trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nayPrecedent no. 08/2016/AL on commerical case regarding dispute over credit agreement

- Situation:

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties agree on interest, including: trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan, overdue interest rate, adjustment of interest rate in each period of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank/lending institution on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay unpaid amount up to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first-instance trial, or inadequate payment of principal and interest as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreement.

- Legal solution:

In this case, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must keep paying trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay unpaid principal and interest on principal within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan (if any), overdue interest on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay unpaid principal according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate agreed by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement until trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal is fully repaid. If trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties agree on adjustment of interest rate in each period of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank/lending institution, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate incurred by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower subject to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court’s decision shall be adjusted in conformity with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay adjusted interest rate of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank/lending institution.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lawsuit petition dated July 20, 2010 and available evidence in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file:

Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam  - Thang Long Branch (hereinafter referred to as Vietcombank) and Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Kaoli Company) concluded 4 credit agreements, including: Credit agreement No. 03/07/NHNT-TL dated December 25, 2007; No. 04/07/NHNT-TL dated December 28, 2007; No. 144/08/NHNT-TL dated March 28, 2008 and No. 234/08/NHNT-TL dated May 27, 2008. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above-mentioned credit agreements are secured by housing ownership right and land use right at:

- No. 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi City (land plot No. 46B+39C+37C, map No. 19) under ownership and right to use of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong (under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement No. 1678.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008; secured for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan and guarantee of up to VND 4,605,000,000; terms and conditions for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay said amount shall be specified in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay banking documents signed by Vietcombank and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal debtor (Kaoli Company) at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay head office of Vietcombank (Clause 1.2 Article 1); value of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral is VND 4,605,000,000 based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay valuation report No. 105/08/NHNT.TL; mortgage term is 5 years from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal debtor receives trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay disbursement of loan; trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement takes effect from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which it is registered at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right registration office (Clause 10.1 Article 10). This agreement was notarized by Public Notary Office No. 3 of Hanoi City on June 25, 2008 and certified by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Office of Natural Resources and Environment of Ba Dinh District that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage on land use right and property on land was registered on July 10, 2008. Earlier, on September 3, 2007, Mrs. Phuong and Vietcombank made a record of handover of mortgage and guarantee documentation, stating that: “trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties, at Thang Long Branch of Vietcombank, hand over original documentation of collateral to secure trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay obligations of Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint-Stock Company; property: housing ownership right and land use right at 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi” (case file p. 52).

- Group 13 Cluster 2 Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City under ownership and right to use of Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and his wife, Mrs. Do Thi Loan (under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement No. 1677.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008; secured for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan and guarantee of up to VND 1,250,000,000; terms and conditions for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay said amount shall be specified in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay banking documents signed by Vietcombank and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal debtor (Kaoli Company) at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay head office of Vietcombank (Clause 1.3 Article 1); value of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral is VND 1,250,000,000 based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay valuation report No. 106/08/NHNT.TL dated September 3, 2007 (Clause 3.1 Article 3); mortgage term is 5 years from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal debtor receives trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay disbursement of loan; trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement takes effect from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which it is registered at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right registration office (Clause 10.1 Article 10). This agreement was notarized by Public Notary Office No. 3 of Hanoi City on June 25, 2008 and certified by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Office of Natural Resources and Environment of Ba Dinh District that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage on land use right and property on land was registered on July 1, 2008. Earlier, on September 3, 2007, Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Vietcombank made a record of handover of mortgage and guarantee documentation, stating that: “trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties, at Thang Long Branch of Vietcombank, hand over original documentation of collateral to secure trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay obligations of Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint-Stock Company; property: housing ownership right and land use right at Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi” (case file p. 58a).

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay said credit agreements were also secured by house and land under right to use and right to own of Mr. Cao Ngoc Minh and his wife, Mrs. Doan Thi Thanh Thuy, house and land of Mr. Giang Cao Thang and his wife, Mrs. Duong Thi Sinh (trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage was released); land use right of Mr. Chu Quoc Khanh; house and land of Mrs. Chu Thi Hong and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh.

Following trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay said credit agreements, Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch disbursed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan amounts to Kaoli Company. Kaoli Company has just repaid partial principal and interest. Vietcombank filed a lawsuit with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court, claiming Kaoli Company to repay trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay debts of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay said 4 credit agreements of VND 8,197,957,837 (including: VND 5,457,000,000 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal, VND 397,149,467 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans, and VND 2,348,808,370 of overdue interest up to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first-instance trial date) and dealt with against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong; of Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan for debt collection.

Representation of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay defendant - Mr. Do Van Chinh, Director of Kaoli Company: He acknowledges that Kaoli Company still has principal and interest within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreements, overdue interests in debt under 4 credit agreements as stated by Vietcombank. He acknowledges Kaoli's liability to repay trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay debt according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay four credit agreements mentioned above and proposes a deferred repayment period of 5 years.

In case Kaoli Company fails to repay debts or fails to repay full debts and Vietcombank requires trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sale of collateral assets of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong, of Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court is required to settle according to regulations of law. Mr. Chinh confirms that Vietcombank disbursed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan amount before signing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement No. 1678.2008/HDTC on June 25, 2008 and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement No. 1677.2008 / HDTC on June 25, 2008. Since June 25, 2008, Kaoli Company has not borrowed another loan, has not signed any other credit agreement with Vietcombank.

Representation of persons with relevant rights and obligations:

- Statement of Mr. Nguyen Van Nghi (authorized representative of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong): Vietcombank sued Kaoli Company and asked trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sale of Mrs. Phuong's collateral in case Kaoli Company defaults on a loan obligation; he did not agree because Mrs. Phuong signed trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement on June 25, 2008, so she was not responsible for guaranteeing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan of Kaoli Company at Vietcombank under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay 04 credit agreements that Vietcombank is taking legal proceedings. Propose trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court to force Vietcombank to complete trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage release procedure and return trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of land use right and house ownership to Mrs. Phuong.

- Statement of Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan: They signed a mortgage agreement on June 25, 2008 but this agreement only secures Kaoli Company's loan at Vietcombank and will bear all responsibilities arising out from June 25, 2008 to April 25, 2009, and they will not take responsibility for any credit agreement signed before June 25, 2008 between Vietcombank and Kaoli Company. According to Vietcombank, Vietcombank has not signed any credit agreement with Kaoli Company since June 25, 2008. Thus, their legal responsibility has not yet arisen. Propose trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court to force Vietcombank to release trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral under a mortgage agreement dated June 25, 2008 for them.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Commercial Judgment No. 32/2011/KDTM-ST dated March 24, 2011, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Court of Hanoi City judged:

“1. Accept partial lawsuit petition of Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade against Kaoli Company. Force Kaoli Company to pay to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Bank trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay total amount of principal and interest of VND 8,197,957,837.

2. Refuse Vietcombank’s request for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sale of assets which are ownership of houses and land use rights at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots No. 46B + 39C + 37C, map No. 19 , No. 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi City according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of housing ownership and land use rights No. 10101132587 issued by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People's Committee of Ba Dinh District on April 27, 2004 to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay value of house ownership and land use rights at Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of housing ownership and land use right in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot No. 13 + 64A (1 part), map No. 04 at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay address Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of housing ownership and land use right No. 10103090899 by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People's Committee of Hanoi issued on March 23, 2004 to Nguyen Dang Duyen and his wife, Mrs. Do Thi Loan.

Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam is responsible for returning all documents of house ownership and land use rights and completing procedures to release collateral for Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan”.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance decided trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee and announced trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appeal right to litigants as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

On April 4, 2011, Vietcombank filed an appeal.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Commercial Judgment No. 148/2011/KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Hanoi, based on Clause 2 of Article 275 and Clause 1 of Article 276 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Code, decided:

"Correct trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Commercial Judgment No. 32/2011/KDTM-ST dated March 23 and 24, 2011 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People's Court of Hanoi on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantee obligation for Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan, in specific:

Judges: Records of handover of collateral, mortgage and guarantee documents dated September 3, 2007 between Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan are considered as guarantee agreements (case file p. 52, 58a).

Forcing Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company to repay Vietcombank trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay total amount of principal and interest in debt of VND 8,197,957,837...

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay event that Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company does not fulfill its obligations or fails to fulfill its debt repayment obligation to Vietcombank, Vietcombank may request trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi City to deal with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral in accordance with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nayLaw on Civil Judgment Enforcementto recover debts under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantor's responsibility.

...... From trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Judgment takes legal effect and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment creditor files a request for judgment enforcement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment debtor must also pay interest on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay delayed judgment amount according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay base interest rate quoted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay State Bank corresponding to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment enforcement delay time”.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal also decided trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fees and judgment enforcement.

After appellate trial, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong; Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan have applied many applications for reviewing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above Appellate Judgment under cassation procedures.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal No. 34/2012/KDTM-KN dated October 15, 2012, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court requested trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Council of Judges of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court to review trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case under cassation procedure in order to quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above Appellate Judgment No. 148/2011/KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi; and then refer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi city for re-conducting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay cassation trial court hearing, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Procuracy consents to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal made by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court.

1. Quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Commercial Judgment No. 148/2011/ KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Hanoi on dispute over credit agreements between trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay plaintiff, Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay defendant, Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company and persons with related rights and obligations, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong, Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen, and Mrs. Do Thi Loan.

2. Refer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Court of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Hanoi for appellate re-

“trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal decided: " From trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Judgment takes legal effect and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment creditor files a request for judgment enforcement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment debtor must also pay interest on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay delayed judgment amount according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay base interest rate quoted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay State Bank corresponding to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment enforcement delay time”. They were wrong decisions. For loans of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank/lending institutions, in addition to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal and interest within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of agreement, overdue interest, fees that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must pay to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lender under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreement up to first instance trial date, from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay next day of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance hearing date, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must continue to bear trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay overdue interest of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay unpaid principal amount according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate agreed upon by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties in agreement until trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal is fully repaid. In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case where under a credit agreement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties have an agreement on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay adjustment of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate in each period of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must continue to pay to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay decision trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court will also be adjusted to suit trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate adjustment of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank.”

Considering agreements on mortgage on land use rights and property on land to guarantee bank loans taken out by a third party (Notarization No. 1677.2008/HDTC and 1678.2008/HDTC on June 25, 2008):

Both agreements on mortgage on land use rights and property on land to guarantee a third-party’s loan from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank do not indicate trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan under a specific credit agreement and were signed after 04 credit agreements (No. 03/07/NHNT-TL dated December 25, 2007; No. 04/07/NHNT-TL dated December 28, 2007; No. 144/08/NHNT-TL dated March 28, 2008 and No. 234/08/NHNT-TL dated May 27, 2008) under which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans were disbursed by Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch. According to clause 1.3 of Article 1 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above two mortgage agreements: "trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay detailed conditions for borrowing and lending trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above-mentioned amount (trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay secured obligation is trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loan and loan guarantee of up to VND 4,605 .000.000 ...; - Clause 1.2 Article 1 Mortgage agreement) will be specified in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay banking documents that Party B (Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch) and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal debtor will sign at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay office of Party B (Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch) ”, it could be understood that Mrs. Phuong, Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan only guarantee Kaoli Company’s loans under credit agreements which will be signed at Vietcombank's office following trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date of signing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreements (June 25, 2008), not guaranteeing trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans under 04 credit agreements signed earlier.

Vietcombank also refers to Clause 6.2 of Article 6 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay four credit agreements mentioned above on loan security measures with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay contents (handwritten) below: "trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay detailed agreements on assets, rights and obligations of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties specified in ... Mortgage agreement No. 1677.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008 and Mortgage agreement No. 1678.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008" to ask trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court to force Mrs. Phuong, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan to guarantee trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans of Kaoli Company under 04 credit agreements mentioned above. But trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of Vietcombank, at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance trial, also confirmed that these were "written by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank's accountant". At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay trial of first instance, Mr. Do Van Chinh - Director of Kaoli Company said: “Kaoli Company does not know about this interlineation” and “Disagree with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Bank's request for sale of collateral. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay assets of Mrs. Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan were later inserted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Bank in credit agreements”.

On trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay other hand, at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay authorized representative of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong said that Nguyen Thi Phuong did not receive any credit agreement from Vietcombank; and Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan have received credit agreements from Vietcombank. Thus, Mr. Chinh, Mrs. Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan do not know trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interlineation written by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank accountant in credit agreements. They did not sign trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreements, so there is no ground to determine that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above credit agreements are secured by mortgage agreements No. 1677.2008/HDTC and 1678.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008.

Besides trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay two mortgage agreements mentioned above, in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file, there are 02 documents related to mortgage on property: 01 set of Mrs. Phuong; 01 set of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan; in each set, there are: Property valuation report and property handover record dated September 3, 2007; application for mortgage registration (dated January 29, 2008 by Mrs. Phuong; dated June 25, 2008 by Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan). However, these report and record do not clarify trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans of specific credit agreements.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal identified (summarized): "trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay records of handover of collateral, mortgage and guarantee documents between Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch with Mrs Phuong, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan established on September 3, 2007 all have contents related to mortgage and guarantee for obligations of Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank ... so this is an agreement ... ". And trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal declared: "trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay records of handover of collateral, mortgage and guarantee documents dated September 3, 2007 between Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan are considered as guarantee agreements (case file p. 52, 58a)” and “In case Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company fails to perform its obligations or fails to perform complete debt repayment to Vietcombank, Vietcombank has trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to request Hanoi Civil Judgment Enforcement Department to deal with collateral in accordance with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement to recover debt under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantor's guarantee responsibility”.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above judgment and decision of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal are unfounded and not in accordance with law. Because:

- trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay records of handover of collateral, mortgage and guarantee documents on September 3, 2007 between Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong (as well as between Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan) with Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch are not considered as guarantee agreements as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal determined.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial on August 17, 2011, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of Vietcombank only determined: "trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay record of property handover and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property valuation report are an integral part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property mortgage agreement".

- According to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay record of handover of collateral, mortgage, guarantee documents, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property valuation report and presentation of Vietcombank's representatives at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial, while trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date of handover of documents and property valuation was September 3, 2007, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement between Mrs. Phuong (as well as Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan) with Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch was signed on June 25, 2008 (after trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay record of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay handover of property documents and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property valuation report), so it is impossible to consider these record and report as an integral part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement mentioned above. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal also identified: "Mortgage agreement on June 25, 2008 ...is not related to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay records of handover of documents...".

- According to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date recorded in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay record and presentation of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of Vietcombank at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date of handover of document(trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay original copy of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of house ownership and land use right) and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property valuation date is September 3, 2007, but trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property valuation reports state: Based on land price schedule in districts in Hanoi issued together with Decision No. 150/2007/QDUBND dated December 28, 2007 of Hanoi City People's Committee" and this record are an integral part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreement No. 1678.2008/HDTC and No. 1677.2008/HDTC on June 25, 2008. Particularly for Mrs. Phuong's case, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay value of residential land use right is determined according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay actual land price determination record dated September 4, 2007 and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay application for mortgage registration of Mrs. Phuong dated January 29, 2007. 2008, in specific:: "Mortgage agreement No. 1678.2008 / HDTC was signed on June 25, 2008". On trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay other hand, according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay presentation and documents presented by Mrs. Phuong, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan, on September 3, 2007, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay house and land of Mrs. Phuong were being mortgaged at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay AgriBank - Quang An Branch, Tay Ho District, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage were not released until January 11, 2008; while trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay house and land of Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan mortgaged at VPBank - Thang Long Branch was not released until January 16, 2008.

With trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above items of evidence, there are grounds to conclude: trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay record of handover of collateral, mortgage, guarantee and property valuation report were not made on September 3, 2007, certificate of house ownership and land use right was not be handed over on September 3, 2007, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay valuation was not carried out on September 3, 2007 as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of Vietcombank presented and accepted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal.

On September 3, 2007, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay agreement on mortgage on and guarantee of land use right and property on land must be notarized and registered for security transactions in accordance with Point a, Clause 1, Article 130 of Land Law 2003; at Point a, Section 1, Article 12 of Decree 163/ND-CP dated December 29, 2006 and in Subsection 2.4, Section 2 of Joint Circular No. 03/2006/TTLT-BTP-BTNMT dated June 13, 2006; rather than exemption from notarization and security transaction registration as determined by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal was improper and incorrect when considering that records of handover of documents as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantee agreement while having not clarified any other evidence proving that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mortgage agreements signed by Mrs. Phuong, Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan were guaranteed for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans under 04 credit agreements of Kaoli Company. Because these records cannot be a guarantee agreement, considering both trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay format and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay content.

- If there are grounds to believe that mortgage agreements dated June 25, 2008 of Mrs. Phuong and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay married couple Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan were guaranteed for trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay loans under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreements mentioned above, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantee agreement of Mrs. Phuong only guarantees a loan of up to VND 4,605,000,000; guarantee agreement of Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan only guarantees a loan of up to VND 1,250,000,000. Meanwhile, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal identified trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay records of handover of collateral, mortgage and guarantee documents dated September 3, 2007 as guarantee agreements and declared: "In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case where Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company fails to fulfill its obligations or fails to fulfill full repayment obligation to Vietcombank, Vietcombank has trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to request trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi City to deal with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay collateral under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay provisions of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Judgment Enforcement Law to recover debts under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantor's responsibility". It could be understood that Mrs. Phuong, Mr. Duyen and Mrs. Loan take guarantee responsibility for paying all debts of Kaoli Company and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court did not clearly define trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay guarantee responsibilities of Mrs. Phuong, Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan. It was a wrong decision.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal decided: "From trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Judgment takes legal effect and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment creditor files a request for judgment enforcement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment debtor must still pay interests on delayed enforcement amount according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay basic interest rate quoted by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay State Bank corresponding to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay judgment enforcement delay. It was also a wrong decision. For loans of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay bank/lending institutions, in addition to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal and interest within trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay term of agreement, overdue interest, fees that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must pay to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lender under trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay credit agreement up to first instance trial date, from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay next day of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance hearing date, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must continue to bear trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay overdue interest of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay unpaid principal amount according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate agreed upon by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties in agreement until trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay principal is fully repaid. In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case where under a credit agreement, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parties have an agreement on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay adjustment of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate in each period of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay borrower must continue to pay to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay decision trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court will also be adjusted to suit trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay interest rate adjustment of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay lending bank.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 299 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Code (amended in 2011),