1, the bank not to sue directly auction mortgage vehicle, whether banks have the right? If after the owners authorized?
So if the bank auction of vehicle owners have agreed to auction the book can also be.
If the owners do not match, then can only prosecute owners.
Then banks holding court verdict auction.
The court auction, the proceeds from the bank priority
The bank without owner's consent (auction vehicle belongs to the effectiveness of the contract to be determined)

2,

1) the intermediary to find a buyer, or find a buyer, to buy you will pay money, you put money in the bank to pay off, and then to the Che Kwun transfer procedures.
2) you can also borrow money in the bank to pay off, handle the transfer procedures, the buyer pays you money to loan.
3) you can also discuss and bank mortgage contract, whether the borrower change into the new buyer, by the new buyer himself on the bank, you buy the car, and then transfer to the new owner.

3, Beijing automobile trade company complained that, in July 20, 2003, the defendant zhaomou request our company to provide guarantee for the loan purchase a car, Zhao as borrower, my company as the guarantor, signed with the Beijing agriculture branch company branch of automobile consumption loan contract agreement, Zhao to the average monthly repayment to apply for a loan of more than 14.6 yuan's branch yuan, the monthly repayment 2771 yuan, loan formalities, Zhao extraction vehicle.

2003 August to 2004 May, Zhao did not press the automobile consumption loan contract to fulfill the repayment obligations, causing me to fulfill the obligation of guarantee to the bank, payment of 2.7 yuan for Zhao pad, to pay the fines of 1704 yuan, and caused my company for recourse debt to pay 2000 yuan. The Zhao payment payment 2.7 yuan, to pay the fines of 1704 yuan, and pay our company because the reasonable cost of recourse debt payment of 2000 yuan.

Zhao argues, I signed the loan contract and purchase a car automobile consumption loan contract and the plaintiff, the plaintiff to let me go home notice, then has not told me. I do not have to pay a down payment, no extraction of the vehicle, hands also no formalities. I do not agree with the plaintiffs request.

The court thinks via cognizance, automobile trading company in the parties to provide evidence within the time limit, not provide car delivery Zhao, loan purchase a car relevant evidence contract and automobile consumption loan contract has been performed, so the decision to dismiss a automobile trade company litigation request.

4,[case]

Because the defendant Xu Bing owed the plaintiff money 500000 yuan, Beijing Dongcheng District people's court sentenced the defendant Xu Bing to pay. Because the defendant Xu Bing refused to comply with the judgement of obligations, the court execution court in 2004 October will be the Xu Bing name a Boxster brand car seal, and in 2005 August the car seized, detained on Xu Bing himself. After the court entrusted the Beijing trade auction this car auction. The plaintiff through the auction to buy from this car, the defendant Beijing auction house in the trade at the same time commitment for transfer procedures for the plaintiff. But in the process of transfer procedures, the defendant Xu Bing in 2007 March will be the vehicle for the mortgage procedures, the car can not cause for transfer procedures.

    Before that, the plaintiff in 2007 January with the Beijing auction house in the trade to go through all the auction procedures, the ownership of the car belongs to the plaintiff all. The defendant Xu Bing also agreed to auction debt with this car in the case of knowing that their owe money, also deliberately fraudulent mortgage registration of vehicles, hinder the implementation of the cases. For the protection of their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff asked to confirm the defendant Xu Bing and Beijing China Co truction Bank Corp Fengtai branch signed "mortgage contract" null and void, and bear the litigation cost and appraisal cost. After the court in support of the plaintiff appeals.

[Focus]

The party does not appear in court to whether can be identified as the right of disposition, purchase a car owner did not sign the "mortgage contract" and credit car bank, also did not apply for mortgage registration of vehicles, only the "loan contract" in the provisions related to purchase a car, can be recognized as the mortgagee. The "mortgage" behavior is effective.

    A party to the case and submit a reply to the other party's evidence examination of the right, in this case the defendant Xu Bing court legitimate summons, refuses to appear in court, which can be regarded as the abandoned the respondent and quality certificate of rights.

    According to the facts that have been identified, the defendant Xu Bing and the stranger binyan company signed the "purchase contract" car loans, although the defendant Xu Bing accept binyan company sells the vehicle condition, and "Xu Bing in the form of loan purchase a car purchase a car, Xu Bing on the vehicle have only incomplete possession, use, and the right to return, the purchase a car car for Xu Bing performing loans and bank mortgage collateral contract, no Xu Bing transfer, the purchase of vehicles on loan during the two mortgage or pledge" agreement ", but Xu Bing signed with the CCB Fengtai branch and outsider binyan company Beijing City branch of Construction Bank China personal automobile consumer loan loan and guarantee contract", the defendant Xu Bing and the construction of the Fengtai branch did not purchase a car loan Xu Bing signed in time "mortgage contract", also did not apply for the vehicle registration of mortgage. So, the CCB Fengtai branch in did not deal with the legal procedures, the only general creditor status, rather than the mortgagee. The defendant Xu Bing fails to perform the obligations specified in court documents, the purchase of vehicles by the court seizure.

    In the meantime, the defendant Xu Bing to the court agreed with the plaintiff in its failure to reach the "settlement agreement" content of fulfilling the obligations, the court will have seized the purchased vehicle auctioned debt repayment. Therefore, the court did not perform "settlement agreement" content in the Xu Bing and fails to perform the obligations in accordance with the decision, the auction will be the principal trade Xu Bing purchased the vehicle is detained for auction. The defendant Xu Bing in knowing that the court has the car seized or detained, and in which does not perform the obligation of repayment of the vehicles will be auctioned, still with the CCB Fengtai branch mortgage registration, and the Fengtai branch of China Construction Bank knows its not the defendant Xu Bing signed the "mortgage contract" under Xu Bing and mortgage registration, the provisions of its behavior is a clear violation of laws and administrative regulations.

    According to the "Supreme People's Court on the civil execution auction, the sale of the property provisions", the specific property and real estate registration, or other property or debt auction, the property, the specific property of other property ownership, right from the auction or set off ruled that served the buyer or bear when transfer. Therefore, in the auction house in the trade on the defendant Xu Bing vehicles after the auction is completed, the plaintiff purchased the ownership by auction under the name of the vehicle should be the plaintiff all.

  In addition to the spirit of the legislation of real right law of our country, whether it is real property and chattel mortgage contract, are to a contract, the two parties of the contract in the contract signed or stamped, namely the establishment and effectiveness. And the defendant to the CCB Fengtai branch to the hospital to provide "mortgage contract", the defendant Xu Bing not in the contract signing, therefore, the "mortgage contract" from first to last not the establishment and commencement of.