THE PEOPLE’S COURT OF BINH DUONG PROVINCE
JUDGMENT NO. 22/2020/KDTM-PT DATED AUGUST 28, 2020 ON DISPUTE OVER CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GOODS
On August 21 and 28, 2020, at the headquarters of the People's Court of Binh Duong province, an appellate trial is conducted to hear the commercial case No. 23/2020/TLPT-KDTM dated May 21, 2020 in the matter of: “Dispute over contract for sale of goods".
As the first instance commercial judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated November 28, 2019 of the People's Court of U town, Binh Duong province was appealed.
According to Decision to bring the case to appellate trial No. 31/2020/QD-PT dated August 7, 2020 between:
- Petitioner: TP Paper Packaging Co., Ltd; address: U Town, Binh Duong Province Legal representative of the petitioner: Ms. Thieu Thi M, born in 1983; address: Bac U district, Binh Duong province, the authorized representative (letter of authorization No. 0119TP dated September 1, 2019), appearing in court
Defender of the petitioner: Mr. Ho Huu T, a lawyer from D Law Office, Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association, appearing in court.
- Respondent: I Co., Ltd.; address: U town, Binh Duong province. Authorized representative of the respondent:
- Mr. H, born in 1956, address: Ho Chi Minh City, appearing in court.
- Mr. Nguyen Huy T1, born in 1972; address: U town, Binh Duong province;
address: U town, Binh Duong province (according to the letter of authorization dated July 14, 2017), appearing in court.
- Persons with interests and obligations related to the case: ML Co., Ltd; address: Taiwan (with request for trial in absentia).
- Witness: V Manufacturing-Trading-Service Co., Ltd; address:
Bac U district, Binh Duong province.
Legal representative: Mr. Dao Ngoc K, position: President of the Member assembly cum Director.
- Appellant: The respondent, I Co., Ltd.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the first-instance judgment:
TP Paper Packaging Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Company TP) specializes in manufacturing, distributing and exporting packaging products (cartons, cardboards, corrugated paperboard of all kinds). In 2013, Company TP and I Company Limited (abbreviated as Company T2) signed the sale contract No. 01/HDMB/13 dated January 1, 2013 for the sale of cartons. On December 31, 2013, the contract expired, but the two parties still performed the contract on certain principles of the contract and agreed orally given terms to continue the sale transaction. The sale was done by Fax. In each sale transaction, Company T2 faxes the order, clearly stating the product name, product code, material, specification, quantity, and unit price in the order. The petitioner will give a quotation based on the information provided by the respondent, after receiving the quotation, if Company T2 agrees, the transaction is successful, the two parties proceed to deliver products and transfer money. The order and quotation both indicate product code, color, specification, quantity, unit, amount, delivery quantity, and quantity in shortage.
The payment shall be made within 4 days following the delivery date according to Sales Contract No. 01/HDMB/13 dated 01-01-2013. The quality claim period is 7 days after the respondent receives the products. 04 days after receiving the products, if the respondent has no complaint, it is considered that the products are of good quality according to the agreement of the two parties.
Company TP has fully delivered the products according to the order, but so far, Company T2 has not fulfilled the payment obligation for the following invoices: Invoice No. 0002237 dated July 31, 2014 worth VND 149,416,608; Invoice No. 0002319 dated August 30, 2014 worth VND 2,215,862; Invoice No. 0002391 dated September 30, 2014 worth VND 26,578,453; Invoice number 0002437 dated October 16, 2014 worth VND 2,524,500.
Therefore, Company TP required Company T2 to pay the principal of 04 invoices of VND 180,735,423 and interest for late payment from October 16, 2014 to October 31, 2019 (60 months 15 days) according to the calculation method: VND 180,735,423 x 60 months 15 days x 0.75% = VND 82,008,698. The total claim amount is VND 262,744,121 (Two hundred and sixty two million seven hundred and forty four thousand one hundred and twenty one dong).
For Company T2's counterclaim, Company TP must compensate the amount of VND 648,750,000 because the products are not of good quality. Petitioner disagrees because: After the sale contract No. 01/HDMB/13 dated January 1, 2013 expired, the two parties still performed the contract based on some terms of the contract such as quantity, price, payment, claims about the quality of products to continue the sale and purchase. Regarding material C+9+C, both parties agree that the bursting strength of the carton is 275 pounds/square inch, the contract states that "Party A must ensure that the products are provided in conformity with the specifications, designs and quality as the approved samples". However, throughout the packaging sale process, the two companies only based on each specific order and have not approved any sample as a standard sample. The petitioner will deliver the products to the respondent based on the respondent's order. After 04 days, unless the respondent has a complaint, the products delivered are automatically considered qualified. The respondent does not have evidence to prove that the packages of the products delivered to ML Co., Ltd. was the package of the petitioner delivered to the respondent at what time.
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org belongs to Company TP. However, the respondent does not use it to contact the customer, all transactions between Company T2 and Company TP were done via fax, phone and physical documents.
In 2014, Company TP delivered to Company T2 the consignments as presented by the respondent. However, the petitioner did not receive any notice via the address email@example.com,
via Skype and by post, reflecting that the poor quality cartons caused damage to Company T2. In April, 2015, the two sides had a phone conversation about product quality, but Company T2 did not specify which material whose quality was complained or the entity made the complaint while the order contained various kinds of material. Due to a long period of cooperation, Company TP agreed to reduce Company T2 10% of the total value of 04 orders that Company T2 had not paid, but Company T2 did not agree, it only agreed to pay VND 90,000,000 out of total VND 180,735,423.
The Expertise Conclusion No. 15G02ND05755-01 dated December 9, 2015 of V1 Inspection Co., Ltd. of Ho Chi Minh City is incorrect because the inspected product sample was the one that Company TP has produced for a long time, the quality is no longer good like new product; packaging paper products are perishable goods and their shelf life is not more than 06 months, while the sample sent for inspection are leftovers in the respondent's warehouse. So the inspection gives incorrect result; besides, the request for expertise was made by the respondent, the petitioner did not request the inspection.
The legal representatives of the respondent, Mr. H and Mr. Nguyen Huy T1 present: On January 1, 2013, Company TP and Company T2 signed the Sales Contract No. 01/HDMB/13. By the end of December 31, 2013, the above sales contract expired, so in theory the two parties could not further perform the above contract. But the two parties still sold and purchased the products according to the agreed contents in the Contract No. 01/HDMB/13 dated January 1, 2013. When buying products, Company T2 sends an order and Company TP will send a quotation, if Company T2 agrees to the price, the transaction is established. Company TP delivers the products and Company T2 transfers money after receiving the products. The order, the quotation sheet, and the delivery note all show the quality of the products and the quantity. The time limit for making a complaint about the quality of products is specified in Article 2 of the sale contract No. 01/HDMB/13. Since Company TP and Company T2 entered into a contract for sale of packages, all sales transactions are based on specific orders in batches, without agreement and approval of product samples as standard samples. Company T2 admitted that it still owes Company TP an amount of VND 180,735,423, but because the products delivered by Company TP were not of good quality, it caused damage to Company T2. The respondent has repeatedly complained, but the petitioner was not willing to remedy it, so the respondent does not agree to pay the principal and late payment interest as claimed in the petitioner's petition. According to the agreement, the carton code 69903 of C+9+C material, the bursting strength is 275 pounds/square inch, but the products that Company TP delivered to Company T2 in 2014 were of poor quality. Before August 2014 and at the end of August 2014, Company T2 was feedbacked by the partner company about the quality of package with C+9+C material, but because Company T2 still suspected it could be due to the carton or because of the foam, the respondent only notified to Company TP to review the quality, but Company TP confirmed that there was no quality problem.
In September 2014, Company TP delivered Company T2 the following orders: On September 4, 2014, finished product delivery code 14090050, product name VC14037, material C+9+C, NAP design; on September 4, 2014, finished product delivery code 14090050, product name VC14037, material C+9+C, DAY design and on September 5, 2014, delivery code 14090050, product name VC14037, material C+9+C, NAP design.
All of the above orders of C+9+C material are no longer in the warehouse of Company T2 because they have been used to pack wood products for export to ML Co., Ltd in Taiwan (China). Company T2 agreed to let the customer randomly withdraw for inspection of the new shipment delivered on September 4 and 5, 2014 but the inspection result only reached 240 lbs/square inch, not 275 lbs/square inch. When receiving the complaints about quality of the packages, Company T2 found out that the packages provided by Company TP was not of good quality.
On September 15, 2014, Company T2 informed Company TP by phone that the packages do not meet quality requirements, in specific, the carton bursting strength did not reach 275 pounds/square inch, causing damage to Company T2. At the request of Company TP, Company T2 sent a quality check of the cartons, pictures of the cartons for the Company TP to have a solution. On September 19, 2014, Company T2 sent the expertise conclusion via Skype. However, Company TP did not respond. On September 27, 2014, Company T2 continued to send an email in bilingual Chinese and Vietnamese via Email firstname.lastname@example.org but also received no response. It was not until December 2014 that Company TP agreed to negotiate and agreed to the plan that Company T2 proposed to reduce 10% of the amount on all orders of C+9+C material so far. Because of mutual trust, the agreement was only verbal, not in writing. However, Company TP did not deal with the consequences of loss due to poor quality products, but also sued Company T2 to court to ask for payment. From March 2014 to September 2014 Company T2 continuously received complaints from the customer MeiLin about the quality of the cartons and must admit their fault, they must accept a fine of USD 30,000 for their violation of commitments with ML Co., Ltd.
Before the damage occurred due to the quality of Company TP's packages, Company T2 did not purchase and did not use any other company's packages with code 69903 to pack products of Company T2. Company TP delivered insufficient good products, causing damage to Company T2, so Company TP has to compensate for the damage. On April 17, 2015, Company T2 filed a counterclaim requesting TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. to pay damages in the amount of VND 648,750,000 (Six hundred and forty eight million seven hundred and fifty thousand dong) equivalent to USD 30,000 as the product code of carton 69903 was not of the good quality.
Evidence of damage: ML Co., Ltd., based in Taiwan (China) is a customer of Company T2, has confirmed to deduct the amount of USD 30,000 due to the use of poor quality cartons of Company T2, the judicial assistance request and written evidence were made by U bailiff office. Respondent agrees to the expertise conclusion No. 15G02ND05755-01 dated December 9, 2015 of V1 Inspection Co., Ltd of Ho Chi Minh City and does not request re-inspection.
Company T2 does not agree to pay the principal of VND 180,735,423 and the interest of VND 82,008,698. The total claim amount is VND 262,744,121 (Two hundred and sixty two million seven hundred forty four thousand one hundred and twenty one dong) at the request of the Company TP.
Company T2 filed a counterclaim requesting TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. to pay damages in the amount of VND 648,750,000 (Six hundred and forty eight million seven hundred and fifty thousand dong) equivalent to USD 30,000 as the product as not of the good quality. - The person with related rights and obligations, ML Co., Ltd., presents: ML Co., Ltd. ordered household wood from T2 Co., Ltd. Since 2013, T2 Co., Ltd. has used cartons (material C+9+C) produced by TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. to pack goods and sell it to ML Co., Ltd. material C+9+C, i.e. the bursting strength is 275 pounds/square inch. In 2013, the products received by ML Co., Ltd. from T2 Co., Ltd. were always in good quality packages, so the products inside were always of good quality. However, in 2014, when ML Co., Ltd. received boxes of household furniture from T2 Co., Ltd., there were some cartons (produced by TP Paper Co., Ltd. and used by T2 Co., Ltd.) were broken, torn leading to damage to the furniture inside, causing damage to Mei Lin Company. Most seriously, in September 2014, the boxes received by ML Co., Ltd from T2 Co., Ltd. were broken, torn in large quantities, the value of damaged goods due to broken or torn packages was over USD 30,000. Also in September 2014, ML Co., Ltd. took samples of cartons (product batch VC14037, material C+9+C, bursting strength 275 pound/square inch, code 69903) by TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. manufactured and used by T2 Co., Ltd. to pack the above goods for inspection. The test result determined that the bursting strength was only 240 pounds/square inch, while the required bursting strength is 275 pounds/square inch, this quality was quoted by Company TP and also stated in the order. Thus, due to the fact that the cartons did not reach the 275pound/square inch bursting strength as ordered by ML Co., Ltd. as in the agreement, they were broken, torn, and the products inside were damaged over USD 30,000. This was the reason why ML Co., Ltd. fined T2 Co., Ltd. USD 30,000.
The witness of V Manufacturing-Trade-Service Co., Ltd. presents: V Manufacturing -Trade-Service Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Company V) has signed a contract of sale of goods with Company T2, Company V had sold cartons to Company T2 from August 2014 to 2016. Company T2 places an order via Fax, carton specifications are stated in the purchase order. The order does not state a shelf life and all cartons do not have an expiration date thereon. Since a long time has elapsed, Company V no longer keeps the orders. Company T2 ordered a lot of product codes including code 69903 CV 14038, 69903 CV 14039, specifically in August 2014 Company V sold cartons to Company T2 with a total amount of VND 362,265,442, in September 2014 it sold cartons for a total amount of VND 139,706,644. Currently, Company V and Company T2 no longer trade with each other, Company TP and Company T2 request the Court to resolve the dispute in accordance with the law.
The first instance commercial judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated November 28, 2019 of the People's Court of U town, Binh Duong province pronounces as follows:
1. Accept the claim of the petitioner TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. about the dispute over the sale contract with the respondent I Co., Ltd.
Force I Co., Ltd. to pay the TP Paper and Packages Company Limited the amount of VND 262,744,121, in which the principal debt is VND 180,735,423 and interest on late payment is VND 82,008,698.
As from the time when the judgment takes legal effect and the judgment creditor files a petition for judgment enforcement, if the judgment debtor has not yet fully repaid, it must also pay an interest on the late payment at the interest rate corresponding to the late payment amount and period as prescribed in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code 2015 in Viet Nam.
2. Do not accept the counter-claim of I Co., Ltd. requesting TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. to compensate the amount of VND 648,750,000.
In addition, the first-instance judgment also declared court fee, expertise cost, judicial a costs and the right to appeal.
On December 11, 2019, the respondent appealed to the entire first instance judgment. At the appellate court hearing:
The respondent's representative still sustains the appeal request and presents: The People's Court of U town resolved the case beyond its jurisdiction. The inspect result of V1 Inspection Co., Ltd. is grounded, proving that the petitioner selling goods of poor quality but not being accepted by the first instance court. This is the court's error. Request to modify the first-instance judgment, reject the petitioner's claim and accept the respondent's counterclaim.
Representation of the petitioner: Propose the Trial Panel to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner and affirm the first instance judgment.
Opinions of the representative of the People's Procuracy of Binh Duong province:
Regarding legal proceedings: In the process of settling the case at the Court of Appeal, from the time the case was accepted to the time the case was brought to trial, the participant in proceedings and presiding officers have properly complied with the law on civil procedure.
With reference to content: It is well-grounded to accept the petition of the petitioner suing the respondent to pay for the products delivered. The respondent could not prove that the carton sample taken by Company ML for inspection was produced by Company TP, while the sampling was not witnessed by Company TP. Company V1 sent the samples for inspection in December 2015, but the inspection samples were cartons produced in 2013, 2014 so the expertise conclusion did not accurately reflect the product quality at the time of production. It is seen that there is no valid reason to determine that the inspection sample were the products used by the respondent to pack goods for Company ML, so it is unfounded to use the expertise conclusion as a foundation for settling the case. The respondent could not prove that it sent a notice or complaint about product quality to the petitioner. The judgment of the first instance trial was rendered well-grounded and lawful. The respondent's appeal is groundless. Pursuant to Clause 1, Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code in Viet Nam, the Trial Panel is proposed to reject the petitioner's appeal and uphold the first-instance judgment.
After taking account of all documents and evidences available in the case file; based on the results of the litigation at the trial and the opinions of the representative of the Procuracy,
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
 Regarding jurisdiction: On March 6, 2017, the People's Court of Binh Duong province reversed the first-instance commercial judgment No. 12/2016/KDTM-ST dated September 23, 2016 of the People's Court of U town, Binh Duong province and remanded the case file to the People's Court of U town for re-trial. The People's Court of U town accepted the case No. 18/TB-TLVA on April 24, 2017 and brought ML Co., Ltd with the address:
Taiwan or the town of Torlol A, B.V.I. to the proceedings as a person with related rights and obligations in the case. According to Article 471 of the Civil Procedure Code, the non-change of the court's jurisdiction is as follows:”Any civil case involving foreign elements which has been accepted for settlement by a Vietnamese Court under this Code regarding jurisdiction must be continually settled by such Court even though during the resolution process there appear changes of nationalities, residential places or addresses of involved parties or appear new details which make such civil case falls under the jurisdiction of another Vietnamese Court or foreign court”. In addition, Section 8, Part IV of the Official Dispatch in reply to a number of criminal, criminal, civil, and civil procedures issues No. 01/GD-TANDTC dated July 25, 2016 of the Supreme People's Court gives the guidance as follows: According to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 35, Point c, Clause 1, Article 37 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, cases involving the involved parties or overseas assets, the jurisdiction under first-instance procedure falls under the People's Court of the province. Thus, if at the time of re-acceptance of the case, there are involved parties abroad, in principle, the case falls under the jurisdiction under first-instance procedures of the provincial-level People's Court. However, for a case in which the appellate, cassation or reopening judgment/decision assigns the district-level People's Court to accept and re-try the case according to first-instance procedures, the People's Court of the district must accept and re-try it.
Therefore, the People's Court of Binh Duong province issued the decision No. 02/2018/QD-ST dated October 12, 2018 to remand the case to the People's Court of U town for re-trial. The authorized representative of the respondent, Mr. Nguyen Huy T1, received the decision to remand the case (case file p. 838) but the respondent did not exercise the right to file a complaint as prescribed in Clause 1, Article 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, so the Decision No. 02/2018/QD-ST takes effect. Therefore, the People's Court of U town has adjudicated the case with proper jurisdiction, the respondent's appeal on jurisdiction is ungrounded for acceptance. On the other hand, the respondent appealed about the jurisdiction but still requested the People's Court of Binh Duong province to hear the appellate case in the direction of modifying the first-instance judgment to dismiss the petitioner's claim and accept the respondent's counterclaim.
 Company TP requests Company T2 to pay the outstanding purchase amount of VND 180,735,423. The respondent appealed that it did not acknowledge the debt of VND 180,735,423, but the first-instance judgment held that the respondent's acknowledgement of the debt. That was clearly erroneous.
At the appellate court hearing, the respondent's representative still confirms that it purchased goods worth VND 180,735,423 according to 04 value-added tax invoices (VAT) as presented by the petitioner but does not admit that this was a debt because the petitioner delivered the products of substandard quality, the respondent must withhold the above amount to deduct the damage. Therefore, there are enough grounds to determine that the respondent purchased goods worth VND 180,735,423 from the petitioner but has not yet paid. According to Article 55 of the Commercial Law 2005 in Viet Nam, "The buyer must pay the seller at the time the seller delivers the product or delivers the documents related to the product". According to Article 306 of the Commercial Law 2005, the seller has the right to request the buyer to pay interest for late payment of the contract according to the average overdue debt interest rate on the market at the time of payment corresponding to late payment period. Therefore, the first-instance judgment was right in forcing the respondent to pay the purchase amount of VND 180,735,423 and interest on late payment.
 The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal to accept the respondent's counterclaim, forcing the petitioner to pay an amount of damages of USD 30,000, equivalent to VND 648,750,000 because the products supplied by the petitioner were not of good quality and the respondent was fined USD 30,000 by ML Co., Ltd. The respondent's representative said that the packages of the shipment on September 4 and 5, 2014 sold by the petitioner to the respondent did not meet the bursting strength requirement, leading to a fine of USD 30,000 paid to ML Co., Ltd.
At the appellate court hearing, the respondent's representative determined that before the products were shipped, the staff of ML Co., Ltd., together with the employees of Company T2, did a technical inspection of the packages of the shipment dated September 4, 5, 2014 at BV Vietnam Company on September 12, 2014. On September 15, 2014, BV Vietnam Company gave a technical report determining that the test sample did not meet the bursting strength requirement; it was only 240.51 lbs/square inch compared to 275 lbs/square inch as required. But due to the deadline for delivery, the respondent had to make a customs declaration on September 16, 2014 and transfer the products to a ship to deliver to ML Co., Ltd on September 19, 2014.
Considering the technical report No. (9614) 255-0067 dated September 15, 2014 of BV Vietnam (translated into Vietnamese at case file p.197, 198 and 199) showing that the sample of cardboards that the respondent sent for technical inspection is the boxes of children's products of company D, and the exported shipment of the respondent according to the bill of lading dated September 15, 2014 (case file p.208, 209) contains 9 dressing tables with drawers. Therefore, the cardboard sample that the respondent sent to BV Vietnam for technical inspection on September 15, 2014 is not the packages of the shipment on September 4, 5, 2014. So, there is no ground to determine that the petitioner delivered poor quality shipments. On the other hand, on September 15, 2014, the respondent received the result of technical inspection of company D that the products were not of good quality, but the respondent did not make a record with the petitioner to clearly identify the breaches of the parties and determine damage, but still made a customs declaration on September 16, 2014 and transferred the products to a ship on September 19, 2014 for shipment to a partner. That was not suitable with factual background and the agreement of the parties on the return of goods if the quality is not guaranteed. According to the certificate of deduction (translated by Thu Dau Mot Justice Department dated March 29, 2016, case file p.436), it shows that ML Co., Ltd. deducted USD 30,000 for the compensation due to damaged packages and additional money accessories for the customer. Therefore, considering that the representation of the respondent's representative is contradictory and inconsistent with the evidence provided by the respondent itself, the respondent's appeal is unfounded to accept.
 Regarding the inspection of goods: When the damage occurs, ML Co., Ltd. neither took records, took pictures... recorded the number of damaged packages, the actual damage condition nor sent the package sample for inspection, so there is no ground to determine the quantity, the cause of the damaged packages is due to the substandard bursting strength or other causes related to the transportation process such as: being bumped, being waterlogged, etc. The first instance court asked V1 Inspection Co., Ltd. to inspect the quality of goods. The expertise conclusion on December 9, 2015 shows that the carton's bursting strength is 208 pounds/square inch. However, both the petitioner's representative and the respondent's representative admitted that the cardboard sample sent for V1 Inspection Co., Ltd. was not the sample that ML Co., Ltd. believed to be damaged. The respondent's representative acknowledged that regarding the shipment of packages on September 4 and 5, 2014 sold by the petitioner, the respondent used them to pack the product and export it all to ML Co., Ltd. and when damage occurred, the ML Co., Ltd. did not return it for inspection. Therefore, the respondent's representative appeals against the request to use the expertise conclusion dated December 9, 2015 as it does not guarantee the basis for proving that the products were not of good quality because the inspected packages were not the ones caused damage to ML Co., Ltd..
 The first-instance court made an error in deciding the cost of judicial assistance, but the main judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated November 28, 2020, the minutes of the deliberation dated November 28, 2020 show that the Trial Panel decided the cost of expertise and judicial assistance abroad, so I Co., Ltd. must pay the amount of VND 10,280,000. Therefore, the correction of the first-instance judgment is appropriate.
 Based on the above judgments, the respondent's appeal is unfounded. The opinion of the representative of the Procuracy to affirm the first-instance judgment is grounded for acceptance.
Court fee for first-instance commercial case: As the first-instance judgment is affirmed, the appellant must bear it.
For the foregoing reasons,
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
- Article 148, Clause 1, Article 308, Article 313 of the Civil Procedure Code;
- Pursuant to Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 in Viet Nam dated December 30, 2016 of the National Assembly Standing Committee, stipulating the court fees and charges, collection, exemption, reduction, management, and use thereof.
I. Affirm the first instance commercial judgment No. 15/2020/KDTM-ST dated November 28, 2019 of the People's Court of U town, Binh Duong province.
1. Accept the claim of the petitioner TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. about the dispute over the sale contract with the respondent I Co., Ltd.
Force I Co., Ltd. to pay the TP Paper and Packages Company Limited the amount of VND 262,744,121 (Two hundred and sixty two million seven hundred and forty four thousand one hundred and twenty one dong), in which the principal debt is VND 180,735,423 and interest on late payment is VND 82,008,698.
As from the time when the judgment takes legal effect and the judgment creditor files a petition for judgment enforcement, if the judgment debtor has not yet fully repaid, it must also pay an interest on the late payment at the interest rate corresponding to the late payment amount and period as prescribed in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code 2015.
2. Do not accept the counter-claim of I Co., Ltd. requesting TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. to compensate the amount of VND 648,750,000 (Six hundred and forty eight million five hundred and seventy five thousand dong).
3. Regarding the expertise cost and judicial assistance abroad fee: Company I must pay an amount of VND 10,280,000 (Ten million two hundred and eighty thousand dong), which is deducted from the advance of expertise cost and judicial assistance abroad, completed.
4. Regarding first instance fee:
- I Company Limited must pay the amount of VND 43,087,206 (Forty-three million zero hundred and eighty seven thousand two hundred and six dong) for first-instance commercial court fee, which can be deducted from the amount of VND 29,950,000 (Twenty-nine million nine hundred and ten thousand dong) which has been paid according to the receipt of advance of court fee and charge No. AA/2013/05847 dated June 15, 2015 of the Sub-Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of U town, Binh Duong Province. Company I also has to pay VND 13,137,206 (Thirteen million one hundred thirty seven thousand two hundred and six dong).
- TP Paper and Packages Co., Ltd. is not required to pay first-instance commercial court fee and may receive a refund of the amount of 4,620,000 (Four million six hundred and twenty thousand dong) paid in the receipt of advance payment of court fees and charges No. AA/2013/05656 dated March 16, 2015 of the Sub-Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of U town, Binh Duong Province.
II. Court fee for first-instance commercial case: I Co., Ltd. must bear VND 2,000,000, which will be deducted from the entire paid appellate court fee advance of VND 2,000,000 according to the receipt of the court fee and charge advance No. 0037542 dated January 2, 2020 of the Sub-Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of U town, Binh Duong Province.
The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of pronouncement, August 28, 2020.