金立志、俞忠律师代理当事人标的4亿进出口代理纠纷经高院一审最高院二审获完全胜诉
时间：2012-11-08
主任金立志律师及本所副主任俞忠律师代理原告上海某国企诉某境内企业、境外企业和美国某企业的进出口代理合同，标的达4亿元人民币一案，该案经某市高级人民法院一审、最高人民法院二审，终于得到法院的终审生效判决，判决原告完全胜诉。
1、案情简述：原告与被告自2001年起开展业务合作，先后签定了《出口业务战略合作协议》、《补充协议》、《会谈纪要》、《备忘录》、《贸易合作终止及还款协议》等数十份合同、协议等文件，双方业务合作长达8年，涉及金额达100多亿元人民币。2008年12月，原告依据《贸易合作终止及还款协议》向某市高院起诉被告，要求其按约还款（标的近4亿元人民币）。被告以对《贸易合作终止及还款协议》中的主要条款重大误解为由，以聘请专业审计机构出具的专项审计报告为依据，向法院提出反诉请求（标的7800余万元）。
2、争议焦点：
（1）是国内买卖合同纠纷还是进出口代理合同纠纷；
（2）3亿元人民币铺垫资金是预付货款还是企业间的借贷；
（3）被告的担保性质及时效认定；
（4）原被告达成《贸易合作终止及还款协议》与《出口业务战略合作协议》是否冲突，应该履行哪份协议等。
3、原告律师的代理工作：
（1）配合法院委托的专项审计机构对双方历年账目进行专项审计，并以此确定被告的欠款基本事实；
（2）对双方数百笔业务整理分类，以“国内买卖合同从属于进出口代理业务合作”的性质解决原告收取代理费、预付款计息等的合法性；
（3）经过大量调查工作，向法院提供长达8000页的原始交易文件资料，证明被告提出的“重大误解”并无事实与法律依据；
（4）通过充分的法理分析结合相关法律、司法解释，反驳被告提出的观点，有效维护原告的合法权益。
4、 法院判决：
原告律师经过数百工作小时的勤勉工作，向法院提供了大量证据材料，准确恰当地提出了代理意见。最终某市高院支持了原告全部诉请，驳回了被告全部反诉诉请。嗣后，被告向最高人民法院提出了上诉，同样被裁定驳回。
Kingtham’s director Jin Lizhi and deputy chairman Yu zhong represented some state-owned enterprise in Shanghai to sue three companies, one American company, one domestic company and another foreign company for import and export agent dispute, sum reaching 400 million RMB. Jin and Yu successfully helped the plaintiff win the case after first instance at the Higher People’s Court and second instance at the Supreme People’s Court.
Brief introduction about the case
The plaintiff and the defendant started business in 2001, and have signed over ten contracts and/or agreements since, including Strategic Collaboration Agreement on Export, Supplementary Agreement, Minutes of Talks, Memorandum, and Agreement on Termination of Trade Cooperation and Repayment Plan. Their cooperation has lasted for eight years, and sum involved reached 10 billion RMB. The plaintiff submitted the case to the Higher People’s Court demanding the defendant to repay approximately 400 million RMB in accordance with Agreement on Termination of Trade Cooperation and Repayment Plan. The defendant raised counterclaim of 78 million RMB based on the cause that there exist significant misunderstanding in Agreement on Termination of Trade Cooperation and Repayment Plan and special auditor’s report issued by a professional audit institution it hired.
Focus of Dispute
A. domestic sales and purchase agreement dispute or import and export agent contract dispute;
B. 300 million RMB, advance payment or inter-enterprise loan;
C. determination of the nature of defendant’s guarantee and prescription;
D. Is Agreement on Termination of Trade Cooperation and Repayment Plan and Strategic Collaboration Agreement on Export, Supplementary Agreement conflicting each other, which one shall prevail.
Work Done by Kingtham’s Attorneys
A. supported audit institution designated by the court to audit plaintiff and defendant’s accounts during the years and thus confirmed the fact that the defendant owed money.
B. sorted out hundreds of businesses between plaintiff and defendant, proved the legality of plaintiff charging agent fees and interest of advance payment by arguing domestic sales and purchase agreements belong to export and import agent range.
C. submitted over 8000 pages of original business documents after massive of investigation, proving significant misunderstanding lacked factual and legal basis.
D. rebutted standpoints of the defendant by thoroughly analyzing relevant laws, regulations, judicial interpretations, effectively safeguarded plaintiff’s legal rights.
Judgment
Higher People’s Court adopted all claims of the plaintiff, and overruled all counterclaims of the defendant after Kingtham’s attorneys’ hundreds of diligent working hours, massive of proof submitted. Later, the defendant appealed to Supreme People’s Court, and still was overruled.