[introduction of the lawyer in this case]
Zhang Xinhui, senior partner of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Lawyer Zhang Xinhui has long provided perennial legal advisory services for well-known real estate development companies, banks, state-owned enterprises and listed companies; He is good at litigation cases of banks, companies and commercial enterprises, and has appeared in the Supreme People's court, Liaoning Provincial Higher People's court and other courts to host cases.
Lawyer Zhang Xinhui is currently a member of the Liaoning Provincial Committee of the Chinese people's Political Consultative Conference / member of the proposal review committee, deputy director of the human resources, environment and Legal Affairs Committee of Liaoning Jiusan Society, director of the finance and Taxation Professional Committee of Liaoning Province, director of the finance and insurance professional Committee of Shenyang Lawyers Association, director of Liaoning Lawyers Association, executive director of Shenyang Lawyers Association, and arbitration member of Shenyang arbitration committee.
Lawyer Zhang Xinhui has successively won the titles of "top ten legal aid lawyers in Shenyang", "excellent lawyers in Liaoning Province", "model of honest lawyers in Shenyang", "political and legal cadres and policemen satisfied by the people of Liaoning Province", "the first outstanding young lawyers of Liaoning Provincial Lawyers Association", etc.
[gist of judgment] the Supreme People's court held that as the pledgee and the designated party of the monitoring site, Bank of Dalian did not choose to control the pledged property by transferring possession, but chose to monitor the pledged property by the supervisor in the on-site supervision mode. The pledged property was not actually delivered to the pledgee, and the supervisor did not actually obtain the lease right of the warehouse. According to the circumstances of the case, the site was still occupied and controlled by the pledgor. Bank of Dalian also failed to fulfill the pledgee's obligation to keep the pledged property. Therefore, this case is caused by the common fault of the pledgor and the pledgee, and the pledge right that should be established according to law fails to play the guarantee effect of the property. The pledgee shall bear the adverse consequences for his negative behavior of being lazy to protect the interests of the creditor's rights. The pledgor and the pledgee, Bank of Dalian, failed to perform the effective pledge contract obligations in good faith, the pledgor failed to deliver the pledged property to Bank of Dalian, Bank of Dalian did not possess the pledged property, and the pledge right in this case was not established.
[basic case] the Bank of Dalian, the plaintiff, granted a comprehensive credit of 100 million yuan to the defendant Kulun banner zouyuan company, and signed the maximum pledge contract with Jinzhou zouyuan company, agreeing to provide the maximum pledge guarantee for the creditor's rights of the defendant Kulun banner zouyuan company with all its white granulated sugar and raw sugar. The plaintiff signed the movable property supervision agreement with Jinzhou zoyuan company and the defendant China Railway Logistics Dalian branch to provide pledge supervision of the pledged property. This lawsuit was filed because the defendant failed to repay the advance payment and claimed that the defendant China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, as the supervisor of the pledged goods, failed to perform the obligations agreed in the supervision agreement, resulting in the loss of the pledged goods. According to the supervision agreement, it shall bear the supplementary compensation liability for the loss of the plaintiff's creditor's rights. The supervisor, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, did not actually control the possession of the pledged goods and the storage warehouse involved in the case, but actively performed the supervision obligations as far as possible in fact. There was no fault, and the request for the supervisor to bear the supplementary liability for compensation was not supported.
[judgment result] (2017) Liao min Chu No. 41 Civil Judgment judgment: I. The defendant Kulun banner zoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. shall repay the principal and corresponding interest of the bank acceptance bill advance of the plaintiff Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment; 2、 The defendant Kulun banner zuoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. shall pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fee of 300000 yuan within 10 days from the date when this judgment takes effect; 3、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing respectively bear joint and several guarantee liability for the first item of this judgment within the guarantee scope of the maximum amount of 100 million yuan agreed in the contract; 4、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing shall bear joint and several liability for the second item of this judgment respectively; 5、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing have the right to claim compensation from the defendant Kulun banner zuoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. after assuming the guarantee liability; 6、 Other claims of the plaintiff Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd. were rejected.
(2019) the Supreme People's court ruled in civil judgment No. 330, rejected the appeal of Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd., and upheld the original judgment.
[reasons for adjudication] the focus of the dispute in the first and second instance of this case is whether China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, as the supervisor, should bear the supplementary liability for the creditor's rights of Bank of Dalian within the scope of the loss of the pledge. The court of first instance held that, first, the existence of the pledged property is the premise for the supervisor to implement the supervision. The pledgor Jinzhou zoyuan company in this case did not actually deliver the pledged property to the pledgee Bank of Dalian, and the pledge was not established. The pledgor and the pledgee had common faults and should bear corresponding responsibilities. Second, the supervisor has performed the supervision duties in accordance with the movable property supervision agreement and has no fault. According to the movable property supervision agreement, the premise for the supervisor to assume the supplementary compensation liability is the existence of fault. In the process of supervision, when the pledgor was found to have transferred the pledged property, forced out of the warehouse, failed to cooperate with the supervision, refused to allow the pledgee to inventory, and expelled the supervisor, he immediately notified the Bank of Dalian and took various countermeasures to actively fulfill the supervision obligations. Third, the obligation of financial institutions to review the establishment of the pledge and the feasibility of realizing the pledge belongs to the legal obligation and cannot be transferred to others through the entrustment agreement. Bank of Dalian has not strictly examined the establishment of the pledge, the quantity of the pledge and the feasibility of realizing the pledge. The pledge is still under the possession and control of the pledgor. The supervision site and resident supervision mode of the pledge involved in this case are all selected by Bank of Dalian itself. Bank of Dalian has violated the statutory review obligation, resulting in the pledge not being established, and it shall bear the adverse consequences. Fourth, Bank of Dalian knows that there are obstacles in the supervision, and the pledgor intentionally breaches the contract. It does not take any measures to prevent it, and allows Jinzhou zoyuan company to transfer the pledged goods, resulting in the loss of the pledged goods. Bank of Dalian shall be responsible for this. To sum up, we do not support the request of Bank of Dalian to order the supervisor to assume supplementary liability for its creditor's rights within the scope of loss of pledged property.
The court of second instance held that the pledgor and the pledgee, Bank of Dalian, failed to perform the obligations of the effective pledge contract in good faith, the pledgor failed to deliver the pledged property to Bank of Dalian, Bank of Dalian did not possess the pledged property, and the pledge right in this case was not established. The reasons are as follows: 1. As the pledgee and the designated party of the monitoring site, Bank of Dalian did not choose to control the pledged property by transferring possession, but chose to monitor the pledged property by the supervisor in the on-site supervision mode. The pledged property was not actually delivered to the pledgee, and the supervisor did not actually take the lease right of the warehouse. In combination with the case, the site was still occupied and controlled by the pledgor. Bank of Dalian also failed to fulfill the pledgee's obligation to keep the pledged property. Therefore, this case is caused by the common fault of the pledgor and the pledgee, and the pledge right that should be established according to law fails to play the guarantee effect of the property. The pledgee shall bear the adverse consequences for his negative behavior of being lazy to protect the interests of the creditor's rights. The supervisor, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, did not actually control the possession of the pledged goods and the storage warehouse involved in the case, but actively performed the supervision obligations as far as possible in fact. There was no fault, and the request for the supervisor to bear the supplementary liability for compensation was not supported.
[relevant laws] Articles 8, 44, 60, 107, 204 and 207 of the contract law of the people's Republic of China, articles 6, 18 and 31 of the security law of the people's Republic of China, articles 176 and 212 of the property law of the people's Republic of China, and article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China.
[lawyer's opinion] in practice, banks generally adopt the method of supervising the chattel pledge, that is, the chattel pledge is still in the pledgor's warehouse, and the supervisor is appointed to take the on-site supervision mode to supervise the pledge. The biggest risk of adopting this kind of supervision method is that it is determined that the pledge right is not established according to law and the pledged property is out of the control of the supervisor, resulting in shortage or even loss. This case has exposed all the above risks, and the bank will suffer the consequences.
First, the question of whether the pledge right in this case has been legally established.
In this case, Bank of Dalian claimed that the pledged goods involved in the case were tens of thousands of tons of sugar products, which did not meet the conditions for actual delivery. The delivery method was instruction delivery, that is, the pledged goods involved in the case were deemed to have been delivered by entrusting China Railway Logistics Dalian branch to supervise them. Bank of Dalian has indirect control and possession over the pledged goods. Through this delivery method, the actual supervision and control over the pledged goods by China Railway Logistics Dalian branch can be realized. Therefore, the pledged goods in this case have been delivered and the pledge right has been legally established. The court held that the premise for judging whether the pledge right was established according to law was to examine whether the pledged property had been delivered according to law and realize the effective control of the pledgee. In this case, the pledged goods involved in the case were stored in the pledgor's warehouse. Bank of Dalian designated China railway logistics company to rent the pledgor's warehouse for supervision through the supervision agreement. The rent was only 1 yuan as a symbolic agreement. Although Bank of Dalian claims to have completed the delivery of instructions in this way, in combination with the pledgor's failure to transfer the pledged goods, refusal to allow the supervisor to enter the warehouse or even expulsion of the supervisor, the pledged goods involved in the case are still under the actual control and control of the pledgor, and the direct or indirect effective control of Bank of Dalian has not been realized.
Secondly, on whether the Supervisor China Railway Logistics Dalian branch should bear the supplementary liability for compensation.
According to the legal provisions and the contract agreement of both parties, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch bears fault liability in the supervision of the pledged goods. In addition, in the process of supervision, when it is found that the supervised goods have been transferred, forced out of the warehouse, and the supervisor has been expelled, the pledgee has been notified by telephone and written notification, and emergency measures such as alarm have been taken. The supervisor has actively performed its regulatory obligations to the greatest extent possible.
The reference significance of this case lies in:
1. Banks have the obligation of compulsory examination when handling loan business. According to Article 36 of the commercial bank law, "the borrower shall provide guarantee for the loan of a commercial bank. The commercial bank shall strictly examine the repayment ability of the guarantor, the ownership and value of the mortgage and pledge, and the feasibility of realizing the mortgage and pledge." Commercial banks must abide by the above-mentioned review obligations in the process of handling loan business. If the creditor fails to verify whether the pledged goods in the case exist and whether the quality meets the requirements due to the neglect of the management of the creditor's rights, the creditor shall bear part of the responsibility for the losses caused thereby. In addition, the review obligation cannot be transferred to the supervisor by signing the pledge supervision agreement, and even if it is so agreed in the pledge supervision agreement, the bank will still bear the corresponding responsibility for the loss caused by the failure to review. Therefore, it is suggested that the bank accepting the pledge guarantee must review the authenticity, storage and storage conditions of the pledged property before lending. If conditions permit, it is also required to hire a third-party appraisal institution to evaluate the value of the pledged property.
2. When the pledge supervisor is entrusted to supervise the pledged property, the pledge right shall be established from the time when the supervisor entrusted by the pledgee receives the pledged property, and it shall be ensured that the supervisor actually controls the pledged property. According to Article 64 of the minutes of the civil and commercial trial work meeting of the national court (Draft for public comments of the second civil court of the Supreme People's court), in the mobile pledge, the pledgee, the pledgor and the supervisor sign a tripartite supervision agreement. If the supervisor is entrusted by the pledgee to supervise the pledge, he is the indirect possessor of the pledgee, and shall be deemed to have completed the delivery of the pledge and the pledge is effectively established. If the supervisor violates the provisions of the supervision agreement, releases the goods to the pledgor in violation of the regulations, or causes damage or loss of the pledged goods due to improper storage, the pledgee has the right to request the supervisor to bear the liability for breach of contract. If the supervisor is entrusted by the pledgor to supervise the pledged property, indicating that the pledged property has not been delivered to the pledgee, it shall be deemed that the pledge has not been effectively established. Although the supervision contract stipulates that the supervisor shall supervise the pledged property, if the pledged property is still under the control of the pledgor, it shall also be deemed that the pledged property has not been actually delivered and the pledge right has not been effectively established.
3. The pledge supervisor shall pay attention to the following three points when accepting the bank's entrustment to keep the pledged goods: (1) before receiving the pledged goods and the actual state of the nuclear substance is consistent with the letter of entrustment, it shall not issue a statement confirming the pledged goods; (2) After receiving the pledged property, perform the obligation of a good administrator, and promptly notify the creditor of any influential changes involving the pledged property; (3) No pledge may be disposed of without the authorization of the creditor.
Zhang Xinhui, senior partner of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Lawyer Zhang Xinhui has long provided perennial legal advisory services for well-known real estate development companies, banks, state-owned enterprises and listed companies; He is good at litigation cases of banks, companies and commercial enterprises, and has appeared in the Supreme People's court, Liaoning Provincial Higher People's court and other courts to host cases.
Lawyer Zhang Xinhui is currently a member of the Liaoning Provincial Committee of the Chinese people's Political Consultative Conference / member of the proposal review committee, deputy director of the human resources, environment and Legal Affairs Committee of Liaoning Jiusan Society, director of the finance and Taxation Professional Committee of Liaoning Province, director of the finance and insurance professional Committee of Shenyang Lawyers Association, director of Liaoning Lawyers Association, executive director of Shenyang Lawyers Association, and arbitration member of Shenyang arbitration committee.
Lawyer Zhang Xinhui has successively won the titles of "top ten legal aid lawyers in Shenyang", "excellent lawyers in Liaoning Province", "model of honest lawyers in Shenyang", "political and legal cadres and policemen satisfied by the people of Liaoning Province", "the first outstanding young lawyers of Liaoning Provincial Lawyers Association", etc.
[gist of judgment] the Supreme People's court held that as the pledgee and the designated party of the monitoring site, Bank of Dalian did not choose to control the pledged property by transferring possession, but chose to monitor the pledged property by the supervisor in the on-site supervision mode. The pledged property was not actually delivered to the pledgee, and the supervisor did not actually obtain the lease right of the warehouse. According to the circumstances of the case, the site was still occupied and controlled by the pledgor. Bank of Dalian also failed to fulfill the pledgee's obligation to keep the pledged property. Therefore, this case is caused by the common fault of the pledgor and the pledgee, and the pledge right that should be established according to law fails to play the guarantee effect of the property. The pledgee shall bear the adverse consequences for his negative behavior of being lazy to protect the interests of the creditor's rights. The pledgor and the pledgee, Bank of Dalian, failed to perform the effective pledge contract obligations in good faith, the pledgor failed to deliver the pledged property to Bank of Dalian, Bank of Dalian did not possess the pledged property, and the pledge right in this case was not established.
[basic case] the Bank of Dalian, the plaintiff, granted a comprehensive credit of 100 million yuan to the defendant Kulun banner zouyuan company, and signed the maximum pledge contract with Jinzhou zouyuan company, agreeing to provide the maximum pledge guarantee for the creditor's rights of the defendant Kulun banner zouyuan company with all its white granulated sugar and raw sugar. The plaintiff signed the movable property supervision agreement with Jinzhou zoyuan company and the defendant China Railway Logistics Dalian branch to provide pledge supervision of the pledged property. This lawsuit was filed because the defendant failed to repay the advance payment and claimed that the defendant China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, as the supervisor of the pledged goods, failed to perform the obligations agreed in the supervision agreement, resulting in the loss of the pledged goods. According to the supervision agreement, it shall bear the supplementary compensation liability for the loss of the plaintiff's creditor's rights. The supervisor, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, did not actually control the possession of the pledged goods and the storage warehouse involved in the case, but actively performed the supervision obligations as far as possible in fact. There was no fault, and the request for the supervisor to bear the supplementary liability for compensation was not supported.
[judgment result] (2017) Liao min Chu No. 41 Civil Judgment judgment: I. The defendant Kulun banner zoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. shall repay the principal and corresponding interest of the bank acceptance bill advance of the plaintiff Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd. within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment; 2、 The defendant Kulun banner zuoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. shall pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fee of 300000 yuan within 10 days from the date when this judgment takes effect; 3、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing respectively bear joint and several guarantee liability for the first item of this judgment within the guarantee scope of the maximum amount of 100 million yuan agreed in the contract; 4、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing shall bear joint and several liability for the second item of this judgment respectively; 5、 The defendants Wang Yijun and Zhao Jing have the right to claim compensation from the defendant Kulun banner zuoyuan Sugar Industry Co., Ltd. after assuming the guarantee liability; 6、 Other claims of the plaintiff Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd. were rejected.
(2019) the Supreme People's court ruled in civil judgment No. 330, rejected the appeal of Bank of Dalian Co., Ltd., and upheld the original judgment.
[reasons for adjudication] the focus of the dispute in the first and second instance of this case is whether China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, as the supervisor, should bear the supplementary liability for the creditor's rights of Bank of Dalian within the scope of the loss of the pledge. The court of first instance held that, first, the existence of the pledged property is the premise for the supervisor to implement the supervision. The pledgor Jinzhou zoyuan company in this case did not actually deliver the pledged property to the pledgee Bank of Dalian, and the pledge was not established. The pledgor and the pledgee had common faults and should bear corresponding responsibilities. Second, the supervisor has performed the supervision duties in accordance with the movable property supervision agreement and has no fault. According to the movable property supervision agreement, the premise for the supervisor to assume the supplementary compensation liability is the existence of fault. In the process of supervision, when the pledgor was found to have transferred the pledged property, forced out of the warehouse, failed to cooperate with the supervision, refused to allow the pledgee to inventory, and expelled the supervisor, he immediately notified the Bank of Dalian and took various countermeasures to actively fulfill the supervision obligations. Third, the obligation of financial institutions to review the establishment of the pledge and the feasibility of realizing the pledge belongs to the legal obligation and cannot be transferred to others through the entrustment agreement. Bank of Dalian has not strictly examined the establishment of the pledge, the quantity of the pledge and the feasibility of realizing the pledge. The pledge is still under the possession and control of the pledgor. The supervision site and resident supervision mode of the pledge involved in this case are all selected by Bank of Dalian itself. Bank of Dalian has violated the statutory review obligation, resulting in the pledge not being established, and it shall bear the adverse consequences. Fourth, Bank of Dalian knows that there are obstacles in the supervision, and the pledgor intentionally breaches the contract. It does not take any measures to prevent it, and allows Jinzhou zoyuan company to transfer the pledged goods, resulting in the loss of the pledged goods. Bank of Dalian shall be responsible for this. To sum up, we do not support the request of Bank of Dalian to order the supervisor to assume supplementary liability for its creditor's rights within the scope of loss of pledged property.
The court of second instance held that the pledgor and the pledgee, Bank of Dalian, failed to perform the obligations of the effective pledge contract in good faith, the pledgor failed to deliver the pledged property to Bank of Dalian, Bank of Dalian did not possess the pledged property, and the pledge right in this case was not established. The reasons are as follows: 1. As the pledgee and the designated party of the monitoring site, Bank of Dalian did not choose to control the pledged property by transferring possession, but chose to monitor the pledged property by the supervisor in the on-site supervision mode. The pledged property was not actually delivered to the pledgee, and the supervisor did not actually take the lease right of the warehouse. In combination with the case, the site was still occupied and controlled by the pledgor. Bank of Dalian also failed to fulfill the pledgee's obligation to keep the pledged property. Therefore, this case is caused by the common fault of the pledgor and the pledgee, and the pledge right that should be established according to law fails to play the guarantee effect of the property. The pledgee shall bear the adverse consequences for his negative behavior of being lazy to protect the interests of the creditor's rights. The supervisor, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch, did not actually control the possession of the pledged goods and the storage warehouse involved in the case, but actively performed the supervision obligations as far as possible in fact. There was no fault, and the request for the supervisor to bear the supplementary liability for compensation was not supported.
[relevant laws] Articles 8, 44, 60, 107, 204 and 207 of the contract law of the people's Republic of China, articles 6, 18 and 31 of the security law of the people's Republic of China, articles 176 and 212 of the property law of the people's Republic of China, and article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China.
[lawyer's opinion] in practice, banks generally adopt the method of supervising the chattel pledge, that is, the chattel pledge is still in the pledgor's warehouse, and the supervisor is appointed to take the on-site supervision mode to supervise the pledge. The biggest risk of adopting this kind of supervision method is that it is determined that the pledge right is not established according to law and the pledged property is out of the control of the supervisor, resulting in shortage or even loss. This case has exposed all the above risks, and the bank will suffer the consequences.
First, the question of whether the pledge right in this case has been legally established.
In this case, Bank of Dalian claimed that the pledged goods involved in the case were tens of thousands of tons of sugar products, which did not meet the conditions for actual delivery. The delivery method was instruction delivery, that is, the pledged goods involved in the case were deemed to have been delivered by entrusting China Railway Logistics Dalian branch to supervise them. Bank of Dalian has indirect control and possession over the pledged goods. Through this delivery method, the actual supervision and control over the pledged goods by China Railway Logistics Dalian branch can be realized. Therefore, the pledged goods in this case have been delivered and the pledge right has been legally established. The court held that the premise for judging whether the pledge right was established according to law was to examine whether the pledged property had been delivered according to law and realize the effective control of the pledgee. In this case, the pledged goods involved in the case were stored in the pledgor's warehouse. Bank of Dalian designated China railway logistics company to rent the pledgor's warehouse for supervision through the supervision agreement. The rent was only 1 yuan as a symbolic agreement. Although Bank of Dalian claims to have completed the delivery of instructions in this way, in combination with the pledgor's failure to transfer the pledged goods, refusal to allow the supervisor to enter the warehouse or even expulsion of the supervisor, the pledged goods involved in the case are still under the actual control and control of the pledgor, and the direct or indirect effective control of Bank of Dalian has not been realized.
Secondly, on whether the Supervisor China Railway Logistics Dalian branch should bear the supplementary liability for compensation.
According to the legal provisions and the contract agreement of both parties, China Railway Logistics Dalian Branch bears fault liability in the supervision of the pledged goods. In addition, in the process of supervision, when it is found that the supervised goods have been transferred, forced out of the warehouse, and the supervisor has been expelled, the pledgee has been notified by telephone and written notification, and emergency measures such as alarm have been taken. The supervisor has actively performed its regulatory obligations to the greatest extent possible.
The reference significance of this case lies in:
1. Banks have the obligation of compulsory examination when handling loan business. According to Article 36 of the commercial bank law, "the borrower shall provide guarantee for the loan of a commercial bank. The commercial bank shall strictly examine the repayment ability of the guarantor, the ownership and value of the mortgage and pledge, and the feasibility of realizing the mortgage and pledge." Commercial banks must abide by the above-mentioned review obligations in the process of handling loan business. If the creditor fails to verify whether the pledged goods in the case exist and whether the quality meets the requirements due to the neglect of the management of the creditor's rights, the creditor shall bear part of the responsibility for the losses caused thereby. In addition, the review obligation cannot be transferred to the supervisor by signing the pledge supervision agreement, and even if it is so agreed in the pledge supervision agreement, the bank will still bear the corresponding responsibility for the loss caused by the failure to review. Therefore, it is suggested that the bank accepting the pledge guarantee must review the authenticity, storage and storage conditions of the pledged property before lending. If conditions permit, it is also required to hire a third-party appraisal institution to evaluate the value of the pledged property.
2. When the pledge supervisor is entrusted to supervise the pledged property, the pledge right shall be established from the time when the supervisor entrusted by the pledgee receives the pledged property, and it shall be ensured that the supervisor actually controls the pledged property. According to Article 64 of the minutes of the civil and commercial trial work meeting of the national court (Draft for public comments of the second civil court of the Supreme People's court), in the mobile pledge, the pledgee, the pledgor and the supervisor sign a tripartite supervision agreement. If the supervisor is entrusted by the pledgee to supervise the pledge, he is the indirect possessor of the pledgee, and shall be deemed to have completed the delivery of the pledge and the pledge is effectively established. If the supervisor violates the provisions of the supervision agreement, releases the goods to the pledgor in violation of the regulations, or causes damage or loss of the pledged goods due to improper storage, the pledgee has the right to request the supervisor to bear the liability for breach of contract. If the supervisor is entrusted by the pledgor to supervise the pledged property, indicating that the pledged property has not been delivered to the pledgee, it shall be deemed that the pledge has not been effectively established. Although the supervision contract stipulates that the supervisor shall supervise the pledged property, if the pledged property is still under the control of the pledgor, it shall also be deemed that the pledged property has not been actually delivered and the pledge right has not been effectively established.
3. The pledge supervisor shall pay attention to the following three points when accepting the bank's entrustment to keep the pledged goods: (1) before receiving the pledged goods and the actual state of the nuclear substance is consistent with the letter of entrustment, it shall not issue a statement confirming the pledged goods; (2) After receiving the pledged property, perform the obligation of a good administrator, and promptly notify the creditor of any influential changes involving the pledged property; (3) No pledge may be disposed of without the authorization of the creditor.
Legal consultation hotline