article 145 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China
......
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定，德国克虏伯公司提供的石油焦HGI指数远低于合同约定标准，导致石油焦难以在国内市场销售，签订买卖合同时的预期目的无法实现，故德国克虏伯公司的行为构成根本违约。江苏省高级人民法院于2012年12月19日作出（2009）苏民三初字第0004号民事判决：一、宣告蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司于2008年4月11日签订的《采购合同》无效。二、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内返还中化国际（新加坡）有限公司货款2684302.9美元并支付自2008年9月25日至本判决确定的给付之日的利息。三、蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内赔偿中化国际（新加坡）有限公司损失520339.77美元。
In the trial of first instance, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CISG, the HGI of the petroleum coke provided by Krupp GmbH was far below the standard as agreed in the Contract, resulting in failure to sell such petroleum coke at the domestic market and realize the expected objective when the sale contract was concluded. Therefore, the act of Krupp GmbH constituted fundamental breach of contract. On December 19, 2012, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 0004 [2009], First, Civil Division III, HPC, Jiangsu) that: (1) The Purchase Contract concluded by and between Sinochem Pte. Ltd and Krupp GmbH on April 11, 2008 should be declared invalid. (2) Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, refund the payment for goods of USD2,684,302.9 made by Sinochem Pte. Ltd and pay the interest from September 25, 2008 to the date of payment as determined in this Judgment. (3) Krupp GmbH should, within 30 days after this Judgment came into force, pay Sinochem Pte. Ltd USD520,339.77 as compensation for losses.
......
指导案例108号：浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司诉A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷案
Guiding Case No. 108:Zhejiang Longda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. v. A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S (dispute over a contract for the carriage of goods by sea)
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/海上货物运输合同/合同变更/改港/退运/抗辩权
Civil; a contract for the carriage of goods by sea; alteration of contract; alteration of port; withdrawal of goods; right of defense
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
在海上货物运输合同中，依据合同法第三百零八条的规定，承运人将货物交付收货人之前，托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利，但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法第五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。托运人行使此项权利时，承运人也可相应行使一定的抗辩权。如果变更海上货物运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运，承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的请求，但应当及时通知托运人不能变更的原因。
......
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国合同法》第308条
Article 308 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China
......
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
宁波海事法院于2016年3月4日作出（2015）甬海法商初字第534号民事判决，认为隆达公司因未采取自行提货等有效措施导致涉案货物被海关拍卖，相应货损风险应由该公司承担，故驳回隆达公司的诉讼请求。一审判决后，隆达公司提出上诉。浙江省高级人民法院于2016年9月29日作出（2016）浙民终222号民事判决：撤销一审判决；马士基公司于判决送达之日起十日内赔偿隆达公司货物损失183459.49美元及利息。二审法院认为依据合同法第三百零八条，隆达公司在马士基公司交付货物前享有请求改港或退运的权利。在隆达公司提出退运要求后，马士基公司既未明确拒绝安排退运，也未通知隆达公司自行处理，对涉案货损应承担相应的赔偿责任，酌定责任比例为50%。马士基公司不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月29日作出（2017）最高法民再412号民事判决：撤销二审判决；维持一审判决。
On March 4, 2016, the Ningbo Maritime Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 534 [2015], First, Commercial Division, Ningbo) that since Longda Company failed to voluntarily take delivery of the goods and adopt other effective measures, the goods involved were auctioned by the Customs and the corresponding risks of damage should be assumed by Longda Company. Therefore, the Ningbo Maritime Court dismissed the claims of Longda Company. After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, Longda Company appealed. On September 29, 2016, the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 222 [2016], Final, Civil Division, HPC, Zhejiang) that the judgment of first instance should be set aside; and Maersk A/S should, within ten days after this judgment was served, compensate Longda Company USD183,459.49 for damage of goods and the interest thereof. The court of second instance held that in accordance with Article 308 of the Contract Law, Longda Company had the right to claim for alteration of port or withdrawal of goods before Maersk A/S delivered the goods. After Longda Company raised a claim for withdrawal of goods, Maersk A/S neither expressly refused to arrange the withdrawal of goods nor notified Longda Company of handling such goods by itself. Therefore, Maersk A/S should assume the corresponding compensation liability for the damage of the goods involved and the proportion of liability should be determined as 50%. Maersk A/S refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On December 29, 2017, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 412 [2017], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC) to set aside the judgment of second instance and affirm the judgment of first instance.
......
指导案例109号：安徽省外经建设（集团）有限公司诉东方置业房地产有限公司保函欺诈纠纷案
Guiding Case No. 109:Anhui Foreign Economic Construction (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Inmobiliaria Palacio Oriental S.A. (dispute over guarantee fraud)
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/保函欺诈/基础交易审查/有限及必要原则/独立反担保函
Civil; guarantee fraud; review of underlying transactions; principle of limitation and necessity; independent counter guarantee
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
认定构成独立保函欺诈需对基础交易进行审查时，应坚持有限及必要原则，审查范围应限于受益人是否明知基础合同的相对人并不存在基础合同项下的违约事实，以及是否存在受益人明知自己没有付款请求权的事实。
Where it is necessary to review the underlying transaction for determination of an independent guarantee fraud, the principle of limitation and necessity should be followed and the review scope should be limited to whether the beneficiary knows that the opposing party of the underlying contract does not breach the contract under the underlying contract and whether the beneficiary knows that it does not have the right of claim for payment.
......
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条、第44条
Articles 8 and 44 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-Related Civil Relationships
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
安徽省合肥市中级人民法院于2014年4月9日作出（2012）合民四初字第00005号民事判决：一、东方置业公司针对G051225号履约保函的索赔行为构成欺诈；二、建行安徽省分行终止向哥斯达黎加银行支付编号为34147020000289的银行保函项下2008000美元的款项；三、驳回外经集团公司的其他诉讼请求。东方置业公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。安徽省高级人民法院于2015年3月19日作出（2014）皖民二终字第00389号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。东方置业公司不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月14日作出（2017）最高法民再134号民事判决：一、撤销安徽省高级人民法院（2014）皖民二终字第00389号、安徽省合肥市中级人民法院（2012）合民四初字第00005号民事判决；二、驳回外经集团公司的诉讼请求。
On April 9, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 00005 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Hefei) that: (1) the claim of Oriental S.A. against the performance guarantee (No. G051225) constituted a fraud; (2) Anhui Branch of CCB should terminate the payment of the fund of USD2,008,000 under the bank guarantee (No. 34147020000289) to Bank of Costa Rica; and (3) other claims of AFECC should be dismissed. Oriental S.A. refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. On March 19, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 00389 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, HPC, Anhui) to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. Oriental S.A. refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On December 14, 2016, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 134 [2017], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC) that: (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 00389 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, HPC, Anhui) entered by the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province and the Civil Judgment (No. 00005 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Hefei) entered by the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province should be set aside; and (2) the claims of AFECC should be dismissed.
......
指导案例110号：交通运输部南海救助局诉阿昌格罗斯投资公司、香港安达欧森有限公司上海代表处海难救助合同纠纷案
Guiding Case No. 110: Nanhai Rescue Bureau of the Ministry of Transport v. Archangelos Investments E.N.E. and Shanghai Representative Office of Hong Kong Andaousen Co., Ltd. (dispute over a salvage contract)
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/海难救助合同/雇佣救助/救助报酬
Civil; salvage contract; employed salvage; salvage reward
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
《1989年国际救助公约》和我国海商法规定救助合同“无效果无报酬”，但均允许当事人对救助报酬的确定可以另行约定。若当事人明确约定，无论救助是否成功，被救助方均应支付报酬，且以救助船舶每马力小时和人工投入等作为计算报酬的标准时，则该合同系雇佣救助合同，而非上述国际公约和我国海商法规定的救助合同。
The International Convention on Salvage 1989 and the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Maritime Law”) prescribe the principle of “no cure, no pay” for salvage contracts, but they allow the parties to separately agree on the salvage reward. If the parties explicitly agree that the party salved should pay reward no matter whether the salvage is successful and the input per HP hour and the manual input for the salvage of the salved vessel should serve as the standards for calculating the salvage reward, the contract is an employed salvage contract rather than a salvage contract as prescribed in the aforesaid international convention and the Maritime Law.
......
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国合同法》第8条、第107条
Articles 8 and 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China
......
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
广州海事法院于2014年3月28日作出（2012）广海法初字第898号民事判决：一、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬6592913.58元及利息；二、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。投资公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2015年6月16日作出（2014）粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决：一、撤销广州海事法院（2012）广海法初字第898号民事判决；二、投资公司向南海救助局支付救助报酬2561346.93元及利息；三、驳回南海救助局的其他诉讼请求。南海救助局不服二审判决，申请再审。最高人民法院于2016年7月7日作出（2016）最高法民再61号民事判决：一、撤销广东省高级人民法院（2014）粤高法民四终字第117号民事判决；二、维持广州海事法院（2012）广海法初字第898号民事判决。
On March 28, 2014, the Guangzhou Maritime Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) that: (1) Archangelos Investments should pay the Nanhai Rescue Bureau the salvage reward of CNY6,592,913.58 and the interest thereof; and (2) other claims of the Nanhai Rescue Bureau should be dismissed. Archangelos Investments refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. On June 16, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 117 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Guangdong) that: (1) The Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) entered by the Guangzhou Maritime Court should be set aside; (2) Archangelos Investments should pay the Nanhai Rescue Bureau the salvage reward of CNY2,561,346.93 and the interest thereof; and (3) other claims of the Nanhai Rescue Bureau should be dismissed. The Nanhai Rescue Bureau refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On July 7, 2016, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 61 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC) that: (1) the Civil Judgment (No. 117 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Guangdong) entered by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province should be set aside; and (2) the Civil Judgment (No. 898 [2012], First, Guangzhou) entered by the Guangzhou Maritime Court should be affirmed.
......
指导案例111号：中国建设银行股份有限公司广州荔湾支行诉广东蓝粤能源发展有限公司等信用证开证纠纷案
Guiding Case No. 111: Liwan Subbranch, Guangzhou Branch of China Construction Bank Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong Lanyue Energy Development Co., Ltd. et al. (dispute over issuance of a letter of credit)
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/信用证开证/提单/真实意思表示/权利质押/优先受偿权
Civil; issuance of a letter of credit; bill of lading; true intention; pledge of rights; priority of compensation
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
提单持有人是否因受领提单的交付而取得物权以及取得何种类型的物权，取决于合同的约定。开证行根据其与开证申请人之间的合同约定持有提单时，人民法院应结合信用证交易的特点，对案涉合同进行合理解释，确定开证行持有提单的真实意思表示。
Whether the holder of a bill of lading obtains the real right due to the delivery of the accepted bill of lading and which type of real right it obtains depend on the contractual stipulations of the parties. When the issuing bank holds the bill of lading in accordance with the contractual stipulations between it and the applicant, the people's court should, in light of the characteristics of the letter of credit transactions, make reasonable interpretation of the contract invovled and determine the true intentions of the issuing bank for holding the bill of lading.
......
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国海商法》第71条
Article 71 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China
......
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
广东省广州市中级人民法院于2014年4月21日作出（2013）穗中法金民初字第158号民事判决，支持建行广州荔湾支行关于蓝粤能源公司还本付息以及担保人承担相应担保责任的诉请，但以信托收据及提单交付不能对抗第三人为由，驳回建行广州荔湾支行关于请求确认煤炭所有权以及优先受偿权的诉请。建行广州荔湾支行不服一审判决，提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2014年9月19日作出（2014）粤高法民二终字第45号民事判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。建行广州荔湾支行不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2015年10月19日作出（2015）民提字第126号民事判决，支持建行广州荔湾支行对案涉信用证项下提单对应货物处置所得价款享有优先受偿权，驳回其对案涉提单项下货物享有所有权的诉讼请求。
On April 21, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 158 [2013], First, Civil Division, IPC, Guangzhou), which supported the claim of Liwan Subbranch of CCB that Lanyue Energy Company should repay the principal and interest and the guarantors should assume the corresponding guarantee liability. However, on the ground that the delivery of the Trust Receipt and the bill of lading could not be used against a third party, the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City rejected the claim of Liwan Subbranch of CCB for confirmation of the coal ownership and the priority of compensation. Liwan Subbranch of CCB refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. On September 19, 2012, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province entered a Civil Judgment (No. 45 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, HPC, Guangdong) to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. Liwan Subbranch of CCB refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On October 19, 2015, the Supreme People's Court entered a Civil Judgment (No. 126 [2015], Review, Civil Division, SPC), which supported the claim of Liwan Subbranch of CCB that it enjoyed the priority of compensation from the proceeds arising from the disposal of goods in the bill of lading under the L/C involved and dismissed the claim of Liwan Subbranch of CCB that it enjoyed the ownership of the goods under the bill of lading involved.
......
指导案例112号：阿斯特克有限公司申请设立海事赔偿责任限制基金案
Guiding Case No. 112:Case of Application for Establishment of the Funds for Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims by Astk Co., Ltd.
（最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年2月25日发布）
(Issued on February 25, 2019 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court)
【关键词】
Keywords:
民事/海事赔偿责任限制基金/事故原则/一次事故/多次事故
Civil; funds for limitation of liability for maritime claims; principle of accidents; one accident; multiple accidents
【裁判要点】
Key Points of Judgement:
海商法第二百一十二条确立海事赔偿责任限制实行“一次事故，一个限额，多次事故，多个限额”的原则。判断一次事故还是多次事故的关键是分析事故之间是否因同一原因所致。如果因同一原因发生多个事故，且原因链没有中断的，应认定为一次事故。如果原因链中断并再次发生事故，则应认定为形成新的独立事故。
Article 212 of the Maritime Law specifies that the limitation of liability for maritime claims should be governed by the principle of “one quota for one accident and multiple quotas for multiple accidents.” The key to judge one accident or multiple accidents is whether the accidents are arising from the same cause. If multiple accidents are arising from the same cause and the chain of causes is not interrupted, it should be determined as one accident. If the chain of causes is interrupted and another accident occurs, it should be determined that a new and independent accident is formed.
【相关法条】
Legal Provisions:
《中华人民共和国海商法》第212条
Article 212 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China
【裁判结果】
Judgement:
天津海事法院于2014年11月10日作出（2014）津海法限字第1号民事裁定：一、准许阿斯特克有限公司提出的设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的申请。二、海事赔偿责任限制基金数额为422510特别提款权及利息（利息自2014年6月5日起至基金设立之日止，按中国人民银行确定的金融机构同期一年期贷款基准利率计算）。三、阿斯特克有限公司应在裁定生效之日起三日内以人民币或法院认可的担保设立海事赔偿责任限制基金（基金的人民币数额按本裁定生效之日的特别提款权对人民币的换算办法计算）。逾期不设立基金的，按自动撤回申请处理。郭金武、刘海忠不服一审裁定，向天津市高级人民法院提起上诉。天津市高级人民法院于2015年1月19日作出（2015）津高民四终字第10号民事裁定：驳回上诉，维持原裁定。郭金武、刘海忠、李卫国、赵来军、齐永平、李建永、齐秀奎不服二审裁定，申请再审。最高人民法院于2015年8月10日作出（2015）民申字第853号民事裁定，提审本案，并于2015年9月29日作出（2015）民提字第151号民事裁定：一、撤销天津市高级人民法院（2015）津高民四终字第10号民事裁定。二、撤销天津海事法院（2014）津海法限字第1号民事裁定。三、驳回阿斯特克有限公司提出的设立海事赔偿责任限制基金的申请。
On November 10, 2014, the Tianjin Maritime Court entered a civil ruling (No. 1 [2014], Limitation, Tianjin) that: (1) The application of Astk Company for establishing the fund of limitation of liability for maritime claims should be approved. (2) The amount of the fund of limitation of liability for maritime claims should be the SDR of CNY422,510 and the interest thereof (calculated from June 5, 2014 to the date of the establishment of the fund at the benchmark interest rate for loans granted by financial institutions over the same period of time as determined by the People's Bank of China). (3) Astk Company should, within three days after this ruling came into force, establish the fund of limitation of liability for maritime claims with RMB or guarantee recognized by the Court (the RMB amount of the fund should be calculated according to the methods of conversion between the SDR at the effective date of the ruling and RMB). Where the fund was not established within the prescribed time limit, it should be handled as automatic withdrawal of the application. Guo Jinwu and Liu Haizhong refused to accept the ruling of first instance and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality. On January 19, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality entered a civil ruling (No. 10 [2015], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Tianjin) to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. Guo Jinwu, Liu Haizhong, Li Weiguo, Zhao Laijun, Qi Yongping, Li Jianyong, and Qi Xiukui refused to accept the ruling of second instance and applied for retrial. On August 10, 2015, the Supreme People's Court entered a civil ruling (No. 853 [2015], Petition, Civil Division, SPC) to retry this case and on September 29, 2015, the Supreme People's Court entered a civil ruling (No. 151 [2015], Review, Civil Division, SPC) that: (1) The civil ruling (No. 10 [2015], Final, Civil Division IV, HPC, Tianjin) entered by the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality should be sedt aside. (2) The civil ruling (No. 1 [2014], Limitation, Tianjin) entered by the Tianjin Maritime Court should be set aside. (3) The application of Astk Company for establishing the fund of limitation of liability for maritime claims should be dismissed.
......
欢迎扫码获取法宝介绍和试用
—更多内容—