|
⊙ 本文长约8500字，阅读需时22分钟 【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。 导 语 北大法宝已于近日完成对最高人民法院第18批指导性案例的翻译工作。本批案例共有4篇，涉及故意伤害、劳动和社会保障行政确认、金融借款合同纠纷、股东资格确认纠纷等法律问题。 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！ 1 指导案例93号：于欢故意伤害案 Guiding Case No. 93: Intentional Injury by Yu Huan 最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过，2018年6月20日发布 Issued on June 20, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court 【关键词】Keywords: 刑事/故意伤害罪/非法限制人身自由/正当防卫/防卫过当 criminal; crime of intentional injury; illegal restriction of personal freedom; self-defense; unjustifiable self-defense 【裁判要点】Key Points of Judgement: 1.对正在进行的非法限制他人人身自由的行为，应当认定为刑法第二十条第一款规定的“不法侵害”，可以进行正当防卫。 1. An ongoing act of illegally restricting the personal freedom of a person shall be determined as “unlawful infringement” for the purposes of paragraph 1, Article 20 of the Criminal Law, in which case justifiable defense may be exercised. 2.对非法限制他人人身自由并伴有侮辱、轻微殴打的行为，不应当认定为刑法第二十条第三款规定的“严重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪”。 2. An act of illegally restricting the personal freedom of a person accompanied by the act of insults and minor beatings shall not be determined to be “violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety” for the purposes of paragraph 3, Article 20 of the Criminal Law. 3.判断防卫是否过当，应当综合考虑不法侵害的性质、手段、强度、危害程度，以及防卫行为的性质、时机、手段、强度、所处环境和损害后果等情节。对非法限制他人人身自由并伴有侮辱、轻微殴打，且并不十分紧迫的不法侵害，进行防卫致人死亡重伤的，应当认定为刑法第二十条第二款规定的“明显超过必要限度造成重大损害”。 3. In judging whether the defense was unjustifiable, it shall be comprehensively taken into account such factors as the nature, means, intensity, and harm of unlawful infringement and the nature, timing, means, intensity, environment, harmful consequence, and other circumstances of defense. If defense happens, causing death or serious injury, in respect of remote unlawful infringement of illegal restriction of the personal freedom of a person accompanied with insults and minor beatings, the defense shall be determined to “obviously exceed the necessary limit and cause material damage” for the purposes of paragraph 2, Article 20 of the Criminal Law. 4.防卫过当案件，如系因被害人实施严重贬损他人人格尊严或者亵渎人伦的不法侵害引发的，量刑时对此应予充分考虑，以确保司法裁判既经得起法律检验，也符合社会公平正义观念。 4. Where unjustifiable defense results from the victim conducting unlawful infringement which seriously degrades another person or desecrates human relations, the reason shall be fully considered in sentencing, in order to ensure that the judicial adjudication can withstand legal test and remains in line with the public concept of equity and justice. ······ 2 【指导案例94号】：重庆市涪陵志大物业管理有限公司诉重庆市涪陵区人力资源和社会保障局劳动和社会保障行政确认案 Guiding Case No. 94: Chongqing Municipality Fuling Zhida Property Management Co., Ltd. v. the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Fuling District, Chongqing Municipality （Administrative Recognition relating to Labor and Social Security） 最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过，2018年6月20日发布 Issued on June 20, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court 【关键词】Keywords: 行政/行政确认/视同工伤/见义勇为 administration; administrative recognition; treated as work-related injury; do boldly what is righteous 【裁判要点】Key Points of Judgement 职工见义勇为，为制止违法犯罪行为而受到伤害的，属于《工伤保险条例》第十五条第一款第二项规定的为维护公共利益受到伤害的情形，应当视同工伤。 If an employee does boldly what is righteous and suffers injury resulting from stopping an illegal or criminal act, the injury shall be that resulting from maintaining public benefits as provided in paragraph 1（2）， Article 15 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance and be treated as work-related injury. 【相关法条】Relevant Legal Provisions 《工伤保险条例》第十五条第一款第二项 Paragraph 1（2）， Article 15 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance ...... 【裁判结果】Judgement 重庆市涪陵区人民法院于2013年9月23日作出（2013）涪法行初字第00077号行政判决，驳回重庆市涪陵志大物业管理有限公司要求撤销被告作出的涪人社伤险认决字﹝2013﹞524号《认定工伤决定书》的诉讼请求。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉，裁判现已发生法律效力。 On September 23, 2013, the People's Court of Fuling District, Chongqing entered the Administrative No. 00077 [2013], First, Administrative Division, Court, Fuling, dismissing the claims of Property Company to request the revocation of the Decision on Determination of Work-Related Injury No. 524 [2013], Decision, Determination, Work-Related Injury Insurance, Human Resources and Social Security, Fuling made by the defendant. Since the court of first instance pronounced, neither party has appealed and the has become legally effective. ...... 3 【指导案例95号】 中国工商银行股份有限公司宣城龙首支行诉宣城柏冠贸易有限公司、江苏凯盛置业有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案 Guiding Case No. 95: Xuancheng Longshou Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. v. Xuancheng Baiguan Trading Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Kaisheng Real Estate Co., Ltd. etc. （Dispute for Financial Loan Contract） 最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过，2018年6月20日发布 Issued on June 20, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court 【关键词】Keywords 民事/金融借款合同/担保/最高额抵押权 civil; financial loan contract; security; maximum-amount mortgage 【裁判要点】Key Points of Judgement 当事人另行达成协议将最高额抵押权设立前已经存在的债权转入该最高额抵押担保的债权范围，只要转入的债权数额仍在该最高额抵押担保的最高债权额限度内，即使未对该最高额抵押权办理变更登记手续，该最高额抵押权的效力仍然及于被转入的债权，但不得对第三人产生不利影响。 When parties reach a separate agreement to include an obligation existing before the creation of maximum-amount mortgage in the scope of claims secured by the maximum-amount mortgage, the effect of the maximum-amount mortgage extends to the obligation so included, as long as the amount of the claims so included remains within the maximum amount of the claims secured by the maximum-amount mortgage, even if the formalities for the modification registration of the maximum-amount mortgage have not been completed provided that a third person shall not be adversely affected. 【相关法条】Relevant Legal Provisions 《中华人民共和国物权法》第二百零三条、第二百零五条 Articles 203 and Article 205 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China ...... 【裁判结果】Judgement 宣城市中级人民法院于2013年11月10日作出（2013）宣中民二初字第00080号民事判决：一、柏冠公司于判决生效之日起五日内给付工行宣城龙首支行借款本金300万元及利息。……四、如柏冠公司未在判决确定的期限内履行上述第一项给付义务，工行宣城龙首支行以凯盛公司提供的宿房权证宿豫字第201104767号房地产权证项下的房产折价或者以拍卖、变卖该房产所得的价款优先受偿……宣判后，凯盛公司以涉案《补充协议》约定的事项未办理最高额抵押权变更登记为由，向安徽省高级人民法院提起上诉。该院于2014年10月21日作出（2014）皖民二终字第00395号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。 On November 10, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Xuancheng City entered the Civil No. 00080 [2013], First, Civil Division II, Intermediate, Xuancheng: （1） Baiguan Company should pay the principal of the loan in the amount of CNY3 million and the interest thereon to Xuancheng Longshou Branch within five days from the effective date of the … （4） If Baiguan Company failed to perform the obligation of payment in the preceding （1） within the period as fixed by the , Xuancheng Longshou Branch should have priority in being paid a sum of appraisement of the property under the real estate property certificate bearing Suyu Real Estate Property Certificate Suyu No. 201104767 given by Kaisheng Company, or out of the proceeds of the auction or sale of the same… Upon pronouncement, Kaisheng Company appealed to the Higher People's Court of Anhui province on the grounds that, with respect to the matters agreed in the case-related Supplemental Agreement, no modification registration of the maximum-amount mortgage had been made. On October 21, 2014, the court entered the Civil No. 00395 [2014], Final, Civil Division II, Anhui, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original. ...... 4 【指导案例96号】：宋文军诉西安市大华餐饮有限公司股东资格确认纠纷案 Guiding Case No. 96: Song Wenjun v. Xi'an Dahua Catering Co., Ltd. （Dispute over Recognition of the Shareholder Qualification） 最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过，2018年6月20日发布 （Issued on June 20, 2018 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court 【关键词】Keywords 民事/股东资格确认/初始章程/股权转让限制/回购 civil; recognition of the qualification of shareholder; initial articles of association; restrictions on equity transfer; repurchase 【裁判要点】Key Points of Judgement 国有企业改制为有限责任公司，其初始章程对股权转让进行限制，明确约定公司回购条款，只要不违反公司法等法律强制性规定，可认定为有效。有限责任公司按照初始章程约定，支付合理对价回购股东股权，且通过转让给其他股东等方式进行合理处置的，人民法院应予支持。 When a state-owned enterprise is restructured as a limited liability company, its initial articles of association that restrict the equity transfer and explicitly provide the terms of repurchase by the company may be determined to be valid, as long as the Company Law or any other compulsory rules of the law are not violated. If the limited liability company, as provided in its initial articles of association, provides a reasonable consideration to repurchase the shares of a shareholder and makes reasonable disposition by making transfer to another shareholder, or other means, the people's court shall support. 【相关法条】Relevant Legal Provisions 《中华人民共和国公司法》第十一条、第二十五条第二款、第三十五条、第七十四条 Article 11, paragraph 2 of Article 25, Article 35, and Article 74 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China ...... 【裁判结果】Judgement 西安市碑林区人民法院于2014年6月10日作出（2014）碑民初字第01339号民事判决，判令：驳回原告宋文军要求确认其具有被告西安市大华餐饮有限责任公司股东资格之诉讼请求。一审宣判后，宋文军提出上诉。西安市中级人民法院于2014年10月10日作出了（2014）西中民四终字第00277号民事判决书，驳回上诉，维持原判。终审宣判后，宋文军仍不服，向陕西省高级人民法院申请再审。陕西省高级人民法院于2015年3月25日作出（2014）陕民二申字第00215号民事裁定，驳回宋文军的再审申请。 On June 10, 2014, the People's Court of Beilin District, Xi'an City entered the Civil No. 01339 [2014], First, Civil Division, Beilin, dismissing the claim of plaintiff Song Wenjun to request his shareholder qualification of Dahua Company to be recognized. Upon the pronouncement by the court of first instance, Song Wenjun appealed. On October 10, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City entered the Civil No. 00277 [2014], Final, Civil Division IV, Intermediate, Xi'an, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original . Upon the pronouncement by the court of second instance, Song Wenjun was still dissatisfied and applied to the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi province for retrial. On March 25, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi province entered the Civil No. 00215 [2014], Retrial, Civil Division II, Shaanxi, rejecting Sun Wenjun's application for retrial. 文中所涉产品链接：
———— / END / ———— |
|
|
