The Responsibility Of The Supervisor In The Dynamic Pledge

Dynamic pledge has the quality of material mobility and strong guarantee,so that the traditional meaning of the long-term “Idle” pledge system has been revitalized.Dynamic pledge is different from traditional pledge because of the supervisor’s joining and the establishment of the lowest value line.In the dynamic pledge system,first of all,it should be made clear that the Dynamic Pledge Supervision Agreement is a joint contract,which contains two legal relations,it is the entrustment relationship between the pledgee and the supervisor,and the custodian relationship between the Pledgee and the supervisor.The pledgee plays the dual role of the Pledgee’s trustee and the Pledgee’s custodian.It should be made clear that,in the absence of Special Agreement on supervision,the custody obligation of the material object should belong to the pledgee and not the pledgee,and the supervisor should have the supervision obligation to the pledgee,which is in the custody of the pledgee.Based on this,it is more appropriate to distinguish whether the pledge right should be established as the node of the legal liability that the supervisor should bear for the loss of material damage when the Pledgee’s claim can ‘t be realized.According to the first paragraph of article 55 of our country’s judicial interpretation of guaranty system,when the supervisor actually controls material things,the pledge right is established.Except that the pledgee has not handed over the pledge and the Pledgee knows about it,the pledge right has not been established,and there is also the case of the Pledgee colluding with the supervisor to make a false pledge.In this regard,in the case of the Supreme Court Bulletin,it is held that the main responsibility of the false pledge lies with the pledgee,and the supervisor only continues the situation of the false pledge,so it is decided that the supervisor should bear a certain proportion of the supplementary liability.The courts have since followed the guidelines of the Supreme Court in such cases.But in fact,if the supervisor tells the pledgee the details,then the pledgee’s loss can be avoided,and the supervisor,as a professional logistics company,not only fails to fulfill the high duty of care,on the contrary,if the pledgee cooperates with the pledgee to defraud the bank loan,it should be considered that the pledgee intentionally damages the pledgee’s interests subjectively,and that the pledgee and the pledgee constitute joint tort,and the Pledgee should be jointly and severally liable for the losses caused to the pledgee.Article 55(2)of the judicial interpretation of the guaranty system only vaguely stipulates that “If the creditor requests the supervisor to bear the responsibility,the People’s court shall support it”,and regarding the nature of the responsibility that the supervisor should bear,it is necessary to state.For the pledge after the establishment of material damage and loss,the above-mentioned provisions will be defined as the liability for breach of contract.Such liability would apply if the supervisor delivered the goods in breach of contract or in poor custody.It should be made clear that,in the absence of special agreement,the supervisor should assume custody obligations to the pledgee and not the pledgee.Secondly,the liability for breach of contract that the supervisor should bear should be based on the principle of fault,rather than strict liability or presumption of fault.On the other hand,the judicial practice and theory tend to think that the supervisor should bear the supplementary liability because of the loss of material damage caused by their own fault.However,supplementary liability is clearly stipulated in the civil code of our country,and can’t be borrowed at will in the absence of unified general provisions of the Law of debt.The discussion of “Supplementary liability” in the case of breach of contract by supervisor is because it must be based on the pre-procedure of making clear the liability of the pledgee to the pledgee,and only the scope of the debts that the pledgee fails to repay has been determined,it is “Supplementary” that the supervisor takes the smaller one to bear the liability in the scope of the creditor’s unrealized claims and material losses.As for the influence of the Pledgee’s behavior on the scope of the supervisor’s liability,it should be made clear that the Pledgee’s statutory review obligation is not mandatory,and its failure to fulfill this obligation is not enough to reduce the supervisor’s liability.However,the Pledgee has the obligation of derogation,and its failure to fulfill the obligation constitutes the cause of the supervisor’s derogation.The article 55 of the judicial interpretation of guarantee system in our country has some defects,such as misreading the relationship between the subjects of dynamic pledge and the unclear nature of the supervisor’s responsibility when the pledge right is not set up,which should be improved.