1.Qingdao Weinaida Investment Co., Ltd. et al. v. Haier Group Finance Co., Ltd. (appeal case regarding dispute over contract for corporate loans, mortgages, pledges and guarantees)

[Judgment Abstract]

In a case of the coexistence of security interest and guarantee, if a debtor and a guarantor have expressly agreed that the creditor has the right to dispose of the secured property, or directly requires the guarantor to assume the security liability regardless of whether any other security has been established on the creditor's rights, the guarantee liability should not be affected by security interest. Where a creditor requires a guarantor to assume liability when the creditor's rights cannot be realized, the guarantor shall bear the security liability for all debts rather than those outside the scope of guarantee on the subject matter.

2.Zhang Yili v. Shijiazhuang Branch of China Minsheng Bank Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over mortgage contract)

[Judgment Abstract]

When the mortgage contract is signed, the mortgagor no longer has ownership of the mortgaged property. Despite the registration, the mortgage is disconfirmed because it is deemed that the creditor does not acquire the property bona fide. For professional financial institutions, the condition for bona fide acquisition is whether it has fulfilled its review obligation in a prudential manner. When reviewing the mortgage materials provided by a mortgagor, a financial institution should pay close attention to any potential conflicts of right as to the house ownership. In practice, the financial institution only conducts review in form, leading to certain omissions, and is thus at subjective fault. Therefore, where a financial institution fails to fulfill its review obligations in a prudential manner, and bona fide acquisition has not been established and the mortgage contract should be determined to be invalid.

3.Sichuan Shengda Forestry Industry Co., Ltd. v. Singapore Shizheng Co., Ltd. (appeal case of dispute over a pledge contract)

[Judgment Abstract]

The Guarantee Law and its judicial interpretations of China do not prohibit the re-pledge of the pledged equity, but where the pledger pledges the equity again without the consent of the pledgee, as a result of which the additional costs or risks are incurred in the exercise of the pledgee's right, the pledger shall bear corresponding liabilities. However, such act does not affect the validity of the pledge contract signed when the equity is pledged again. In other words, as long as the equity pledge contract is the declaration of true will of the parties, and the performance of the contract will not result in any damage to the national interest, public interest or the interest of any third party, it neither constitutes the unauthorized disposition as stipulated in Article 51 of the Contract Law nor falls under the circumstances of statutory invalidation as stipulated in Article 52 of the Contract Law, and thus the pledge contract is a valid contract.

From：www.chinalawinfo.com