Analysis On The Cases Of Financial Leasing Contract Disputes Such As The People's Government Of Decheng City, Dezhou City,etc.

The sale-leadeback financing lease refers to a form of financial lease that the lessee sells its own property to the lessor and then leases it back from the lessor.It changes the basic structure of the three parties in the traditional financial lease contract(That is,the lessor provides the leaser with the purchaser's choice of the seller and the leased item,and the renter provides the rent to the lessee,and then the renter pays the rent),helps the lessee optimize the financing structure,and converts the fixed assets into current assets,thereby Increased liquidity of funds.This advantage makes the transaction form a considerable proportion in China's financial leasing practice,and some financial leasing companies'sales and leaseback business is as high as 80%.On February 24,2014,the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Legal Issues Concerning the Trial of Financial Leasing Contract Dispute Cases(hereinafter referred to as the explanation)first recognized the sale-leadeback contract of the lessee and the seller as a financial lease contract.Attributes,but because of the particularity of the parties' high degree of coincidence,they have a large similarity with mortgage loans,etc.and still need to be distinguished from borrowing.At the same time,there is still controversy about the effectiveness of the sale-leadeback financing lease contract and the damages of the lessor after exercising the contract cancellation right.In this case,due to the first-instance defendant Dezhou Huamao Biotechnology Co.,Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Huamao Company)did not fulfill the contractual rental payment obligations,the plaintiff Cinda Financial Leasing Co.,Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Cinda Leasing Company)filed a lawsuit against the Shandong high People's Court.The People's Government of Lingcheng District of Dezhou City(hereinafter referred to as the Lingcheng District Government)and the Land and Resources Bureau of the Lingcheng District of Dezhou City(hereinafter referred to as the Land and Resources Bureau of the Lingcheng District)refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court made the final judgment on December 24,2016..There are three disputes in this case:First,the distinction between the sale-leadeback financing lease contract and the mortgage loan contract and its effectiveness;the second is the characteristics of the sale-leadeback contract cancellation and the legal consequences after the release;the third is the Lingcheng District Government,Mausoleum Whether the Urban Land Bureau is divided into eligible defendants and liability for this case.Through the evaluation of the case,the author believes that it should support the plaintiffs claim in the first instance,and determine that the case is a sale-leadeback type of financial leasing contract and is legal and effective.The sale-leadeback type of financial leasing contract should support the plaintiffs request to cancel due to the inability to cancel the contract.The contract,at the same time,requests for the recovery of the lease and compensation for the loss of the claim.According to the author's analysis,the Lingcheng District Government and the Lingcheng District Land and Resources Bureau have infringed on the interests of the plaintiff jointly with Huamao because of their responsibilities,and they constitute the appropriate relationship between the state's liability and tort liability in the application of the law.Qualified defendant.This case has a high timeliness and a high level of trial.The author hopes to give a certain reference to practice through the full text analysis.