20 15 On April 29th, Mr. Gan signed an agreement with Rongyibao Company, and Mr. Gan contributed 5 million yuan to accept the creditor's rights in the name of the borrower, with a term of one year and an agreed annual interest rate of 13%. On the same day, Mr. Gan paid the money to Rongyibao Company and transferred the creditor's rights in Jaz Li to 250 people. After the maturity of the loan, Rongyibao Company paid the interest to Mr. Gan as of May 20, 200615, but the principal of RMB 5 million was not returned to him. Mr. Gan then filed a lawsuit in court.
During the trial, the defendant Rongyibao Company believed that Rongyibao only provided intermediary platforms and services for Mr. Gan and Mr. Li, and there was no creditor-debtor relationship with Mr. Gan. "Our relationship is an intermediary relationship, not a loan relationship. Mr. Gan signed a creditor's rights transfer agreement with Li through Rongyibao Company. Rongyibao has completed the intermediary obligation and has no obligation to repay the wealth management funds to Mr. Gan. Mr. Gan should ask Li to repay. "
The court of first instance held that the Personal Lending Consultation and Service Agreement signed by both parties was legal and valid. According to the law, an intermediary contract is a contract that provides media services and the client pays the remuneration. The intermediary is not the agent of the principal, but the middleman, and its service scope is limited. However, in this case, the plaintiff Mr. Gan authorized Rongyibao Company to find a borrower for its funds, and the funds were also transferred to Rongyibao Company. This kind of contract does not conform to the characteristics of intermediary contract, but more conforms to the characteristics of "entrustment contract" Therefore, the court held that the contract should belong to the entrustment contract.
On the premise of confirming the nature of the contract, the court held that according to the evidence submitted by both parties, Rongyibao Company could not be deemed to have completed the obligations stipulated in the contract. The key point is that Mr. Gan accepted Li's huge creditor's rights, and Rongyibao Company did not submit enough evidence to prove that the borrower Li it found had a real creditor-debtor relationship with 250 people.
For this reason, the court made a first-instance judgment and ordered Rongyibao Company to repay Mr. Gan's principal of 5 million yuan and the interest from the effective date of the judgment to the actual repayment date, and the interest was calculated at the annual interest rate 13%.
At present, Rong Yibao, who filed an appeal, asked to withdraw the lawsuit at the beginning of the second trial. The case is still under trial and the judgment has not yet taken effect.