The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff may lose the case even though he has a loan contract and receipt

2022-07-12 0 By

The plaintiff and the defendant a contract for loan of money between the two sides, as well as other related agreement, with the receipt of payment, such as loan contract dispute litigation, although its holding evidence related to the relationship between borrowing and comprehensive basic facts of the case, but it did not proof to prove out to lend money on his/her department all of the accused, and there is evidence to prove that the money is being lent,Accordingly the plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed.Applicant (plaintiff of first instance, appellee of second instance) : Wan Dancheng, male, Han nationality, born on December 17,1964, living in Qingshanhu District, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province.Attorney: Wu Xingyang, lawyer of Jiangxi Ceyuan Law Firm.Attorney: Ma Yichun, lawyer of Jiangxi Ceyuan Law Firm.Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance) : Fuzhou Jinfeng Wine Industry Co., LTD., residential place: Zone C, Chongren Industrial Park, Fuzhou City, Jiangxi Province.Legal representative: Zhan Junwen, executive director of the company.The retrial of the loan contract dispute between the applicant Wandan City and the respondent Fuzhou Jinfeng Wine Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Jinfeng Wine Co., LTD.), refuses to accept the civil judgment no. 518 of Jiangxi Provincial High People’s Court (2020), and applies to the court for a retrial.After the court accepted the case, the collegial panel was examined in accordance with the law, and the examination has ended.Wandan City applied to the court for a retrial in accordance with the provisions of Item 2 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Procedure Law), “The basic facts recognized in the original judgment are not proved by evidence” and Item 6 of the original judgment is indeed wrong in applying the law “.Request: 1. Revoke the Civil judgment No. 518 of Jiangxi Higher People’s Court (2020).1. Repay the applicant’s loan principal of 10,095 million yuan, and pay the loan interest calculated at an annual rate of 24% from March 10, 2015 to the date of repayment of principal and interest, which is temporarily calculated to 110,43,930 yuan until the date of prosecution, totaling 211,138,930 yuan;2. The respondent shall compensate the principal and interest of the applicant with the price of RMB 20,000 per ton of 55-degree Simeng Raw liquor.Iii. The litigation costs, preservation fees and attorney’s fees of the first and second instance and the retrial of the case shall be borne by the respondent.Facts and Reasons: 1. The applicant provides sufficient and conclusive evidence to prove the existence of the loan relationship with the respondent of the application. The second instance court’s confirmation that there is no loan relationship between the applicant and the respondent of the application is obviously lack of evidence, which is a basic factual error.1. The applicant submitted the Loan Contract signed by the applicant and the respondent in the trial of the first and second instance.Wandan City and Yan Jian are Cousins. In line with their trust in Yan Jian, Wandan City signed the Loan Contract with Jinfeng Liquor Company on March 10, 2015.This Loan Contract is signed and sealed by wandan city and the borrower, and the loan agreement of both parties is true and valid.2. In the trial of the first and second instance, the applicant submitted the collection receipt issued by the respondent to the applicant and the Power of Attorney entrusted by the applicant to Yanjian for the transfer of funds.YanJian is holding 33.9% of the shareholders, the respondent in this case a dozen pens transfer from YanJian indeed account to receive the account specified by the applicant, but the transfer behavior of banten city entrusted payment, is between the trustor and the trustee, the meaning of the agent and the agent said YanJian as agent, legal effect of the behavior and in the principal banten city.3. The applicant submitted the Supplementary Agreement, Custody Contract, Purchase and Sales Contract signed between the applicant and the respondent, as well as the Power of Attorney and the record of wine collection that the applicant entrusts Yan Jian to take wine on his behalf in the trial of the first and second instance.On July 1, 2017, the applicant authorized Yan Jian to receive simeng Raw liquor on his behalf and actively exercise the lender’s rights.Issued from another bottle of wine records can prove that, from 2017 to 2018 YanJian receive four dream protoplasmic wine number is 6.772 tons of wine, banten city authorized YanJian exercising its rights as a creditor, in the first instance the respondent to get wine behavior also recognize, which proved that the strong breeze liquor companies for confirmation “supplementary agreement” to guarantee the implementation of the contract,Banten exercised its right as a lender.4. According to the statement of meaning in the Letter of Power of Attorney submitted by Yan Jian in the evidence submitted by the respondent, “All the goods mentioned are used to compensate for the loan I borrowed from Jinfeng Liquor Co., LTD.”, which means that Yan Jian paid off the loan to Wandan City on behalf of Jinfeng Liquor Co., LTD.I refer to Yan Jian himself, while outsiders refer to the borrower Wan Dancheng. Yan Jian is the shareholder and manager of the company, so there is no such thing as “outsiders”. Yan Jian’s lifting of liquor should not be regarded as repayment of the principal and interest of the loan.Second, the court of second instance applied the law incorrectly.According to article 90 and Article 91 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the court of second instance in this case did not allocate the burden of proof in accordance with the law.For the applicant, the applicant shall submit relevant evidence to prove that their legal effectively signed the loan contract, the amount specified in the contract to perform the payment behavior of the loan contract, agreed reimbursement deadline, loan interest, in accordance with the contract, received a certificate issued by the applicant with the receipt of payment, also exercised recourse against the rights of creditors,Complete the responsibility of submitting relevant positive factual evidence.In the distribution of burden of proof, the court of second instance made a mistake in the application of law, favoring and helping the respondent, which resulted in major errors in the determination of facts and in the application of law.After examination, the court holds that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Bandan City is the actual lender of the loan involved in the case, and whether there is a real loan relationship between the applicant and the respondent.Wandan city holds the loan contract between the two parties and other relevant agreements, and the receipt voucher issued by the respondent to file the lawsuit.The court of first instance recognized banten’s claim and ruled in favor of its claim.The court of second instance held that although Wandan City held the above-mentioned evidence related to the loan relationship, based on the basic facts of the case, Wandan City did not provide evidence to prove that the money lent to Jinfeng Liquor Company was owned by itself, but there was evidence to prove that the money was lent by Yan Jian, the witness of the loan contract.In addition, the power of attorney issued by Yan Jian to Jinfeng Wine Company shows that yan sent others to jinfeng Wine Company to get wine to compensate for his borrowing from outside people on behalf of Jinfeng Wine Company.On this basis, the court of second instance changed its judgment and rejected banten’s lawsuit.Now, Wandan City applies to the court for a retrial, but it still fails to provide evidence to prove that the loaned money belongs to itself, or that it negotiated with the borrower during the conclusion of the contract, and received the principal and interest of the loan in the form of alcohol in the process of performance.Therefore, the court of second instance integrated the facts of the case to reject the city of Wan Dan’s lawsuit is not justified.As for the money actually obtained and used by Jinfeng Liquor Company through the loan relationship, the actual lender of the money may separately claim rights against Jinfeng Liquor Company.In summary, The retrial request and reasons of Wandan City do not conform to the provisions of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and Paragraph 2 of Article 395 of the Interpretation of application of the Supreme People’s Court, the ruling is as follows: The retrial application of Wandan City is rejected.Chief Judge Li Yanchen, Judge Huang Peng, Judge Yu Lin, March 15, 2001, Court Clerk Tang Chen * Source: Practice of civil Code