Appellee's Complaint of Private Lending 1
Respondent: 09XX, female, born on ××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
The respondent made a reply to the case that the appellant Wang XX refused to accept the (20XX) commercial civil judgmentNo. XX.
The respondent believes that the facts of the first-instance judgment are clear, the applicable law is correct, and the appellant's appeal grounds are not established, so the appellant's appeal request should be rejected according to law and the first-instance judgment should be upheld.
First, there is a loan relationship between the appellee and the appellant, and the facts are clear and the relationship is clear.
In the IOU issued by Fan xx, it is clear that the lender is xxx (the appellee), the borrower is Wang XX (the appellant), and in the CCB transfer receipt, it is also clear that the payer is xxx (the appellee) and the payee is Wang XX (the appellant), which can prove that the appellee borrowed 500,000 yuan from the appellant. The details of bank reconciliation can clearly reflect the fact that the appellant and Fan xx have fulfilled the repayment obligation to the appellee, and the receipt issued by xxx (the appellee) to Wang XX (the appellee) can also prove the fact that the appellant has fulfilled the repayment obligation to the appellee.
Although the IOU involved in the case was not directly issued by Wang XX (the appellant), the loan was repaid by the appellant, and the specific repayment method was consistent with the IOU.
For example, 20x65438+February 9th and 20x65438+1October 9th are all agreed in accordance with the IOUs? 6%? Interest was paid at the interest rate of +0 1 1, and the appellant actually repaid the principal on April 12 and 28 and September 23 and 30 of the same year. At the same time, combined with the contents of the receipt issued by the appellee to the appellant, it is enough to show that the appellant knows the iou. Although the third party issued the IOU, if the borrower actually fulfilled the repayment obligation, the actual borrower should bear the repayment obligation.
Therefore, there is a loan relationship between the appellee and the appellant, the facts are clear, and the loan relationship is clear, and the appellant should bear the repayment obligation.
2. There is no loan relationship between the Appellee and Li XX, and the loan lent by the Appellee to the Appellant does not belong to investment, let alone so-called illegal fund-raising.
There is no loan relationship between the Appellee and Li XX, and the Appellee lent the money to the Appellee entirely out of trust in the Appellee and Fan XX. Both of them are national civil servants, and the interest rate of 6% is tempting. If the appellee lends money to Li XX, it is totally unnecessary for him to ask the appellant and Fan XX to issue IOUs, and then there will be complicated procedures for the appellant and Fan XX to repay the principal and interest.
Assuming that the fact of Li XX's loan is established, the specific principal and interest of the loan should be repaid by Li XX, but in fact, the appellant and Fan XX jointly repay this part of the money. Moreover, it is clearly written on the IOU that the borrower is Wang XX (appellant). If the actual borrower was Li XX at that time, Fan XX was excluded from maliciously colluding with the appellee to frame the appellant. There is no such thing. Wang XX? Where should it be? Li XX? .
Therefore, there is no loan relationship between the appellee and Li XX.
The appellant transferred his own money to Li XX's account, which was a manifestation of the appellant's income or for other purposes. The mutual transfer between them has nothing to do with the appellee. The appellee doesn't know whether the income, how to operate and what kind of money it is, and it is even more impossible for the appellee to know that the mutual transfer between them is illegal fund-raising, which is not in conflict with the appellant's behavior of lending money to the appellant to obtain high interest.
Even if the Appellant and Li XX participated in illegal fund-raising activities, without the Appellee's knowledge (the name of the Appellant's loan is that it needs money to start a garment factory), this cannot be used as a reason for the Appellant not to repay the Appellee's principal and interest.
Nor can the appellee be deprived of the right to ask the appellee to repay the principal and corresponding interest agreed in the IOU because the appellee has not obtained the corresponding benefits or used it for other purposes. For the illegal fund-raising behavior of the Appellant and Li XX, the judicial organs should investigate the corresponding legal responsibilities through legal procedures, and the consequences of the illegal behavior of the Appellant and Li XX should not be passed on to the Appellee.
To sum up, the appellant's grounds for appeal cannot be established, and the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct. Request the people's court at a higher level to reject the appeal according to law and uphold the original judgment.
I am here to convey
XX intermediate people's court
Agent ad litem: Xu.
XX year x month x day
Pleadings of Appellee on Private Lending II
Defendant: North China Electric Power University.
Address: No.2, Beinong Road, Zhuxinzhuang, Changping District, Beijing
Legal Representative: Liu Jizhen Position: Person in Charge.
Authorized Agent: Wang Xuemian, teacher of the School of Humanities, North China Electric Power University, contact information: 139XX9,
Li Xiandong, Deputy General Manager of International Exchange Center of North China Electric Power University, tel: 135 x782.
Due to the dispute over the service contract between the International Exchange Center of our school and Beijing Saiyin Zhuleqi Information Consulting Co., Ltd., the defense is as follows:
First, the defendant is not qualified. The plaintiff listed the defendant as North China Electric Power University (Beijing) in the indictment, and a copy of the indictment was delivered to North China Electric Power University. North China Electric Power University is not North China Electric Power University (Beijing), so the plaintiff's subject is wrong.
Secondly, the hotel reservation contract signed on April 28th, 2007 between the International Exchange Center of our school and Saiyinzhu Le Qi Information Consulting Co., Ltd. and a series of subsequent supplementary contracts are null and void, so they have no legal effect. The plaintiff's claim for liquidated damages against the defendant based on the invalid contract is unfounded in law.
On June 29th, 20**, People's Republic of China (PRC) * * the State Council issued the Decision of the State Council on Setting Administrative License for Administrative Examination and Approval Items Needed to Be Preserved by Order No.412, in which Item 36 clearly stipulated that the hotel industry belongs to a special industry. 1987 article 4 of the measures for the administration of public security in the hotel industry approved by the State Council on September 23rd stipulates that:
The application for opening a hotel shall be approved by the competent department, signed by the local public security organ, applied for registration with the administrative department for industry and commerce, and allowed to start business only after obtaining a business license. The International Exchange Center of North China Electric Power University is an internal reception center. It has not obtained a special trade license or business license, and does not have the civil capacity to sign a contract to provide room service.
According to Article 55 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, a civil juristic act shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The actor has corresponding capacity for civil conduct; (2) the meaning is true; (3) It does not violate laws or public interests. Because North China Electric Power University does not have the civil capacity to sign a room service contract, the hotel reservation contract signed with the plaintiff and a series of subsequent supplementary contracts are invalid.
Thirdly, assuming that the contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant is valid, the defendant also terminated the performance of this contract according to the requirements of Beijing Changping Public Security Bureau, which is force majeure. The defendant informed the plaintiff in time, fulfilled his due obligations and should not bear any responsibility.
Fourthly, assuming that the contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant is valid, the liquidated damages of up to 200% and 300% signed in the contract have far exceeded the plaintiff's losses. According to the second paragraph of Article 114 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law:
If the agreed liquidated damages are lower than the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to increase them; If the agreed liquidated damages are excessively higher than the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to reduce them appropriately. The plaintiff's claim should not be supported.
Based on the above facts, we believe that there is no legal basis for the plaintiff to demand the defendant to pay liquidated damages. Please ask the court to reject the plaintiff's claim according to law.
I am here to convey
Changping District People's Court of Beijing Municipality
Defendant: North China Electric Power University.
Legal Representative: Liu Jizhen.
Entrusted agent:
Pleadings of Appellee on Private Lending 3
※ Respondent: Li
※ Chen, the respondent, appealed the case of private lending dispute, and the respondent replied as follows:
First, the court of first instance clearly identified the case, with accurate legal characterization, appropriate evidence, fair responsibility identification and proper interrogation measures. So, Guangzhou? People's court (20XX)? What is the first word of the French? The civil trial of 1 was fair and just, and in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent, the court of second instance was requested to uphold it according to law. In this case, it has been proved that the situation is as follows:
1. The defendant borrowed 5,000 yuan from the plaintiff, both of which were related to private lending.
On June 8, 2065438+0 * 65438+February, 65438, the plaintiff lent the defendant 5000 yuan by transfer, and the defendant returned it by text message, which was ignored by the defendant on February 20/kloc-0. Because the defendant has never paid off the loan.
Although the defendant confirmed that he borrowed 5000 yuan from the plaintiff, he argued that the plaintiff had verbally entrusted him to introduce foreign tools and agreed to spend 2000 yuan a month. Now the handling fee owed by the plaintiff can be offset by the loan owed by the defendant. After the offset, the defendant no longer owes the plaintiff money. In this regard, the defendant only provided the department mailbox, the plaintiff's personal photos and materials, and the data proof of the collection tools, but the plaintiff refused to confirm this, saying that it did not entrust the defendant to provide any labor services or find tools, and the two sides did not reach any agreement.
II. Defendant's Refutation of Appellant's Concept
1.※ Appellant Chen's appeal grounds and reasons are invalid. At the end of February, 20 12, the Respondent did not entrust or authorize the Appellant to help him find foreign tools on the Internet, nor did it verbally agree that 2000 yuan per month was needed for translation and excavation. No agreement was reached between the defendant and the appellant.
2. The appellant begged the respondent to pay back 6000 yuan, and did not provide new evidence to prove it.
To sum up, there is private lending between the Respondent and the Appellant, and there is no verbal agreement or any agreement unrelated to private lending. I think the appellant's appeal is unreasonable and the court of first instance is correct. I hope that the people's court of second instance will support it according to law.
I am here to convey
? City Intermediate People's Court
Respondents:
date month year