Fuxing Guarantee Corporation Lawsuit Junshan Rural Credit Cooperatives Bill Indemnity Dispute Case Analysis

With the continuous development and improvement of China's socialist market economy system, the paper has become an indispensable financial tool in social and economic activities, and all kinds of disputes also showed a rising trend. The bill law of the People's Republic of China, since its formal implementation in 1996,provides a reliable legal guarantee for standardizing the behavior of negotiable instruments, guiding the activities of the bills, and timely and accurately handling the disputes. In judicial practice, how to more clearly and effectively definition relations of negotiable instrument and its basic relations, skillfully and accurately analysis and confirm the validity of a bill, confirmed that the other parties to the negotiable instrument behavior is illegal and rational measurement thus brought about by the bill for damages size, treatment of the case of disputes over negotiable instruments, prevent bills business risk is badly in need of solving practical problems. In Fuxing guarantee company v. Junshan Rural Credit Union note damage compensation cases, Fuxing security company that illegal Junshan rural credit cooperative union honour and reserved seal does not match the invalid check, resulting in a loss of Fuxing guarantee company 800 million yuan deposit, with the Junshan rural credit cooperative union sued to the court, please for judgment:Junshan rural credit cooperative union compensation for their losses.Around the cause of action, check the effectiveness and acceptance behavior is illegal and the focus of controversy involved. After the first trial, second instance and retrial process, the Supreme People's Court of final judgment Junshan rural credit cooperative union does not assume liability to pay compensation, dismissed the Fuxing guarantee company litigation request. The key to correctly handle the case is to distinguish the relationship between the bill and the basic relationship,to understand the meaning of the principle of the principle of the principle of No. The reason why the case has been through the five trial, is that the trial staff on the principle of the instrument and the law of the instrument on the understanding and understanding of thedifferences in the application of the deviation of the law. As the judicial personnel and the financial industry practitioners, and should be from legal perspective and the perspective of market management thinking bills without due to the principle of applicable laws and bills business risk prevention measures, so as to maintain the stability of the other parties to the negotiable instrument and the legitimate rights and interests of the financial order.