Fujian Zhongfu Industrial Co., Ltd. invalid connection.

Judicial relief and reflection on undertaking guarantee responsibility. The undertaking of relevant guarantee liabilities of listed companies is not only the continuation of the effectiveness of the audit guarantee contract, but also the ultimate realization of legal consequences. In fact, it contains the following questions: under what circumstances does the guarantor bear the liability for compensation? How to determine the share of liability for compensation? How to determine the debt ratio of guarantor, creditor and debtor? Can the guarantor recover from the debtor after assuming the responsibility? Wait a minute. Judging from China's judicial practice, the guarantor should bear the responsibility according to the provisions of the guarantee contract when the guarantee is effective. However, in the case of invalid guarantee, the responsibility of the guarantor is more complicated. Generally speaking, it is customary to judge whether the creditor is at fault if the guarantee is invalid. If the creditor is not at fault, the debtor and the guarantor shall bear joint liability. If the creditor or guarantor is at fault, the part of the guarantor that bears civil liability shall not exceed half of the part that the debtor cannot pay off. For example, in the case of China Agricultural Bank Qianjiang Sub-branch v. Happiness Group loan guarantee, the court held that ST Happiness violated the requirements of the Company Law by providing loan guarantee for its major shareholder Happiness Group. As a professional financial institution, its creditor, Qianjiang Sub-branch of Agricultural Bank of China, failed to carefully investigate the qualifications of the guarantor, so both parties to the guarantee contract were at fault, and ST Happiness was liable for 50% of the debts that Happiness Group could not repay. [36] In the case of China Industrial and Commercial Bank Du Min Sub-branch v. Zhongfu Economic Cooperation Company, although the court of first instance ruled that the defendant should repay the principal and interest of the loan, Fujian Zhongfu Industrial Co., Ltd., which provided the guarantee, was jointly and severally liable and the guarantee was valid. However, the second instance ruled that the loan guarantee made by Zhongfu Industrial Co., Ltd. for its major shareholder Zhongfu Economic Cooperation Company in the repayment agreement was invalid, and Zhongfu Industrial Co., Ltd. assumed the repayment obligation of not more than half of China Fujian International Economic and Technical Cooperation Company. Although on the surface, the court made a relatively consistent judgment in strict accordance with the current judicial interpretation, a prominent problem in practice is how to judge the fault of the creditor and the fault of the guarantor because the content of the judicial interpretation is still relatively rough. And this problem directly determines the sharing of responsibilities. So this problem has not been solved, and the final judgment is worthy of scrutiny in essence.