发布时间： Thu Jul 12 13:31:08 CST 2018 供稿人：孙玙、沈韵秋、陈潇
本文原载于《商法》2018年6月|第9辑第6期，北京仲裁委员会授权转发。
民间借贷纠纷案件在近期引发了较高的社会关注度，也是中国仲裁机构常见的案件类型之一。仲裁庭审理民间借贷纠纷案件，通常需严格适用《民法总则》《合同法》等有关法律法规并参照《关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》（下称民间借贷司法解释）等司法解释，同时也要努力做到公正与妥善合理的有机统一，既要依法保护合法的借贷利息，也应依法控制借贷中过高的利息等收益。
笔者梳理了部分北京仲裁委员会/ 北京国际仲裁中心（北仲）的民间借贷案件，试图通过本文初步分析该类案件中常见的难点与争议问题。
总体来说，以北仲案例为例，仲裁庭会全面考虑合同期内利息、逾期利息、违约金及各类相关费用的总和的大小等问题，在个案的裁决上保持当事人之间的利益平衡。
期内利息计算。北仲民间借贷纠纷案件中一个值得关注的争点是期内利息的计算方式，其中可能涉及以下问题：第一，部分借贷合同中采取了非常规的利息计算方式；第二，借款期限内的利息表或者还款表的实际利率与合同载明的名义利率不一致，在计算借款期限内利息时，何者为标准进行计算易发生争议。
对于非常规的利息计算或者支付方式，仲裁庭应测算其实际利率，参照最高人民法院民间借贷司法解释第二十六条的规定确定裁决思路。实际利率未超过年利率24%，借款人尚未支付的利息应当给付；实际利率超过年利率24% 未达到36%，借款人已经支付的超过年利率24% 未达到36% 的利息，出借人不再返还，借款人尚未支付而出借人主张借款人支付超过年利率24% 的利息，应不予支持；实际利率超过年利率36% 的部分，借款人已经支付而要求出借人返还的，应予以支持。
如果出现名义利率与实际利率不同的情形，实际利率未超年利率24% 的情况下，原则上仲裁庭仍以合同中利息表的约定为准。但借款人提出明确的抗辩时，仲裁庭可以在案件审理时考虑，借款人是否能够证明其对借款利率真实的意思表示，如果有确切证据证明合同存在欺诈、显失公平、重大误解等情形，可以依照合同法的相应规定对合同进行撤销。
逾期利息计算。民间借贷纠纷案件涉及逾期利息计算时可能遇到的难点是：合同未约定剩余借款本金的加速到期，此情形下逾期利息起算时间如何确定，以及逾期利息的计算基数和逾期利率的确定。对此，仲裁庭通常按如下方式处理：
当合同中未约定加速到期时，若出借人未主张解除合同，则其无权主张剩余本金的加速到期；若出借人主张解除合同，应以合同解除之日为加速到期部分本金的利息起算日，即仲裁庭裁决合同解除之日或确认合同解除之日。逾期利息的计算基数应仅为借款期限届满后或借款加速到期时借款人未偿还的本金。并且，参照最高人民法院民间借贷司法解释第二十九条和第三十条之规定，逾期利率应不超过年利率24%，且有违约金、滞纳金等各类其他费用的情况下，总体利息及费用之和的利率不超过年利率24%。
利息以外的相关费用问题。一些民间借贷纠纷案件的裁判争点还在于相关费用问题。其一是借款本金包含支付给第三方的费用时，该费用是否可视为预先扣除的利息。其二是可否将相关费用视为变相利息，因该费用通常随每期应还本息一同发生，若将其视为变相的利息，则利率将远远超过民间借贷司法解释的规定。
对于此问题，仲裁庭通常会按顺序参考如下因素，并根据个案情况进行审查和裁断：
第一，借款人是否出庭抗辩。若借款人出庭抗辩称费用收取方未实际提供咨询或评估服务，或以格式合同未明确提示等理由证明支付咨询费、服务费并非借款人真实意思表示，仲裁庭会审慎地对上述问题进行审查并作出决定；借款人虽未出庭，但相关费用占本金比例过大从而不符合一般的商业惯例时，也应做适当的调查。
第二，主体是否同一或者存在关联关系。若提供咨询服务的一方由出借人指定，或法定代表人为同一人或者有其他关联关系的，出借人将其应该履行的职责分拆为不同主体来承担并因此收取服务费，并不合理。仲裁庭可就个案进行自由裁量，如果可以认定足够的同一性和关联性，可以将该等费用视为变相利息；若主体不同一也不存在关联关系，原则上不将该些费用视为变相利息。
第三，是否有费用收取方的履行证据，包括实际履行行为、支付凭证等。若在案证据中无相关费用的支付凭证，也无实际履行义务的证据，该等费用难以被支持。
对于被认定为变相利息的费用，借款开始即收取的，则应当抵扣本金；事后逐期收取的，可以在与利息等其他费用加总在一起后，对超过年利率24% 范围的部分予以扣除。但在上述情况下，如果经测算的实际利率不高于年利率24%，则不再扣除利息。
以上是对北仲部分民间借贷案件中常见的争议问题及仲裁庭思路的总结。北仲也将继续通过机构的管理和记录，对仲裁实践进行分析，以期引导业界人士对大量仲裁案件中已经出现的争议问题进行讨论、达成共识。
Private lending disputes have become hot potatoes in recent years, and the caseload of lending matters has also surged in Chinese arbitration institutions. When making decision on these disputes, the tribunal normally needs to strictly apply the General Provisions of the Civil Law, the Contract Law and other laws and regulations, and consider the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases (the provisions of private lending cases) and other judicial interpretations. In issues regarding tribunals’ discretion, the values of fairness and appropriation are required to be considered in protecting the legal interests and restricting loans unethically and immorally intended to enrich the lender.
The authors have studied cases from Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/ BIAC) and summarized some major disputes and tribunal considerations in private lending cases. In general, the tribunals would consider the total sum of interest due and delayed, default interest and other fees, and balance between the parties in every individual case.
Calculations of interest within the interest period. In BAC/BIAC private lending cases, the calculation method of interest accrued within the interest period often draws attention. In some credit agreements, parties adopted an irregular method to calculate the interest, resulting in an inconsistency between the explicit written interest rate and the hidden interest rate calculated from the repayment table.
For irregular methods of calculation, the tribunals should calculate the actual interest rate hidden in the repayment table, and have it examined by the 24% criterion from the provisions of private lending cases: (1) when the actual annual interest rate is below 24%, the borrowers should pay the remaining interest; (2) when the actual annual interest rate is above 24% but below 36%, for the interest above 24%, the already paid interest is legal while the unpaid interest would not be supported; (3) when the actual annual interest rate is above 36%, for the interest above 36% the borrowers can make a claim of return.
Also under this circumstance and when the actual annual interest rate is below 24%, the tribunals would in most circumstances respect the repayment table. However, if the borrowers raise an explicit defence over the true intention, the tribunals can arrange a debate over the true intention of the interest rate, and with adequate evidence of fraud, evident unfairness or a major misunderstanding, repeal the agreement under the rules of the Contract Law.
When the calculation of interest exceeds the interest period. Another issue in private lending cases is how to calculate when the interest accrued exceeds the interest period, especially when the credit agreement did not include an obligation acceleration clause. We can observe the tribunal decisions in most circumstances.
When the credit agreement did not include an obligation acceleration clause: (1) if the lender did not claim to rescind the agreement, the obligation wouldn’t be accelerated; (2) if the lender did claim to rescind the agreement, the interest would be accrued from the date of rescission, based on the remaining principal, with the annual interest rate below 24%.
Relevant fees in private lending cases. The last issue is about fees relevant to the credit agreement. In practice, part of the principal is paid to a third party in the name of consulting fees or service fees. The question is whether to deduct such amount from the principal, which relates to in what circumstances the relevant fees can be seen as interest and be examined by the 24% criterion.
The tribunals often consider the following factors in order, and make decisions on each individual circumstance:
First, whether the borrowers make a defence. If the borrowers claim and prove that the third party did not provide any service related to the fees, or the lenders did not remind the borrowers of a format clause, resulting in an untrue intention, the tribunal will scrutinize these facts. Even if the case is heard in the borrower’s absence, when the relevant fees are a considerably large proportion of the principal, the tribunal will make an appropriate investigation.
Second, whether the third party and the lenders are the same or related. If the lenders appointed the third party, and have the same legal representative or other relations with the third party, then it is not reasonable to split the lenders’ duty to different parties and charge them fees. The tribunal may have discretion over this issue. If the tribunal makes a decision in an individual case that the relevance is adequate to determine identity, then such fees can be interpreted as interest.
Third, whether there is evidence of the third party fulfilling its obligations. If there is no such evidence of payment receipt or of fulfilling its obligations, such fees cannot be supported.
If the fees are determined to be the interest: (1) when the fees are charged at he beginning, such an amount should be deducted from the principal; (2) when the fees are charged during the interest period, the fees and interest should be added and examined by the 24% criterion.
The above was a brief summary of issues and tribunal decisions in BAC/BIAC private lending cases. The BAC/BIAC uses its extensive administration and analysis to help achieve consensus on arbitral controversies.
