Content of Case Law No. 08/2016/AL on Determining Interest Rates and Adjusting Interest Rates in Credit Contracts
Pursuant to Decision No. 698/QD-CA from 2016, Precedent No. 08/2016/AL on determining interest rates and adjusting interest rates in credit contracts contains the following specific content:
Precedent Source:
Review Decision No. 12/2013/KDTM-GDT dated May 16, 2013, from the Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court regarding the commercial business, "Dispute over credit contract" in Hanoi city between the plaintiff, Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam, and the defendant, Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company; related parties include Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong, Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen, and Mrs. Do Thi Loan.
Position of Precedent Content:
Paragraph 16 of the "Considering" section of the aforementioned review decision.
Summary of the Precedent Content:
- Situation of the Precedent:
In a credit contract, the parties agree on loan interest rates, including: in-term loan interest rate, overdue debt interest rate, and adjustment of the loan interest rate periodically by the lending bank or credit organization that, as of the time of the first-instance trial, the borrowing client has not paid or has not sufficiently paid the principal and interest according to the credit contract.
- Legal Solution:
In this case, the borrowing client must continue to pay the bank or credit organization the unpaid principal, interest on the in-term principal (if any), and overdue interest on the unpaid principal according to the agreed-upon interest rate in the contract until the principal is fully paid. If there is an agreement on adjusting the loan interest rate periodically by the lending bank or credit organization, the interest rate that the borrowing client must continue to pay according to the court's decision will be adjusted accordingly with the adjustments made by the bank or lending institution.
Legal Provisions Related to the Precedent:
- Articles 471, 474, and 476 of the Civil Code 2005;- Clause 2 of Article 91 of the Law on Credit Institutions 2010;- Clause 1 of Article 1 of Circular No. 12/2010/TT-NHNN dated April 14, 2010, from the State Bank of Vietnam guiding credit organizations to lend in VND to customers according to agreed interest rates;- Clause 2 of Article 11 of the Regulation on Lending by Credit Institutions to Customers, promulgated under Decision No. 1627/2001/QD-NHNN on December 31, 2001, from the Governor of the State Bank of Vietnam, amended and supplemented by Decision No. 127/2005/QD-NHNN on February 3, 2005.
Keywords of the Precedent:
“Interest rate”; “Unpaid principal”; “Credit contract”; “Interest rate adjustment”; “Overdue interest rate”.
CASE CONTENT
According to the petition dated July 20, 2010, and the materials and evidence in the case file, the contents are as follows:
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) entered into 04 credit contracts, including: Credit Contract No. 03/07/NHNT-TL on December 25, 2007; No. 04/07/NHNT-TL on December 28, 2007; No. 144/08/NHNT-TL on March 28, 2008, and No. 234/08/NHNT-TL on May 27, 2008. The mentioned credit contracts were secured by the property rights over a dwelling house and homestead land use rights at:
- No. 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi City (parcel No. 46B+39C+37C, map No. 19) under the ownership and use rights of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong (according to Mortgage Contract No. 1678.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008; securing the maximum loan and guarantee amount of 4,605,000,000 VND; detailed terms of borrowing and lending of this amount will be specified in the banking professional documents that Vietcombank and the Guaranteed Party (Kaoli Company) will sign at Vietcombank's headquarters (Clause 1.3 of Article 1); the value of the mortgaged property is 4,605,000,000 VND according to the Property Valuation Record No. 105/08/NHNT.TL; the mortgage term is 05 years from the date the Guaranteed Party receives the loan disbursement; the contract is effective from the time of registration at the Land Use Rights Registration Office (Clause 10.1 of Article 10). This contract was notarized by the Notary Public Office No. 3 of Hanoi on June 25, 2008, and certified by the Natural Resources and Environment Office of Ba Dinh District for mortgage registration of land use rights, attached assets on July 10, 2008). Previously, on September 3, 2007, Mrs. Phuong and Vietcombank signed a Document Receipt Record for Mortgaged, Pledged, and Guaranteed Property Files stating: “The two parties hand over the original documents of the following secured property to ensure the obligations of Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company at Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam - Thang Long Branch; property name: Ownership of a dwelling house and use rights of homestead land at 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi” (BL 52).
- Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City, under the ownership and use rights of Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and his wife Mrs. Do Thi Loan (according to Mortgage Contract No. 1677.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008, securing the maximum loan and guarantee amount of 1,250,000,000 VND; detailed terms of borrowing and lending of this amount will be specified in banking professional documents that Vietcombank and the Guaranteed Party (Kaoli Company) will sign at Vietcombank's headquarters (Clause 1.3 of Article 1); the value of the mortgaged property is 1,250,000,000 VND according to the Property Valuation Record No. 106/08/NHNT.TL dated September 3, 2007 (Clause 3.1 of Article 3); the mortgage term is 05 years from the date the Guaranteed Party receives the loan disbursement; the contract is effective from the time of registration at the Land Use Rights Registration Office (Clause 10.1 of Article 10). This contract was notarized by the Notary Public Office No.3 of Hanoi on June 25, 2008, and certified by the Natural Resources and Environment Office of Ba Dinh District for mortgage registration of land use rights, attached assets on July 1, 2008). Previously, on September 3, 2007, Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch signed a Document Receipt Record for Mortgaged, Pledged, and Guaranteed Property Files stating: “The two parties hand over the original documents of the following secured property to ensure the obligations of Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company at Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam - Thang Long Branch; property name: Ownership of a dwelling house and use rights of homestead land at group 13, cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi” (BL 58a).
Additionally, the loans under the aforementioned credit contracts were further secured by properties including a house and land under the use and ownership 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 (already released from the mortgage); land use rights of Mr. Chu Quoc Khanh; house and land of Mrs. Chu Thi Hong and Mr. Nguyen Van Minh.
Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch disbursed the loan amounts to Kaoli Company according to the aforementioned credit contracts. Kaoli Company has only partially repaid the principal and interest. Vietcombank filed a lawsuit demanding that the court compel Kaoli Company to pay the remaining debt of 04 credit contracts totaling 8,197,957,837 VND (including: principal of 5,457,000,000 VND, in-term interest of 397,149,467 VND, overdue interest calculated until the date of the first-instance trial of 2,343,808,370 VND) and to dispose of the mortgaged properties of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong; Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan to recover the debt.
The representative of the defendant, Mr. Do Van Chinh, Director of Kaoli Company, stated: He acknowledged that Kaoli Company owed Vietcombank the principal and interest in-term, and overdue interest according to the 04 credit contracts as stated by Vietcombank. He confirmed that the debt repayment responsibility under the 04 credit contracts was Kaoli Company's and requested to repay gradually within five years.
If Kaoli Company cannot repay the debt or repay it inadequately, Vietcombank requested the court to dispose of the secured properties of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong; Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan according to the regulations. Mr. Chinh confirmed that Vietcombank disbursed before the signing of Mortgage Contract No. 1678.2008/HDTC on June 25, 2008 and Mortgage Contract No. 1677.2008/HDTC on June 25, 2008. From June 25, 2008 until now, Kaoli Company did not borrow any additional amounts or sign any other credit contracts with Vietcombank.
Related parties stated:
- Mr. Nguyen Van Nghi (representing Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong) stated: Vietcombank filed a lawsuit against Kaoli Company and requested the court to sell Mrs. Phuong's property in case Kaoli Company fails to perform its debt repayment obligations. He did not agree as Mrs. Phuong signed the mortgage contract on June 25, 2008, so she is not responsible for guaranteeing Kaoli Company's loan at Vietcombank under the 04 credit contracts for which Vietcombank is suing. He requested the court to compel Vietcombank to release the mortgage and return the Land Use Right and House Ownership Certificate to Mrs. Phuong.
- Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan jointly stated: They signed the Mortgage Contract on June 25, 2008, but this contract only secured Kaoli Company's loan at Vietcombank and will bear all responsibilities arising from the period after June 25, 2008, to April 25, 2009. All credit contracts signed before June 25, 2008, between Vietcombank and Kaoli Company are not within their responsibility. According to Vietcombank, from June 25, 2008, until now, no other credit contracts were signed with Kaoli Company. Therefore, their legal responsibility has not arisen. They requested the court to compel Vietcombank to release the mortgage of their property according to the Mortgage Contract signed on June 25, 2008.
In the First-Instance Commercial Business Judgment No. 32/2011/KDTM-ST dated March 24, 2011, the People's Court of Hanoi decided:
“1. Partially accept the lawsuit request of Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam against Kaoli Company. Compel Kaoli Company to repay the total debt and interest to the bank amounting to 8,197,957,837 VND.
- Reject the claim of Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam to sell the properties, specifically the value of house ownership and use rights of homestead land at parcel No. 46B + 39C + 37C, map No. 19, address No. 122 Doi Can, Doi Can Ward, Ba Dinh District, Hanoi City, according to the Certificate of House Ownership and Use Rights of Homestead Land No. 10101132587 issued on April 27, 2004, by the People's Committee of Ba Dinh District to Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and the value of house ownership and use rights of homestead land at address Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi City, according to the Certificate of House Ownership and Use Rights of Homestead Land at parcel No. 13+64A (part), map No. 04, at address Group 13, Cluster 2, Nhat Tan Ward, Tay Ho District, Hanoi, according to the Certificate of House Ownership and Use Rights of Homestead Land No. 10103090899 issued on March 23, 2004, by the People's Committee of Hanoi City to Mr. 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 on house ownership and use rights of homestead land and conducting mortgage release procedures for Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan.
In addition, the court of first instance also made decisions regarding court fees and the rights of the litigants to appeal according to legal regulations.
On April 4, 2011, Vietcombank filed an appeal.
In the Appellate Commercial Business Judgment No. 148/2011/KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011, the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi, based on Clause 2 of Article 275 and Clause 1 of Article 276 of the Civil Procedure Code, decided:
“To amend the First-Instance Commercial Business Judgment No. 32/2011/KDTM-ST dated March 23 and 24, 2011, of the People's Court of Hanoi regarding the guarantee responsibilities of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and the wife-husband Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen, Mrs. Do Thi Loan. Specifically:
Determine: The Property Transfer Records of Mortgaged, Pledged, and Guaranteed Property dated September 3, 2007, between Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam - Thang Long Branch and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong and the wife-husband Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen, Mrs. Do Thi Loan are guarantee contracts (Document Records No. 52, 58a).
Compel Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company to repay the total debt and interest to Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam amounting to 8,197,957,837 VND...
In case Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company fails to perform or incompletely performs its debt repayment obligation to Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam, the bank is entitled to request the Hanoi City Civil Judgment Enforcement Department to handle the guaranteed properties according to the regulations of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Law to recover the debt under the guarantee responsibility of the guarantor.
...From the date of the effective judgment and upon request for judgment enforcement by the person to be executed, the person to be executed must also pay interest on the late execution amount at the basic interest rate announced by the State Bank corresponding to the delay period of judgment enforcement.”
In addition, the appellate court also made decisions regarding court fees and willful execution.
After the appellate trial, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Phuong; Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Mrs. Do Thi Loan repeatedly filed requests to review the above appellate judgment under the review procedures.
With Review Decision No. 34/2012/KDTM-KN dated October 15, 2012, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court requested the Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court to review according to the review procedures to annul the Appellate Commercial Business Judgment No. 148/2011/KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011, of the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi; return the case file to the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi for appellate retrial according to the law.
During the review trial, the representative of the Supreme People's Procuracy agreed with the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court’s review decision.The Council of Justices of the Supreme People's Court finds:
Reviewing the Mortgage Contracts for land use rights and assets attached to the land to guarantee a third party's loan at the bank (Notarized numbers: 1677.2008/HDTC and 1678.2008/HDTC both dated June 25, 2008) reveals:
Both mortgage contracts for land use rights and assets attached to the land to guarantee a third party's bank loans do not specify which loan under which credit contract they ensure and were all signed after 04 credit contracts (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) had been disbursed by Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch. According to Clause 1.3 of Article 1 of the two Mortgage Contracts, it states: "Detailed conditions regarding the above-mentioned borrowing and lending (The secured obligation is the loan and guarantee with a maximum of VND 4,605,000,000...; - Clause 1.2 of Article 1 of the Mortgage Contract) will be specifically noted in the banking operations documents that Party B (Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch) and the guaranteed party will sign at Party B's premises (Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch)," it can be understood that Ms. Phuong, Mr. Duyen, and Ms. Loan only guaranteed that Kaoli Company would borrow money under credit contracts to be signed at Vietcombank's premises after the mortgage contract signing date (June 25, 2008), not for the 04 previously signed credit contracts.
Vietcombank, based on Clause 6.2 of Article 6 of the above-mentioned 04 Credit Contracts regarding the method of ensuring loan repayment written (handwritten) with content: "Detailed agreements about assets, rights, and obligations of the parties are specified clearly in... Mortgage Contract No. 1677.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008 and Mortgage Contract No. 1678.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008", requested the Court to compel Ms. Phuong, Mr. Duyen, and Ms. Loan to be responsible for guaranteeing Kaoli Company's loans under the 04 aforementioned credit contracts. However, according to Vietcombank's representation at the first-instance trial, this note was "written by the bank's accountant." At the first-instance trial, Mr. Do Van Chinh - Director of Kaoli Company stated: "Kaoli Company did not know about this addition" and "Did not agree with the Bank's request for asset liquidation. The assets of Ms. Phuong and Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan's couple were recorded additionally by the bank in the credit contracts."
Furthermore, at the appellate hearing, the representative authorized by Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong stated that Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong did not receive any credit contract from Vietcombank; while Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan did receive the credit contract from Vietcombank. Thus, Mr. Chinh, Ms. Phuong, and Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s couple were not aware of the handwritten notes by the bank’s accountant in the credit contracts, did not sign the credit contracts, so there is no basis to determine that the above credit contracts were secured by Mortgage Contracts No. 1677.2008/HDTC and 1678.2008/HDTC both dated June 25, 2008.
In addition to the two aforementioned mortgage contracts, the case file contains 02 sets of documents related to asset mortgages: 01 set from Ms. Phuong; 01 set from Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s couple; each set contains: Asset Evaluation Minutes and Asset Handover Minutes all dated September 3, 2007; Mortgage Registration Request Forms (dated January 29, 2008, from Ms. Phuong; dated June 25, 2008, from Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan). However, these Minutes and Mortgage Registration Request Forms also do not clearly indicate which credit contract loan they secure.
The appellate court found (in summary): "The Asset Handover Minutes, Asset Collateral, and Guarantee Contracts between Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch and Ms. Phuong, Mr. Duyen, and Ms. Loan dated September 3, 2007, all contained content of mortgage, collateral, guarantee for Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company’s obligations at the Bank...thus determining this as one contract...” And the appellate court ruled: “The handover minutes of asset mortgage, collateral, and guarantee dated September 3, 2007, between Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch and Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong and Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen and Ms. Do Thi Loan are guarantee contracts (records No. 52, 58a)” and “In case Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company does not fulfill or partially fulfills its debt obligations to Vietcombank, Vietcombank has the right to request the Hanoi City Enforcement Department to handle the pledged assets according to the Law on Civil Judgment Execution to recover the debt according to the guarantor’s responsibility.”
The above findings and decisions of the appellate court are baseless and illegal. Because:
- The Asset Handover Minutes, Asset Collateral, and Guarantee Contracts dated September 3, 2007, between Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong (as with Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan) and Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch are not guarantee contracts as determined by the appellate court.
At the appellate trial on August 17, 2011, Vietcombank's representative only confirmed: “The asset handover minutes and asset evaluation minutes are inseparable parts of the asset mortgage contract.”
- According to the Asset Handover Minutes, Asset Collateral, and Guarantee Contracts, and Vietcombank’s representative's statement at the appellate trial, the handover and evaluation date were September 3, 2007. However, the mortgage contracts between Ms. Phuong (as well as Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan) and Vietcombank - Thang Long Branch were signed on June 25, 2008 (after the recording date in the Asset Handover Minutes and Asset Evaluation Minutes) thus the minutes cannot be considered inseparable parts of the aforementioned Mortgage Contract. The appellate court also determined: “The Mortgage Contract dated June 25, 2008...is unrelated to the asset handover minutes...”.
- According to the date recorded in the minutes and Vietcombank’s representative's statement at the appellate trial, the original housing ownership certificate and homestead land use certificate were handed over on September 3, 2007, but in these Asset Evaluation Minutes, it is recorded: “Based on the land price table in districts in Hanoi issued under Decision No. 150/2007/QD-UBND dated December 28, 2007, of the People’s Committee of Hanoi City” and these minutes are inseparable parts of Mortgage Contract No. 1678.2008/HDTC and No. 1677.2008/HDTC dated June 25, 2008. Especially for Ms. Phuong, the value of the homestead land use was determined by the actual land price evaluation minutes on September 4, 2007, and Ms. Phuong’s Mortgage Registration Request Form dated January 29, 2008, states: “Mortgage Contract No. 1678.2008/HDTC signed on June 25, 2008”. Furthermore, according to the statements and documents provided by Ms. Phuong, Mr. Duyen, and Ms. Loan’s couple, as of September 3, 2007, Ms. Phuong’s house and land were pledged to the Agricultural and Rural Development Bank's Quang An Branch, Tay Ho District until January 11, 2008 when the lien was released; Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s house and land were pledged to the non-state commercial bank's Thang Long Branch until January 16, 2008 when the lien was released.
Based on the above evidence, there is reason to conclude: The Asset Handover Minutes, Asset Collateral, and Guarantee Contracts and Asset Evaluation Minutes were not created on September 3, 2007, the Certificate of Housing Ownership and Homestead Land Use was not handed over on September 3, 2007, and the evaluation was not conducted on September 3, 2007, as stated by Vietcombank's representative and accepted by the appellate court.
As of September 3, 2007, the mortgage, guarantee contract for assets by land use right and assets attached to the land must be notarized and registered to ensure the transaction according to Clause 1, Article 130 of the Land Law 2003; at Clause 1, Article 12 of Decree 163/ND-CP dated December 29, 2006, and Sub-section 2.4, Section 2 of Joint Circular No. 03/2006/TTLT-BTP-BTNMT dated June 13, 2006; not just notarized and registered to secure the transaction, as determined by the appellate court.
The appellate court did not clarify if there were any other documents or evidence besides the above-mentioned documents to indicate that the mortgage contracts signed by Ms. Phuong and Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s couple guaranteed 04 credit contracts of Kaoli Company or not. Therefore, claiming the asset handover minutes as guarantee contracts is not correct and imprecise. These minutes cannot serve as guarantee contracts when considering both the form and content of the documents.
- If it is concluded that the Mortgage Contracts dated June 25, 2008, by Ms. Phuong and Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s couple guaranteed the above credit contracts, Ms. Phuong's guarantee contract would only ensure loans and guarantees upto VND 4,605,000,000; Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s guarantee contract ensures loans and guarantees upto VND 1,250,000,000. Meanwhile, the appellate court determined that the Asset Handover Minutes, Asset Collateral, and Guarantee Contracts dated September 3, 2007, are guarantee contracts and ruled: “In case Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company does not fulfill or partially fulfills its debt obligations to Vietcombank, Vietcombank has the right to request the Hanoi City Enforcement Department to handle the pledged assets according to the Civil Judgment Execution Law to recover the debt according to the guarantor's responsibility" means that Ms. Phuong and Mr. Duyen and Ms. Loan’s couple must take responsibility for guaranteeing Kaoli Company's entire debt which does not clearly distinguish the guarantee responsibility of Ms. Phuong, Mr. Duyen, and Ms. Loan is incorrect.
Moreover, the first-instance and appellate courts decided: “Since the judgment takes legal effect and the person benefited by the judgment has a request for execution, the debtor must also pay interest on the delayed amount according to the base interest rate announced by the State Bank corresponding to the delay period” is also incorrect. For bank loans, aside from the principal debt, within-term interest, overdue interest, and fees that the borrower must pay to the lender according to the credit contract until the first-instance judgment date, from the following day of the first-instance judgment, the borrower must continue to bear the overdue interest on the unpaid principal, at the interest rate agreed upon in the contract until the principal is fully paid. In the case where the credit contract stipulates the lending interest rate adjustment according to the lender's periodical adjustments, the interest rate that the borrower must continue to pay to the lender according to the Court's decision will also be adjusted accordingly with the lender's interest rate adjustments.
For these reasons, based on Clause 3, Article 291, Clause 3, Article 297, and Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Code (amended, and supplemented in 2011),
DECISION:
Annul the commercial appellate judgment No. 148/2011/KDTM-PT dated August 17, 2011, by the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi, adjudicating the commercial dispute over the credit contract between the plaintiff, the Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam, and the defendant, Kaoli Pharmaceutical Joint Stock Company, and the related parties Ms. Nguyen Thi Phuong, Mr. Nguyen Dang Duyen, and Ms. Do Thi Loan.
Remand the case file to the Appellate Court of the Supreme People's Court in Hanoi for re-appellate adjudication in accordance with the law.
LEGISLATIVE CONTENT
“The first-instance and appellate courts’ decision: ‘Since the judgment takes legal effect and the person benefited by the judgment has a request for execution, the debtor must also pay interest on the delayed amount according to the base interest rate announced by the State Bank corresponding to the delay period’ is also incorrect. For bank loans, aside from the principal debt, within-term interest, overdue interest, and fees that the borrower must pay to the lender according to the credit contract until the first-instance judgment date, from the following day of the first-instance judgment, the borrower must continue to bear the overdue interest on the unpaid principal, at the interest rate agreed upon in the contract until the principal is fully paid. In the case where the credit contract stipulates the lending interest rate adjustment according to the lender's periodical adjustments, the interest rate that the borrower must continue to pay to the lender according to the Court's decision will also be adjusted accordingly with the lender's interest rate adjustments.”
The above is the content of Precedent No. 08/2016/AL on determining interest rates and interest rate adjustments in credit contracts from the next day of the first-instance trial date.
Additionally, you may refer to the list of 39 Precedents announced and applied in Vietnam (Latest) here.
Sincerely!
