论文部分内容阅读
甲公司和乙公司均为地方管辖的国有企业,其主管单位均为当地财政局。为了资金周转的需要,乙公司于1999年6月20日向银行申请贷款1350万元,期限一年。甲公司以其厂房建筑物为乙公司的贷款提供抵押担保,抵押金额1350万元。银行与甲公司签订抵押合同后到当地的房屋管理局办理了抵押物登记。借款到期后,乙公司无力还债,银行向法院起诉,要求行使抵押权,拍卖甲公司的厂房。在审理中,甲公司提出,其属于财政局下属的国有企业,而其为乙公司的银行贷款提供抵押担保,未征得财政局的同意,因此属于无效担保,甲公司不应承担担保责任。
Both Company A and Company B are state-owned enterprises under the jurisdiction of local governments, and their supervisors are all local financial bureaus. In order to capital turnover needs, Company B in June 20, 1999 to apply for a loan of 13.5 million yuan from the bank for a period of one year. A company with its plant buildings for the B company loans to provide mortgage guarantees, the amount of 13.5 million yuan mortgage. Bank and A company signed a mortgage contract to the local Housing Authority for the registration of collateral. After the loan expired, Company B was unable to repay the debt. The bank sued the court for the exercise of the mortgage and the auction of the workshop of a company. During the hearing, Company A proposed that it belongs to a state-owned enterprise affiliated with the Financial Bureau, which provided mortgage guarantee for the bank loan of Company B and obtained no guarantee from the Finance Bureau. Therefore, Company A should not bear the guarantee responsibility.