万宁某混凝土公司与海南某实业公司、上海某建工公司票据纠纷案

Wanning X Concrete Company　V.　Hainan X Industrial Company, Shanghai X Construction Company

(Dispute over the　Negotiable Instruments)

　　万宁某混凝土公司持有电子商业承兑汇票（票据号码为230864100002520211215105375283）一张，该汇票载明如下信息：“1.出票人和承兑人均为‘海南某实业公司’。2.出票日期为2021年12月15日，汇票到期日为2022年6月14日。3.票据金额为200000元；收款人为‘上海某建工公司’。4.该汇票可以转让。5.出票人承诺本汇票请予以承兑，到期无条件付款。6.承兑人承兑本汇票已经承兑，到期无条件付款，承兑日期为2021年12月15日。7.票据状态为拒付追索待清偿。”该汇票背书情况如下：“1.上海某建工公司于2021年12月30日背书转让给万宁某混凝土公司，并标记为可转让；2.万宁某混凝土公司于2022年1月4日背书转让给海南某贸易公司，并标记为可转让；3.海南某贸易公司于2022年4月8日背书转让给万宁某混凝土公司，并标记可转让。”该汇票于2022年6月14日到期后，显示于2022年6月16日有提示付款申请，且该汇票在电子商业汇票系统显示如下信息：“1.业务状态为‘人行处理成功，对方拒绝签收。2.拒付时间为2022年6月21日。3.逾拒付理由为‘商业承兑汇票人账户余额不足’。4.票据状态为‘拒付追索待清偿’。”

Wanning X Concrete Company held an electronic commercial acceptance bill (number: 230864100002520211215105375283), which contains the following information: "1. The drawer and the acceptor are Hainan X Industrial Company. 2. The date of issue is December 15, 2021, and the maturity date is June 14, 2022. 3. The amount of the bill is　RMB　200,000; The payee is Shanghai X Construction Company. 4. The bill is negotiable. 5. The drawer undertakes that this bill shall be accepted and payable unconditionally at maturity. 6. The acceptor accepts that this bill has been accepted and unconditional payment is due on December 15, 2021. 7. The status of the bill is dishonored and put in recourse and outstanding.” The endorsement is as follows: "1. The construction company endorsed and transferred the bill to the concrete company on December 30, 2021, and marked it as transferable; 2. The concrete company endorsed and transferred the bill to Hainan X Trading Company on January 4, 2022, and marked it as transferable; 3. The trading company endorsed and transferred it to the concrete company on April 8, 2022, and marked it transferable.” After the bill expired on June 14, 2022, there was a presentment for payment application on June 16, 2022, and the bill’s following information was displayed in the　electronic commercial draft　system: "1. The　service　status: "The People's Bank of China processed successfully, and the other party refused to sign for it. 2. The refusal date is June 21, 2022. 3. The reason for refusal of payment is 'insufficient balance in the account of the commercial acceptance bill'. 4. The bill status is 'Refusal Recourse Pending Liquidation'.”

　　海口市龙华区人民法院作出（2022）琼0106民初7707号民事判决：一、限海南某实业公司于判决生效之日起十日内向万宁某混凝土公司支付票据金额　200000元及相应利息；二、上海某建工公司对判决第一项所确定的义务承担连带责任。各方当事人均未上诉，该判决已发生法律效力。

Longhua　Primary People's Court　issued　the　civil judgment(2022) Qiong 0106 MinChu No.7707: 1. The industrial company shall pay a bill amount of　RMB200,000 and corresponding interest to the concrete company within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment; 2. The construction company shall bear joint and several liabilities for the obligations　ordered in　the first paragraph of the judgment. None of the parties appealed, and the judgment became legally effective.

　　法院生效判决认为，根据《中华人民共和国票据法》及《电子商业汇票业务管理办法》的规定，涉案票据记载事项完整，形式完备，背书连续，属有效票据。首先，万宁某混凝土公司通过背书转让的方式取得涉案票据，依法取得相应的票据权利，且本案证据体现出万宁某混凝土公司和上海某建工公司之间、万宁某混凝土公司和案外人海南某贸易公司之间存在基础法律关系及对价支付情况。按照证据规则，万宁某混凝土公司系正当的持票人。海南某实业公司抗辩称本案存在贴现情形，但是未能提交相应证据，不予采纳。

By the effective judgment,　the Court　held that, according to the provisions of the　Negotiable Instruments Law of the People's Republic of China and the Measures for the Administration of　electronic commercial draft　Business, the bill involved was a valid bill with complete items, complete form, and continuous endorsement. First of all, the concrete company obtained the bill involved by means of endorsement and transfer, and obtained the corresponding bill rights under laws, and the evidence in this case reflects the underlying legal relationship and consideration payment between the concrete company and the construction company, and between the concrete company and the trading company. According to the rules of evidence, the concrete company shall be deemed a proper holder. The industrial company argued that there was a discount in this case, but failed to submit　provide　corresponding evidence to prove; therefore its claim shall not be　supported.

　　其次，依照《中华人民共和国票据法》第五十三条第一款第二项“持票人应当按照下列期限提示付款：……（二）定日付款、出票后定期付款或者见票后定期付款的汇票，自到期日起十日内向承兑人提示付款”的规定，涉案的电子商业承兑汇票到期日为2022年6月14日，万宁某混凝土公司提交的证据材料显示该票据在2022年6月16日发出提示付款申请且被拒付。依照《电子商业汇票业务管理办法》第六十六条“持票人在票据到期日前被拒付的，不得拒付追索。持票人在提示付款期内被拒付的，可向所有前手拒付追索。持票人超过提示付款期提示付款被拒付的，若持票人在提示付款期内曾发出过提示付款，则可向所有前手拒付追索；若未在提示付款期内发出过提示付款，则只可向出票人、承兑人拒付追索”的规定，万宁某混凝土公司已在提示付款期内进行操作，并在2022年7月提起本案诉讼，未超过相应的权利时效期间。
Secondly, according to Item 2, Paragraph 1, Article 53 of the　Negotiable Instruments Law of the People's Republic of China, "the holderof a draft shallmake presentation　for payment　according to the following time limits: (2) For bills with fixed date payment, fixed payment after issue or fixed payment after sight,　presentation　for payment shall be made　to the acceptor　within 10 days　starting　from the maturity date.　In this case,　the maturity date of the　electronic commercial draft　involved was June 14, 2022. The evidence　provided　by the concrete company show that the bill was issued on June 16, 2022, and the payment was refused. In accordance with Article 66 of the　Measures for the Administration of Electronic Commercial　Draft　Business, "Where a draft is dishonored prior to its maturity date, the holder shall not recourse.　Where　a draft is dishonored within　the　prescribed time limit for presentation for payment, the holder may recourse against all its prior holders.　Where　a draft is dishonored beyond the prescribed time limit for presentation for payment, and the holder has made a　presentation　for payment within　the prescribed　time limit, the holder may recourse against　all its prior holders; and if the holder has made no presentation for payment within the time prescribed time limit, it/he may only recourse against the drawer and the acceptor", the concrete company made presentment during the presentment period and filed a lawsuit in July 2022, which did not exceed the　limitation period of rights.

　　最后，依照《中华人民共和国票据法》第六十八条“汇票的出票人、背书人、承兑人和保证人对持票人承担连带责任。持票人可以不按照汇票债务人的先后顺序，对其中任何一人、数人或者全体行使追索权。持票人对汇票债务人中的一人或者数人已经进行追索的，对其他汇票债务人仍可以行使追索权。被追索人清偿债务后，与持票人享有同一权利”的规定，万宁某混凝土公司作为持票人，在汇票到期后行使票据权利时遭到拒付，选择向涉案票据的前手即上海某建工公司及作为出票人和承兑人的海南某实业公司主张权利，要求支付汇票载明的款项200000元及利息（具体计算方法：以200000元为基数，按照年利率3.7%作为利率标准，自2022年6月14日起计算至实际清偿全部债务之日止），不违反法律规定，予以支持。
Finally, in accordance with Article 68 of the　Negotiable Instruments Law of the People's Republic of China,　"the drawer, endorser, acceptor and guarantor of a bill of exchange shall be jointly and severally liable to the holder.　The holder may exercise the right of recourse against any, several, or all of the persons liable for the bill　of exchange　in disregard of the order of precedence.. Where the holder hasexercised the right of recourse against one or more of the persons liable for the bill　of exchange, he may still exercise the right of recourse against the other persons liable for the bill. After paying off the debts, the person liable for resource shall have the same rights as the holder　thereof", The concrete company, as the holder of the bill, was refused when exercising the rights of the bill after the　maturity of such　bill. It chose to claim the rights against the prior　parties of the bill involved, namely the construction company and the industrial company as the drawer and acceptor and demanded an amount of　RMB　200,000 and interest thereof specified in the bill (specific calculation method: it shall be calculated on the basis of　RMB　200,000 and at an annual interest rate of 3.7%, from June 14, 2022, to the date when all debts are actually paid off), and the claim complies with the provisions of laws　and shall be　supported.

　　随着信息时代的发展和市场经济的勃兴，电子汇票在商事经济活动中的使用率越来越高，我国为此也出台了关于电子汇票的法律法规。司法实践中，不仅要基于传统票据法所提倡的严格书面主义和票据无因性的法律原则，也要注重电子汇票涉及交易的真实性和电子汇票操作过程的客观完整，实现效率和公平的有机统一。诉讼证据主要体现出书面材料的特点，无法完全反映电子汇票操作的动态过程，即电子汇票的操作具有过程性。为查验票据的真实情况，本案要求万宁某混凝土公司提供前后手交易的证据和当庭进行票据的现场操作，充分核查了票据流转的过程事实，也在效率和公平之间做到了统一，实现商事主体平等保护的价值要求。

With the development of the information age and the booming of market economy, electronic bills of exchange are more and more used in commercial　and　economic activities. In judicial practice,　the Court　shall not only follow the　principle of formalism　and　abstraction　principle　of negotiable instruments advocated by　negotiable instrument law　before electronic bills　was born,　but also attach importance to the authenticity of transactions involved in the electronic bills　and the objective integrity of electronic bill operating process, so as to　balance　the　efficiency and fairness.　Evidence　in litigation　mainly reflects the characteristics of written documents, which cannot fully reflect the dynamic process of electronic bills　operation, that is, the operation of electronic bills　is characterized by a　dynamic process. To　find out the truth,　the Court　ordered　the concrete company to provide evidence of transactions with prior parties and subsequent parties and conduct on-site operation of bills　during the trial, thereby fully verifying the bill circulation process,　striking a balance between　efficiency and fairness and realizing the value requirement of equal protection of commercial subjects.