Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province
paper of civil judgment
(20 1 1) Sui Fa Min Zhong Er ZiNo. 1266
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Guangzhou Zhujiang Investment Management Co., Ltd.
Legal Representative: Chairman Chen.
Authorized Agent: Lawyer Wu.
Authorized Agent: Luo Sheng.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): China Real Estate Development Guangzhou Company.
Legal Representative: Han Sheng.
Appellee (defendant of first instance): Tan Sheng.
Authorized Agent: Li Sheng.
The appellant Guangzhou Zhujiang Investment Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhujiang Investment Company) refused to accept the civil judgment (20 10) of Yuexiu District People's Court of Guangzhou (Yue Fa Min Chu Er Zi No.2707) due to a dispute with the appellees China Real Estate Development Guangzhou Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhong Fang Company) and Tan Sheng. Our hospital formed a collegiate bench to hear the case according to law, and the trial has now ended.
The court of first instance found through trial that:1October 22nd, 1996 165438+ Zhongfang Company and Zhujiang Trust Company signed the RMB Loan Contract No.81,stipulating that Zhujiang Trust Company would provide Zhongfang Company with a mortgage loan of 9.5 million yuan for capital turnover, and the loan interest rate was 9.24. The term is from1996165438+1October 29th to1997 65438+1October 29th. The second phase loan is 4.5 million yuan, and the term is from199665438+February 10. If Zhong Fang Company fails to repay the loan principal and interest according to the repayment plan agreed in this contract, and has not signed a deferred repayment agreement with Pearl River Trust Company, or the loan cannot be repaid after the extension expires, Pearl River Trust Company will charge 50% interest according to the bank regulations. On the same day, the two parties signed a mortgage contract, which was agreed to guarantee the performance of the main contract No.8 1996. Zhong Fang Company is located in Guangjiao Square (also known as Zhong Fang Building) at the intersection of Jiefang North Road and Dongfeng Road, 100 1 room (first floor/kloc 1996 65438+On February 6th, China Housing Corporation went through the mortgage filing procedures for the mortgaged property. Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Land and Housing issued Sui Ya Bei Zi No.6951and No.6952 respectively, showing that the mortgagee is Zhujiang Trust Company, and the mortgaged properties are Room 0 1 and Room 7008-70 15 of Zhong Fang Building at the intersection of Jiefang North Road and Dongfeng Road in Guangzhou. The mortgage period is1996165438+1October 29th to1June 998 10. After the signing of the above contract, Zhujiang Trust Company issued a one-time loan of 9.5 million yuan to Zhong Fang Company on June 65438, 2000+June 65438, 2096+February 65438, 2000. 1997 65438+On February 22nd, 2004, Guangzhou Branch of China People's Bank made document Sui (1997) No.236, approving the restructuring of Zhujiang Trust Company into Guangzhou Zhujiang Industrial Group Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhujiang Finance Company). On February 29th, 2004, Zhujiang Finance Company was established with the approval of Guangzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce. 1September, 1998 10, because Zhong Fang Company failed to repay all the loan principal and interest on time, Zhujiang Finance Company applied to Guangdong Provincial Notary Office for compulsory notarization of the realization of the above-mentioned creditor's rights and mortgage rights, and held (98) Guangdong Notary Office's Certificate of Compulsory Notarization No.2828 on June1September/4. Later, the case was designated by the Guangdong Higher People's Court to be executed by the Shanwei Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province. During the execution of the case, Zhujiang Finance Company signed a repurchase agreement with Zhujiang Investment Company and other relevant entities on June 38+February 38+July 30, 2004, and Zhujiang Finance Company transferred all the above-mentioned creditor's rights and corresponding mortgage rights enjoyed by Zhong Fang Company to Zhujiang Investment Company. On August 1 2007, Pearl River Investment Company and the renamed Pearl River Finance Company, namely China Southern Power Grid Finance Company, sent the Notice of Creditor's Rights Transfer to Zhong Fang Company by express mail under the notarization of Guangdong Notary Office to inform the above-mentioned creditor's rights transfer, and Zhong Fang Company received the email the next day. The collateral provided by Zhong Fang Company for this loan is Guangzhou Trading Plaza1Room 0 1 Floor 7 and Room 7008-70 15 at the intersection of Jiefang North Road and Dongfeng Road in Guangzhou, which were purchased by Zhong Fang Company from Guangzhou Zhongqiao Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongqiao Company) on June 7, 1996. The two parties signed Real Estate Pre-sale Contract No.940 15402 and No.940 15409, and Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange supervised the above two contracts. On April 23rd, 1999, Zhongqiao Company issued a document to Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange, which proved that Zhong Fang Company was the owner of the above-mentioned property, and the house price had been paid in full without mortgage. The property has not gone through the formalities of ownership confirmation, so it is agreed to be transferred to Tan Sheng, and the Exchange is requested to assist in the relevant formalities of transfer. 1999 On June 4, 2004, Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange made two regulatory filings on the transfer of pre-sold real estate in Guangzhou (No.:Guangzhou Real Estate Transaction Regulatory Filing Word No.940 15402 and Guangzhou Real Estate Transaction Regulatory FilingNo.: Guangzhou Real Estate Transaction Regulatory Filing) 94015402. Tan Sheng has acquired the property rights of Guangzhou Exchange Plaza 100 1 and 7008-70 15. The title certificate number is: Guangdong title certificate Sui ZiNo.. 0140115975, 0140165984, 014065438+.June 8, 2003. On February 20th, 2004, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the lawsuit of Zhujiang Finance Company with the civil judgment (2003) Sui Zhong Fa Min Chu Er Zi No.469. Zhujiang Finance Company refused to accept the appeal and appealed to Guangdong Higher People's Court. On August 30th, 2004, Guangdong Higher People's Court made a civil judgment (2004)No. 145, rejecting the appeal of Zhujiang Finance Company and upholding the original judgment. The judgment found that this case was a dispute caused by Zhujiang Finance Company's request to confirm that Zhong Fang Company's transfer of collateral to Tan Sheng was invalid. ..... The people's court mainly hears the lawsuit of Zhujiang Finance Company for confirming that the mortgage transferred by Zhong Fang Company to Tan Sheng is invalid. ..... Although the mortgagor Zhong Fang Company didn't inform the mortgagee Zhujiang Finance Company or the transferee Tan Sheng about the mortgage, Tan Sheng, as the transferee, not only paid the consideration to the transferor Zhong Fang Company, but also applied to the Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange for the pre-sale real estate transfer supervision procedures. Therefore, the property transfer between Zhong Fang Company and Tan Sheng does not violate the prohibitive provisions of national laws, and should be confirmed as valid according to law. ..... The problem that Zhujiang Finance Company puts forward that it enjoys the mortgage right under the mortgage contract signed with Zhong Fang Company can be solved through other legal channels according to the relevant provisions of the law, and this case will not be handled. This judgment changed the cause of action to a dispute to confirm the invalidity of the contract.
On September 3rd, 2007, Zhujiang Investment Company brought a lawsuit to Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court with Zhong Fang Company as the defendant. After the court accepted the case, China Southern Power Grid Finance Company and Tan Sheng were added as the third person ex officio. And make the following judgment: 1. Confirmed the creditor's rights of China Southern Power Grid Finance Company to Zhong Fang Company on the original loan principal balance of 7.2 million yuan and the overdue repayment interest, and the mortgaged properties of Guangzhou Exchange Plaza100/Room 7008-70 15 recorded in the Mortgage Filing Certificates No.69565438 and No.6952.2. Reject other claims of Zhujiang Investment Company. Tan Sheng appealed against the verdict. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province held through trial that whether the mortgage right of Zhujiang Investment Company can resist the relevant rights of Tan Sheng, the buyer of collateral, is beyond the scope of accepting the case, and the parties can solve it through other legal channels. The court of first instance stated in the judgment reason that "the mortgagee still enjoys the right of direct recourse against the transferred collateral", which is beyond the scope of this case and should be corrected. In addition, the other parts and main contents of the judgment are correct and should be retained. Therefore, on June 5438+February 65438+May 2009, the civil judgment of (2009) Guangdong Zhong Er ZiNo. 12 1 was made, which "dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment". Subsequently, Zhujiang Investment Company applied to the Intermediate People's Court of Shanwei City, Guangdong Province for adding Tan Sheng as the executor. On June 8, 20 10, the court made a civil ruling (20 1 0)No.1,rejecting the request of Zhujiang Investment Company to add Tan Sheng on the grounds that the evidence provided by Zhujiang Investment Company could not overturn the main contents of two effective civil judgments of Guangdong Higher People's Court. Pearl River Investment Company sued the court of first instance. The prosecution demands: 1. It is confirmed that Zhujiang Investment Company has the right to mortgage the mortgaged property at Room 100 10 and Room 7008-70 1 5 on the 7th floor of Guangzhou Exchange Plaza. No.695 1 and No.6952 "Mortgage Filing Certificates" of Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Land and Housing recorded that the mortgaged property could resist Tan Sheng's related rights after Zhong Fang Company transferred the above-mentioned collateral to Tan Sheng, and had the right to give priority to repay the loan principal balance of 7.2 million yuan owed by Zhong Fang Company to Zhujiang Investment Company and its overdue repayment interest with the price of auction and sale of the above-mentioned collateral. 2. According to the law, China Real Estate Development Guangzhou Company and Tan Sheng are judged to bear all the litigation costs of this case.
The court of first instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the mortgage registration certificate issued by the housing management department can play a publicity role in mortgage registration. According to the judicial interpretation of China's guarantee law and related guarantee laws, if buildings such as real estate are mortgaged, mortgage registration shall be handled, and the mortgage contract shall take effect from the date of registration. In this case, Zhong Fang Company mortgaged the properties of Guangzhou Zhong Fang Building/Room 0 1 Floor 0 and Room 7008-70 15 at the intersection of Jiefang North Road and Dongfeng Road purchased from Zhongqiao Company to Zhujiang Trust Company. As the above-mentioned houses have not yet obtained the title certificate when signing the mortgage contract, they can't go through the mortgage registration formalities, and can only obtain the mortgage filing certificate. From the fact that Tan Sheng applied to Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange for the supervision certificate of pre-sale real estate transfer and obtained the relevant property right certificate, it can be proved that the mortgage filing certificate is not recorded in the real estate register, and it can not play the role of property right registration and publicity at all. Therefore, the mortgage filing certificate in this case cannot be recognized as registered collateral. At the same time, because both the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court and the Guangdong Higher People's Court have determined in relevant judgments that the property transfer between Tan Sheng and Zhong Fang Company does not violate the prohibitive provisions of national laws, it is legal and effective. According to Article 67 of Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee Law, if the mortgaged property is unregistered, the transferee shall acquire the ownership because the transfer is valid, and the mortgage right shall not be against the transferee, and the mortgagee has no recourse against the mortgaged property. Therefore, the claim of Zhujiang Investment Company is unreasonable, and the court of first instance does not support it. To sum up, according to the provisions of Articles 41 and 42 of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 67 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows: The claim of Zhujiang Investment Company is rejected. The first-instance case acceptance fee is 100 yuan, and the litigation preservation fee is 5000 yuan, which shall be borne by Zhujiang Investment Company.
After the judgment, Zhujiang Investment Company refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance, so it filed a lawsuit with our court, saying that, first, the court judgment confirmed all the facts and legal judgments required for the lawsuit of Zhujiang Investment Company. 1. The fact that "the mortgage has been registered" and "the mortgage transfer has not been notified to the mortgagee" that meet the statutory conditions for the continued exercise of the mortgage has been clearly confirmed by the court's effective judgment. In the civil judgment of Guangdong Higher People's Court (2004)No. Yue Min Zhong 145, the second paragraph on page 13 confirmed the fact of filing after the signing of the Mortgage Contract. Specifically: "Zhujiang Investment Company and Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company signed the Mortgage Contract on June 22nd,196, and went through the mortgage filing formalities in Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Land and Housing Management on February 6th, 65438", and the judgment confirmed on page 14 that "Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company, the mortgagor, failed to notify the mortgagee of the transfer of the mortgage". The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province made a civil judgment (2009) Guangdong Zhong Er ZiNo. 12 1, maintaining "confirming the original loan principal balance of 7.2 million yuan from China Real Estate Development Guangzhou Company (renamed by Zhujiang Investment Company) and its overdue repayment interest, And the creditor's rights of the mortgaged property/Room Kloc-0/065432 recorded under the mortgage filing certificates of Sui Ya Bei Zi No.6951and No.6952. 2. The mortgage right enjoyed by Zhujiang Investment Company can resist the legal judgment of Tan Sheng's related rights after receiving the mortgaged property. First of all, the legal judgment of the Guangdong Higher People's Court (2004) Gao Yue Fa Min Zhong Yi Zi No.1 on the validity of the mortgage right enjoyed by Zhujiang Investment Company and its legal existence confirmed the validity of the mortgage contract. 145. Paragraph 2 of page 13 of the judgment confirms: "Zhujiang Investment Company and Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company signed the Mortgage Contract on1October 22nd 1996 165438+, and on February 6th of the same year, 65438+. According to the provisions of Article 41 of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 47 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues, the Mortgage Contract signed by Pearl River Investment Company and Guangzhou Company of Zhong Fang should be confirmed to be valid according to law. Second, unless the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (2007) Sui Famin Chu Er Zi No.330 civil judgment confirms the legal judgment that Zhujiang Investment Company replaces Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company to pay off all debts to eliminate the mortgage right, the mortgage right enjoyed by Zhujiang Investment Company can legally oppose the relevant rights of Tan Sheng, the transferee of the collateral, namely: "According to the facts ascertained by Guangdong Higher People's Court (2004) No.330, the defendant (that is, Zhong Fang, Although the transfer behavior has been confirmed as valid by the court's effective judgment, according to the first paragraph of Article 67 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of Certain Issues, the mortgagee can still exercise the mortgage right of the mortgaged property under the condition that the mortgaged property has been registered, that is, the mortgagee still enjoys the right of direct recourse against the transferred mortgaged property, unless the transferee pays off all the debts instead of the debtor to eliminate the mortgage right. "(page 1 1, line 12-page 13). Of course, the above judgment of this judgment has a complete factual and legal basis, but the Court of Appeal thinks that "whether the mortgage can resist the mortgage buyer after the mortgage transfer" is beyond the scope of this case, rather than denying the correctness and legitimacy of the judgment itself. Second, the original judgment denied the fact that the collateral had been registered, and the legal judgment was wrong. 1. Mortgage filing is not a judgment error of mortgage registration. According to the Measures for the Administration of Real Estate Mortgage in Guangzhou issued by Guangzhou Municipal People's Government on1June 6, 990, this measure is effective when handling the mortgage filing of this case. Article 6 stipulates that "a legally binding pre-sale (purchase) house contract" can be mortgaged. Article 25 stipulates: "The parties to the mortgage must go to the Municipal Real Estate Bureau for mortgage registration with the mortgage contract, relevant approval documents and the following documents within 30 days from the date of notarization of the mortgage contract (within 60 days from the date of witness or certification of the mortgage contract concluded by Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan or overseas): (1) If the land use right is used as collateral, it shall hold a construction land planning permit and a land use certificate; (2) Holding the house ownership certificate (or house ownership certificate) and the land use certificate if the house is mortgaged; (3) If the pre-sale (purchase) house contract is used as collateral, the valid pre-sale (purchase) house contract shall be put on record. After the house is completed, the registration shall be made with the house ownership certificate and land use certificate within 30 days from the date of receiving the house ownership certificate. If the documents and procedures are complete, the Municipal Real Estate Bureau shall register it within 15 days from the date of acceptance and issue a certificate of other rights to the mortgagee. "Zhujiang Investment Company believes that the court of first instance found that" the mortgage filing certificate in this case cannot be regarded as registered collateral "is obviously wrong. Because, taking the pre-sale (purchase) house contract as collateral to obtain the mortgage registration certificate is the same as the mortgage registration procedure with the ownership of the house, and there is no substantive difference. 2. Mortgage filing is mortgage registration, and the judgment on the effectiveness of mortgage transfer has been confirmed by the effective judgment, and the court of first instance selectively turned a blind eye and turned a deaf ear; It is indisputable that mortgage and registration (obtaining the record certificate) mean confrontation. Therefore, the Pearl River Investment Company appealed to cancel the first-instance judgment and changed the judgment to support all the claims of the Pearl River Investment Company.
The appellee Tan Sheng argued: 1. The effective judgments (rulings) of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong Higher Court and Shanwei Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province did not support the request of Zhujiang Investment Company. On the contrary, the court found that Tan Sheng was a bona fide purchaser of the real estate involved in the case and was not held accountable by the so-called mortgage of Zhujiang Investment Company. Pearl River Investment Company's request has no factual and legal basis and should be rejected. 1.(2003) Sui Min Chu Er Zi No.469 civil judgment clearly identified Tan Sheng as a bona fide third party in this case. "Pearl River Investment Company's request that the transfer between Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company and Tan Sheng, the third person in this case, be invalid or revoked, and compensate Pearl River Company for the transferred property involved in litigation was rejected due to lack of legal support. The defense reason of the third party in this case is established according to law and should be supported. " (2003) Sui Famin Chu Er Zi No.469 Civil Judgment Page112 (2004) Gao Yue Famin Zhong Yi Zi No.45 also holds that: "Tan Sheng, as the transferee, not only paid the consideration to the transferor Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company, but also applied to the Guangzhou Real Estate Exchange for handling. Therefore, the property transfer between Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company and Tan Sheng did not violate the prohibitive provisions of national laws, and should be confirmed as valid according to law. ..... As for the problem that Zhujiang Investment Company claims that it enjoys the mortgage right under the Mortgage Contract signed with Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company, it can be solved separately according to the relevant provisions of the law, and this case will not be handled. " Judgment: "The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld" (2004) Guangdong Gao Famin 145No.14-15. 2. Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (2007) Sui Fa Min Chu Er Zi No.330' s statement about the right of recourse against collateral is obviously untenable, which has been clearly defined in the judgments of Guangdong Higher People's Court (2009) Gao Yue Fa Min Zhong Er Zi No.0/21and Zhujiang Investment Company (2007) Sui Fa Min Chu Er Zi No.330' s judgment about the right of recourse against collateral. 3. Guangdong Shanwei Intermediate People's Court (20 10) Zhongshan Faminchu 1 also clearly pointed out that "the evidence provided by the applicant for execution cannot overturn the main facts in two effective civil judgments of Guangdong Higher People's Court", rejected the request of Zhujiang Investment Company in the execution procedure, and confirmed Tan Sheng as the bona fide acquirer of the property involved (2Ol0) Zhongshan Law. Second, the provisions of Article 25 of the Measures for the Administration of Real Estate Mortgage in Guangzhou (1990) indicate that the mortgage filing of pre-sold (purchased) houses is not mortgage registration, and Zhujiang Investment Company claims that the mortgage filing of the real estate involved is legal and effective mortgage registration, which is specious, untenable and not credible. Article 25 of the Measures for the Administration of Real Estate Mortgage in Guangzhou (1990) stipulates that "(3) If a pre-sale (purchase) house contract is used as collateral, it shall be filed with a valid pre-sale (purchase) house contract. After the house is completed, it shall be registered with the house ownership certificate and land use certificate within 30 days from the date of obtaining the house ownership certificate", indicating that the pre-sale (purchase) is made. At the same time, more importantly, according to Article 26 of the Measures for the Administration of Urban Real Estate Mortgage (1997) issued by the Ministry of Construction at that time, the real estate mortgage contract should specify the mortgage period, in other words, the mortgage period is legally binding on all parties. The mortgage filing certificate of this case clearly states that the mortgage period is1996165438+129 October to1June 998/0 October. The legal manifestation of this fact is that the pre-sale (purchase) of houses has not been registered as legal mortgage. Three, according to the provisions of the Property Law, the legal registration form of mortgage is only "recorded in the real estate register", and the overdue mortgage filing certificate provided by Zhujiang Investment Company failed to play the role of publicizing the establishment of mortgage to the public, and of course it cannot be recognized as a legal registration form. Publicizing public trust is a basic principle of property law. According to Article 6 of the Property Law, the establishment, alteration, transfer and extinction of real estate rights shall be registered according to law, Article 14, The establishment, alteration, transfer and extinction of real estate rights shall become effective when they are registered according to law and recorded in the real estate register, and Article 16, The real estate register shall become effective according to Article180 of the Property Law. In other words, the legal registration form of mortgage is only "recorded in the real estate register", and whether it is recorded in the real estate register is the only sign to judge whether a real estate is effectively mortgaged. In other words, registration is "recorded in the real estate register". Only in this way can we achieve the actual effect of publicity and public trust. A basic legal fact of this case is that the initial creditors, Zhujiang Trust and Investment Company and Zhong Fang Guangzhou Company, did not go through any mortgage filing or registration procedures in the registration authority after the mortgage term expired, and their so-called mortgage rights were not registered in the register of Guangzhou Housing Authority. According to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Property Law, the legal consequence of this fact is that the so-called mortgage of Zhujiang Investment Company has not been registered according to law. Four, according to the provisions of the "Guarantee Law" and "Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee Law", the overdue "Mortgage Registration Certificate" of Zhujiang Investment Company cannot be considered as legal and valid registration. The stipulation in Article 1 of Judicial Interpretation of Guarantee Law that "the guarantee period agreed by the parties or required to be registered by the registration department is not legally binding on the existence of security interests" can only be understood as: this stipulation can only have legal effect between the parties to the guarantee contract. If the mortgage term expires, both parties have not renewed the registration and made it public. Because the third party believes in the registration of the registration department and conducts transactions accordingly, it cannot be considered that the mortgage exists, otherwise it will violate the basic principles of publicity and trust of the property law and the legislative purpose of protecting the safety and order of social transactions. To take a step back, even if Pearl River Investment Company claims the existence of the collateral according to the interpretation of Article 12 1 of the Guarantee Law, it has no right to claim that the collateral can resist the legitimate ownership of Tan Sheng as a bona fide acquirer, but can only ask Guangzhou Real Estate Company, which has no right to dispose of the collateral, to bear the liability for compensation. Because, according to the interpretation of Article 67 of the Guarantee Law, there is a fundamental difference between "the existence of mortgage" and "the mortgaged property has been registered". According to this article, if the mortgagor transfers the mortgaged property without notifying the mortgagee or assignee during the existence of the mortgage right, it is divided into two situations and has different legal consequences, namely: case 1, the mortgaged property has been registered, and the mortgagee can still exercise the mortgage right; In case 2, if the mortgaged property has not been registered, the mortgage right shall not confront the transferee, and if losses are caused to the mortgagee, the mortgagor shall be liable for compensation. It can be seen that "the existence of mortgage" cannot be regarded as "the mortgaged property has been registered" because "the existence of mortgage" includes "the mortgaged property has been registered" and "the mortgaged property has not been registered", which have different legal effects. Combined with the facts of this case, it can't be concluded that the so-called mortgage of Zhujiang Investment Company has been registered, and it can't have its so-called legal effect on Tan Sheng. V. Tan Sheng's transferee behavior fully conforms to the legal requirements of bona fide acquisition of real estate stipulated in Article 106 of the Property Law, and he is a bona fide purchaser of the property involved in the case, and his legitimate rights and interests should be protected. Without knowing about the so-called mortgage situation of Zhujiang Investment Company, Tan Sheng paid a reasonable price in good faith and followed legal procedures, that is, he legally took over the Mortgage Registration Certificate No.695 1 and No.6952 and handled the Property Ownership Certificate according to law, which was in full compliance with Article 106 of the Property Law. To sum up, the appeal grounds of Zhujiang Investment Company cannot be established, and the court of second instance is requested to reject all its claims according to law and uphold the original judgment.
The appellee, Zhong Fang Company, did not appear in court and did not state his defense opinions.
After trial, it was found that the facts were true in the original trial and confirmed by our court.
In addition, our hospital inquired about the mortgage and transfer history of the mortgaged property involved in the case with Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Land and Housing Management. There were no cases in which the mortgaged property was seized in the 1990s in the electronic file, and the search table of the real estate register of Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Land and Housing Management did not show that the property was seized in the 1990s. Because the mortgage involved in the case was officially registered on 20 10, the file was not handed over for scanning before, and the staff finally confirmed that the property involved was not sealed up.
Our court believes that although Article 12 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The guarantee period agreed by the parties or required by the registration department is not legally binding on the existence of the security interest." However, the mortgage term of the mortgage filing certificate involved in the case is1996165438+1October 29th to 1998 10. The above judicial interpretation was mortgaged before it was issued, and Tan Sheng took over the mortgaged property in June 1999, and issued an effective judgment to identify Tan Sheng. Appellant Zhujiang Investment Company's request lacks legal basis, and our court does not support it.
To sum up, the original judgment found that the facts were clear and the results were not improper, and our court supported it. According to the provisions of Item 1, Paragraph 1, Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The acceptance fee for the second instance of this case is 100 yuan, which shall be borne by the appellant Guangzhou Zhujiang Investment Management Co., Ltd. ..
This is the final judgment.