NINGBO MARITIME COURT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
CIVIL JUDGMENT
(2017) Zhe 72 Ming Chu No. 720
|
Claimant: |
Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited. |
|
Domicile: |
32/F, Tower 2, Kowloon Commerce Certre, No.51 Kwai Cheong Road, Kwai Chung, N.T., Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. |
|
Legal Representative: |
Shu Yigang, Director. |
|
Agent ad litem: |
Fang Yi, Lawyer of Wintell & Co. Shanghai Office. |
|
Agent ad litem: |
|
|
Defendant: |
Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD. |
|
Domicile: |
25-11 Yoido-Dong,Yongdeungpo-Gu,Seoul, Republic of Korea. |
|
|
|
With respect to the lawsuit filed by the Claimant Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) against the Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) about dispute over shipping container lease contract, the Court, after accepted and registered the case on 11 April 2017, formed a collegiate bench and applied common procedure to try the case in accordance with laws. The court hearing was held in public on 5 September 2017, the agents ad litem Fang Yi and Liu Chang for and on behalf of the Claimant attended the court hearing. The Defendant, having been served with a summon, refused to appear in court without justified reasons, the Court tried the case by default in accordance with laws. This case has been tried and concluded now.
The Claimant requested the Court to order that: 1) the Defendant should pay the Claimant the rent USD 2,414,323.86, and the interest thereof from the day when the payment was due to the actual payment day at the loan interest rate publicized by the People’s Bank of China over the same period; 2) the Defendant should pay the Claimant for the compensation of container depreciated value of USD 37,989,022.05, due to the Defendant’s default which causing the termination of the contract, and the Defendant should also pay the Claimant the loss of container rent from the day the Claimant issued the Termination Notice to the Defendant to the actual payment day, and the interests of above mentioned two items at the loan interest rate publicized by the People’s Bank of China over the same period; and 3) the Defendant should bear the court fee, property preservation application fee, attorney’s fee and other fees and costs. In court hearing, the Claimant altered the claims to the following: 1) the Defendant should pay the Claimant the rent by the date of 31 August 2016 of USD 2,790,565.88, and the interest thereof by a monthly rate of 2%; 2) the Defendant should pay the rent of USD 987,820.49 for 8666 containers that had actually redelivered, calculated from 31August 2016 to the day when the Claimant redelivered the containers; 3) the Defendant should pay the depreciated value of USD 9,428,308.42 for 2882 containers which had not been redelivered; 4) the Defendant should pay the attorney’s fee of RMB 159,671.8 and the notary fee of RMB 15,000 paid by the Claimant by 1 August 2017; 5) the Defendant should bear the court fee and property preservation application fee.
Facts and reasons for the Claimant’s claims: On 15 August 2006, Dong Fang International Investment Limited signed the Lease Contract HJS001-LT with the Defendant. On 23 July 2014, Dong Fang International Investment Limited, the Claimant and the Defendant jointly signed the Extension and Novation of Lease Contract, agreed that Dong Fang International Investment Limited assigned all the rights, duties and liabilities under the Lease Contract to the Defendant, which made the Claimant and the Defendant to be the parties to the Lease Contract. During the period from 2010 to 2015, the Claimant and the Defendant had signed 7 container lease contracts successively, namely the Lease Contract DF-HJ20003 on 1 July 2010, the Lease Contract DF-HJ20004 on 29 April 2011 and two supplementary contracts thereafter, the Lease Contract DF-HJ20005 on 21 July 2011 and a supplementary contracts thereafter, the Lease Contract DF-HJ30006 on 26 August 2011, the Lease Contract DF-HJ20007 on 9 January 2013, the Lease Contract DF-HJ20009 on 1 February 2015, and the Container Lease Agreement DF-HJ50011 on 1 October 2015. It was agreed in those 8 contracts, the Claimant, as the lessor, lent containers to the lessee Defendant, and the mode, quantity, depreciated rate, replacement value and rent of the leased containers, as well as the method for dispute resolution and applicable laws were prescribed. The Claimant sent monthly bills of rent to the Defendant at the end of every month, with the rent and date of outstanding payment specified in the bills which was in accordance with the contracts. Besides, according to notice sent by the Defendant aperiodically regarding total loss of containers, the Claimant issued invoice of the total loss to claim for depreciated replacement value of the containers. The notice, bills of rent and total loss was sent by email between the Claimant and the Defendant.
According to the bills and bank transfer vouchers submitted by the Claimant, the bills of rent and total loss for the period from September 2015 to August 2016 had been sent to the Defendant. From 7 October 2015 to 29 July 2016, the Defendant paid a total amount of USD 1,797,444.58 in 8 installments, which plus bank charges and the tax thereof, was identical to the invoice amount of USD 1,832,432.09, thus the amount owed was USD 2,790,565.88. Meanwhile, the Claimant sent notice of account change to the Defendant on 18 August 2016 and such change took effect from 31 August 2016.
On 3 June 2016, the Claimant sent a letter of Demanding Overdue Payment to the Defendant, asking for correcting of breaches. On 2 September 2016, the Claimant sent a written notice to the Defendant, asking for return of containers and payment for the overdue rent. On 28 September 2016, the Defendant sent a letter asserting that all of the container lease contracts had been terminated since 1 September 2016. By 31 March 2017, 8666 containers had been redelivered by the Claimant and 2882 hadn’t. The Claimant also paid the attorney’s fee and notary fee for protecting his rights. Therefore, the parties disputed and this case was brought to suit by the Claimant.
The Defendant did not submit any written defense to the Court.
To support the claims, the Claimant submitted the following evidence:
1. Series of Standard Container Lease Agreements, including Lease Contract HJS001-LT, Lease Contract DF-HJ20003, Lease Contract DF-HJ20004 and 2 supplementary agreements, Lease Contract DF-HJ20005 and the supplementary agreement, Lease Contract DF-HJ30006, Lease Contract DF-HJ20007, Lease Contract DF-HJ20009, and Container Lease Agreement DF-HJ50011, to prove that there exited series of container lease contracts between the Claimant and the Defendant by which the Claimant lent containers to the Defendant and charged rents accordingly;
2. A summary sheet of the sum of damages, to prove that up to 30 August 2016, the overdue payment of the Defendant was USD 2790565.88 and USD 698685.02 as interest, after 31 August 2016, the due payment of rent was USD 987820.49, the Depreciated value of the 2882 containers which had not been redelivered was USD 9428308.42;
3. From September 2015 to August 2016, the invoices that the Claimant sent to the Defendant, and the statement of the Claimant of changing accounts, to prove that the Claimant had sent the invoices of 12months to the Defendant, among them the form of the invoice of August 2016 changed because of the change of the accounts of the Claimant, the Defendant had only paid part of the fees stated on the above invoices;
4. The invoices sent by the Claimant to the Defendant from September 2015 to August 2016 about the total loss of containers, to prove that according to the notice of the Defendant of total loss of containers, the Claimant sent the total loss invoice to the Defendant, the Defendant only paid part of the fees;
5. Bank statement of the paid invoices and transfer vouchers, to prove that the Defendant only paid part of fees of the invoices sent by the Claimant, and the Claimant and the Defendant performed the container lease contract actually;
6. Notice For Overdue Payment of 3 June 2016, to prove that the Claimant sent a written breach notice to the Defendant, demanding the Defendant to correct the breach;
7. Termination Notice of 2 September 2016, to prove that the Claimant sent Termination Notice to the Defendant by email on 2 September 2016 to terminate the above containers lease agreements without prejudice to the rights for compensation;
8. The announcement of terminating the contracts sent by the Defendant to the Claimant on 28 September 2016, to prove that on 28 September 2016 the Defendant made an announcement to confirm that all the container lease contracts with the Claimant have been terminated on 1 September 2016;
9. Electronic Data Interchange of renting/redelivering containers, to prove that up to 31 August 2016 the Claimant still had 11548 containers lent to the Defendant, and the specific information about the redelivered containers later, and the Depreciated value of the containers which had not been redelivered;
10. Invoice of attorney’s fees and account voucher, to prove the legal fees, such as attorney’s fees, incurred by the Claimant because of the breach of the Defendant;
11. Invoice of notary fees, transfer voucher and receipt, to prove the legal fees, such as notary fees, incurred by the Claimant because of the breach of the Defendant;
12. Notarization of the Electronic Data Interchange, to prove that the data of related containers was automatic generated and downloaded from the management system of the Claimant, among them the information of variations of the containers was obtained from the third party by EDI, having the feature of authenticity and objectiveness;
13. Notarization of the emails, to prove that the invoices and the notice between the Claimant and the Defendant were made through the form of emails;
14. The ruling made by the High Court of the UK, to prove that on 6 September 2016 the High Court of the UK made a ruling to forbid anyone or any company to take legal actions in the UK, including arbitration, litigation, execution, etc.
The Defendant did not submit any evidence.
Through the proceedings, the court held that the Defendant did not cross examine before the court nor did they submit any evidence, the right of cross-examination was deemed to be waived. The Claimant’s evidence 1,5,10,11 were original, evidence 12,13,14 were notarized, evidence 12,13 proved the authenticity of evidence 3,4,6,7,8,9 in term of the form of evidence, evidence 2 was generated by the Claimant himself, but it was a summary on the base of evidence 12,13. The Claimant’s evidence involved EDI data, which was the abbreviation of Electronic Data Interchange, it was an international standard launched by ISO and a universally used core technique in the industry of international container shipping. EDI was a mature, effective, flexible and safe platform for file exchange on which the users could transfer and exchange the related business documents and messages by different communication modes, transport protocols and format standards in a convenient, rapid, safe and dependable way, making the information transferred by the messages shared in the operating system. As widely used in the international container circulation area, the Hong Kong port, the Rotterdam port, the Tianjin port and the Ningbo port having all used this system, EDI was quite professional and objective. In conclusion, the court affirmed all the evidence submitted by the Claimant.
According to the statements of litigants and the effective evidence affirmed by the Court, the following facts were affirmed:
On 15 August 2006, Dong Fang International Investment Limited signed Lease Contract HJS001-LT with the Defendant. On 23 July 2014, the Claimant, the Defendant and Dong Fang International Investment Limited jointly sighed the Extension and Novation of Lease Contract, agreeing on that Dong Fang International Investment Limited would assign all the rights, duties and liabilies under Lease Contract HJS001-LT to the Claimant. From 2010 to 2015, 7 container lease contracts had been successively reached between the Claimant and the Defendant, which were Lease Contract DF-HJ20003 signed on 1 July 2010, Lease Contract DF-HJ20004 signed on 29 April 2011 and 2 supplementary agreements following, Lease Contract DF-HJ20005 signed on 21 July 2011 and a supplementary agreement following, Lease Contract DF-HJ30006 signed on 26 August 2011, Lease Contract DF-HJ20007 signed on 9 January 2013, Lease Contract DF-HJ20009 signed on 1 February 2015, and Container Lease Agreement DF-HJ50011 signed on 1 October 2015. By these 8 contracts it was agreed that the Claimant as leaser lent containers to the Defendant as lessee.
The above container lease contracts were all made up by two parts. The first part was in the form of diagrams, stipulating the modes and quantity of the lent containers (in Box 5), Depreciated value (in Box 5), daily rent (in Box 5), daily rent after the return date (in Box 5), start date of rent (in Box 6), handover fee of the earliest expire date (in Box 7), direct handover fee (in Box 8), inform days of repair (in Box 9), place of delivery (in Box 10), place of return (in Box 11), other costs including off-hire service charge (in Box 12), billing address of leasee (in Box 13), account information of leasor (in Box 14), number of days of payment (60 days, in Box 15), termination notice (in Box 16), etc.; the second part is the general container lease agreement which is applicable to all contracts, combined with the first part, affirming the specific rights and duties of parties in the form of text. The specific contents of the articles related to dispute are as followed:
Definitions
Depreciated Value means the amount agreed to be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor as replacement for Equipment lost or damaged beyond repair.
Duration of the Agreement
All terms and conditions of this Agreement shall take effect from the date in Box 2 and shall remain in force until all equipment covered by this Agreement has been redelivered.
The period of lease for the full amount of Equipment stated Box 5 shall commence on the date stated in Box 6 and shall continue at least until the date stated in Box 7.
Title to Equipment, Sub-lease and Direct Interchange and Compliance
(c) The Lessee may transfer Equipment to a third party in a Direct Interchange, but only with the Lessor’s written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. When the third party has confirmed to the Lessor its agreement with such a transfer, the Lessee’s obligations to pay rental shall cease and a Direct Interchange fee as stated in Box 8 shall be paid by the Lessee to the Lessor.
Pick-ups and Drop-offs
The Lessee may pick up Equipment in the minimum quantities by the Lessor’s consent per period of time indicated at each of the Lessor’s depots stated in Box 10. Save for the provisions of Clauses 9 and 10 such Equipment shall remain on hire for at least the period stipulated in Clause 2(b).
Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Lessee may redeliver any of the Equipment, to any of the Lessor’s depots designated in Box 11 which may contain permissible redelivery quota and drop off charges, or as may from time to time be mutually agreed. Redelivery will terminate this Agreement insofar as it relates to the redelivered Equipment. The Lessor shall endeavour to confirm in writing to the Lessee the offhire date and offhire depot within 7 working days after the physical return of the Equipment.
Rental and other Charges, Payment
In consideration for leasing the Equipment from the Lessor, the Lessee shall, as from the pick-up date, be liable to pay to the Lessor, as rent, the per diem leasing rate specified in Box 5, as well as any other charges which may be agreed upon and enumerated in Box 12. The Lessee’s obligations to pay rental will cease on the day after redelivery into any of the Lessor’s designated depots.
(c) Payment shall be made by the Lessee to the Lessor’s bank account as stated in Box 14, within the number of working days stated in Box 15 of the date of the Lessor’s invoice. If the invoice is not paid when due Lessor shall have the right to charge the Lessee interest of 2% compounded per month for each month or part month that the payment remains outstanding.
(d) The Lessee shall endeavor to give written notice to the Lessor of any disputed items on the Lessor’s invoice. The Lessor will endeavor to reconcile disputed items within the number of days stated in Box 9 by either providing supporting documents for such items or by issuing an appropriate adjustment of the invoice. Notification of disputed items shall not prejudice the obligation of the Lessee to pay the undisputed portion of any invoice within the number of days stated in Box 15 after receipt.
Default
An act of default consists of failing to observe any material condition of this Agreement or of any other agreement which may exist between Lessor and Lessee. Should Lessee commie an act of default and, after written notice from Lessor, fail to correct such default within 15 days, Lessor may, without releasing Lessee of its obligations under this Agreement, terminate the Agreement, declare due and payable all amounts owing under this Agreement, including reasonable attorney’s fees, require the immediate return of the Equipment to the Redelivery Locations or take possession of the Equipment, fee of any claims of Lessee. Lessor may utilise such legal remedies as may be available to it and may retake possession of the Equipment or any items thereof, and may enter upon any premises belonging to or in the occupation or control of Lessee. Should Lessor be unable take possession of the Equipment within 30 days of the notice of Dufault, Lessee will then pay Lessor an amount, equal to the Depreciated Value as stipulated as calculated from Box 5, for all Equipment which has not been redelivered in accordance with Clause 5.
Liabilities and Indemnity
The Lessee shall be liable to the Lessor for the actual or constructive total loss of, or damage, normal Wear and Tear excepted, to any Equipment occurring during the period of this Agreement.
The Lessee shall immediately notify the Lessor in writing of any actual or constructive total loss of any Equipment and upon such notice and the Lessee’s agreement to pay the depreciated replacement value the Lessee’s obligations to pay rental shall cease, provided that the applicable Depreciated Value is paid within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of Lessor’s invoice. Otherwise, the unit shall be off-hired on the date the invoice is paid. In the event that such actual or constructive total loss occurs, the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor the Depreciated Value of the such Equipment within sixty(60) calendar days of the date of Lessor’s invoice, which transfers the ownership of said Equipment to the Lessee. If actual or constructive total loss of any Equipment is not determined until after redelivery has taken place, the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor the Depreciated Value of such Equipment on the date of such determination but ownership of said Equipment shall remain with the Lessor.
(b) The Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold the lessor harmless for any all claims, losses, expenses, costs or of damages( including without limitation all reasonable expenses in defending any claim or suit or enforcing this indemnity, such as court costs, attorney’s fees, and other expenses) arising or alleged to arise directly or indirectly or incidentally out of:
15. Governing Law and Arbitration
This Agreement shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with English law and any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of the Clause.
The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms current at the time when the arbitration proceedings are commenced.
After the above agreement was signed, during the normal performance of the Claimant and the Defendant, at the end of each month, the Claimant sent an invoice by email to the Defendant under the respective agreement. The invoice stated the specific amount of rent, the date of payment, and the number of containers in rent.
On 18 August 2016, the Claimant sent a notice to the Defendant to change the bank account and the Claimant’s account was changed from 31 August 2016. Corresponding to the total container loss notification sent by the Defendant from time to time, the Claimant issued a total loss statement to claim the depreciated value of the relevant container. From September 2015 to August 2016, the amount of invoices sent by the Claimant to the Defendant was USD 4,623,979.07 in total. From 7 October 2015 to 29 July 2016, the Defendant paid a total of USD 1,799744.58 in 8 installments, plus bank charges and corresponding taxes, which was equivalent to USD 1,831,430.09 in invoices, thus the amount owed was USD 2,790,655.88. On 2 September 2016, the Claimant sent a written notice to the Defendant to assert his claims and required the Defendant to correct the breach as soon as possible. The Defendant sent a letter on 28 September 2016 stating that it had terminated all container lease contracts with the Claimant starting from 1 September 2016.
It was also found that as of 31 August 2016, a total of 11,548 containers were under lease, and as of 31 March 2017, the Claimant had redelivered 8,666 containers and 2882 containers had not been redelivered. The Claimant paid the attorney's fees and notary fees for filing the lawsuit. Among them, RMB 15,9671.8 was paid for the attorney's fees to Wintell & Co Shanghai Office, and HKD15,000 was paid for the notary fees. The Claimant filed an application for property preservation prior to filing a lawsuit on 12 September 2016. The court granted the permission and made a civil ruling of（2016）Zhe 72 Cai Bao NO.51 on the next day to freeze the equity and investment income corresponding to 34% of the shares of Zhejiang Dongbang Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. held by the Defendant, for which the Claimant paid a preservation application fee of RMB 5,000.
It was also found that on 6 September 2016, Judge Nugee of the High Court of the UK issued the Order in the Matter of Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD and in the Matter of The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (No. CR-2016-005448). It is said in Article 2(3) of the Order, “Save for the proceedings identified in the Schedule to this Order, which are permitted to continue to the content identified in the Schedule, no legal process may be instituted or continued against the Company or its property except with the consent of the Administrator or the permission of the Court.” The Article 3(1) cleared that“The term ‘legal process’ includes arbitrations...”
The Court holds that this is a container lease contract dispute. Article 1.1 of Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations of the PRC (I) provides “where either party or both parties are foreign citizens, foreign legal persons or other organizations or stateless persons, the People’s Court may determine such civil relation as a foreign-related civil relation”. The Defendant is a Korean company, this case has foreign related element.
The Claimant and the Defendant had concluded an arbitration clause in the concerned contracts, however, according to the order issued by the English court, the Claimant was restrained from initiating an arbitration proceeding in London for the dispute with the arbitration clause, therefore the arbitration agreement was unable to be fulfilled or no longer binded both parties, the Claimant had the right to bring claims to a maritime court with jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, the Defendant holds equity interest in Zhejiang Eastern Shipyard Co.,Ltd, which have been frozen by the Court, and Zhejiang Eastern Shipyard Co., Ltd is located in the territory of jurisdiction of the Court, therefore the Court has jurisdiction on the dispute.
According to Article 10 of Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relation of the PRC, if any party chooses to apply a foreign law, he shall provide the law in that country, if it can not be ascertained, the Chinese law shall apply. In this case, the Claimant and the Defendant agreed to apply English law, therefore, they were obliged to provide the Court with relevant English law. Article 17.2 of Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations of PRC (I) provides that “where a party shall provide any foreign law but fails to provide within the reasonable time limit as designated by the people’s court without justifiable cause, the people’s court may determine such law as unascertained”. During the hearing, the Claimant clearly expressed that he was unable to provide the English law, and the Defendant had not presented any written material on application of the English law. Therefore the Court determines the English law is unascertained and the Chinese law shall apply in this case.
The concerned container lease contracts reflect autonomy of will of the Claimant, the Defendant and Dong Fang International Investment Limited and do not against any mandatory provisions of Chinese law thus shall be deemed legal and effective. The Claimant has duly performed his obligation as a lessor and sent all invoices to the Defendant (the lessee), the Defendant shall pay the rent and all other costs as agreed. However, the Defendant failed to perform his payment obligation which constitutes a breach of contract, therefore the Claimant is entitled to require the Defendant to pay the rent (to the date of 31 August 2016) USD 2,790,565.88. The Claimant claimed that the interest at the monthly interest rate of 2% for the said amount up to 31 August 2016 was USD 698685.02, which was accordant with the agreement of the parties and was supported by the court.
According to the contracts, the lessee may redeliver containers to any of the Claimant’s yards with permissible quotas and shall pay equipment sublet fee, container redelivery fee at a place other than the agreed, service fee for redelivering container and so on, and the payment of rent shall cease from the next day after the redelivering. From 31 August 2016 to 31 March 2017, the Claimant has redelivered 8666 containers. The claims asserted by the Claimant regarding the rent, redelivering container fee (USD 987,820.49 in total) on the said 8666 containers during such period are in compliance with the contracts and the Court would support.
The contracts provides that the Defendant shall compensate the Claimant the depreciated value of these containers which are deemed a constructive total loss. By 31 March 2017, there are 2882 containers not been redelivered to the Claimant and the Claimant expressed during the hearing that he would not take any action to redeliver those containers, therefore, the said 2882 containers is deemed a constructive total loss and the Defendant shall compensate the depreciated value of those containers. The Claimant requires the Defendant to pay depreciated value, USD9, 428,308.42 in total, on basis of calculation method provided in the contracts. The Court holds that such claim is reasonable and well-grounded and would support.
According to the contracts, the lessee shall pay the lessor legal costs including attorney’s fee, court fee occurred to defending his right due to breach of contract by the lessee, therefore, the Claimant is entitled to request the Defendant to compensate the legal costs including the attorney’s fee, notary fee and cost for application of property preservation he has paid after the dispute arose.
In conclusion, the Claimant’s claim is reasonable and the Court will support. In accordance with Article 10 of Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relation of the PRC, Articles 1.1, 17.2 of Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Law on Foreign-Related Civil Relations of the PRC (I), Articles 144,107,114.1,212 of the Contract Law of the PRC, Articles 144, 259, 265 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, and by discussion of the Court’s judicial committee, the Court hereby delivers the judgment as follows,
(1) The Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD. shall pay the Claimant Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited. container rent USD 2,790,565.88 as well as the interests thereof USD 698,685.02 calculated to the date of 31 August 2016 within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;
(2) The Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD. shall pay the Claimant Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited. container rent as well as redelivering fee calculated from 31 August 2016 to the date the 8666 containers is redelivered, which is USD 987,820.49 in total, within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;
(3) The Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD. shall pay the Claimant Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited. depreciated value of the unredelivered 2882 containers, which is USD 9,428,308.42, within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;
(4) The Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD. shall pay the Claimant Dong Fang International Asset Management Limited. attorney’s fee RMB 159,671.8, notary fee HKD15,000 and application fee for property preservation prior to filling a lawsuit RMB 5,000 within 10 days after this judgment takes effect.
If a party fails to perform the payment obligation within the period determined by the judgment, according to Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, a double interest for the late payment will be charged.
The court fee of this case is RMB 509,410, which shall be assumed by Hanjin Shipping Co., LTD..
Any party who is dissatisfied with this judgment has the right to submit to the Court the statement of appeal, and the duplicates thereof in the number of the counterpart parties, within thirty days after this judgment is served, for appealing before the Zhejiang Higher People’s Court.
Presiding Judge: Hu Jianxin
Acting Judge: Tan Yong
Acting Judge: Tong Kai
29 January 2018
Court Clerk: Wang Xinwei