Reply to the case of private lending
Respondent: Chang Hai, male, Han nationality, 50 years old, living at Unit 5, Building 23, No.9 North Street, Art Hall, Xincheng District 14.
Defending the plaintiff's claim, the facts and reasons are as follows:
1. The objective fact of this case is that the respondent needed construction funds, and the person in charge of the construction site (another defendant, Wang) said at that time that he could help him borrow money. On July 6, 20 1 1, the defendant Wang said that he would help him borrow money from his uncle (plaintiff). When Wang handed over 70,000 yuan in cash to the respondent, the defendant Wang asked him to issue a debit note, saying that he had borrowed 70,000 yuan from the plaintiff, but the respondent had never seen the plaintiff. All this was said by the defendant Wang.
After the loan expires, the defendant Wang directly deducted it from the project payment of the respondent, and at the same time issued a receipt. And on1October 8, 20 12, 165438, the specific deduction process and situation description were released.
On the whole, although the defendant issued an IOU in the name of the plaintiff, the defendant never had a specific loan plot with the plaintiff. All the borrowing behaviors of the respondent occurred with the defendant Wang, and it was reasonable for the respondent to repay the loan to the defendant Wang.
2. The statement of the defendant Wang is inconsistent with the facts.
In the last trial of this case, the defendant Wang claimed that the iou issued by the respondent had not been cashed in Bayannaoer Shunda Construction and Installation Co., Ltd., and according to the labor relations confirmation case obtained from the Linhe District Court of Bayannaoer City after the respondent adjourned, Bayannaoer Shunda Construction and Installation Co., Ltd. clearly stated that the iou had been cashed in the defense issued to Dengkou County and Bayannaoer Human Resources and Social Security Bureau. That is, the defendant Wang has obtained all the principal and interest of the respondent Chang Hai's repayment and Liu's loan. And the defendant Wang issued a certificate to prove that the above two loans have nothing to do with the respondent, then the plaintiff's loan should be repaid in full by the defendant Wang and interest should be paid.
Third, about interest.
Although the respondent has paid the agreed interest in full and returned all the principal during the loan period. However, the two sides clearly agreed that the interest during the loan period is 4 cents per month, which is obviously too high. According to Article 6 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on the Trial of Lending Cases, the agreed interest shall not exceed 4 times the interest of similar loans of banks. Applicable to this case, according to the benchmark loan interest rate published and implemented by the People's Bank of China on July 7, 201/,the annual interest rate of loans within six months is 6. 10% (that is, the monthly interest rate is 0.5083%). Combined with the provisions of Article 6 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on the Trial of Loan Cases, the interest agreement in this IOU obviously exceeds the relevant laws and regulations of our country. Then the respondent in this case has actually paid the excess interest according to the agreement, and the respondent reserves the right to recover.
To sum up, the respondent has actually repaid the loan in dispute in this case, and the plaintiff's appeal has no practical significance, so please ask the court to reject it according to law.
Zhezhi
Xincheng district people's court
Respondent: Chang Hai.
2065438+September 27, 2003