In this case, because the partnership between Party A, Party B and Party C was not established from the beginning, in previous cases in which Chinese courts handled such cases, the partnership agreement was generally ruled invalid, and each party assumed the obligation to return the property and the risk of property loss according to their respective faults or responsibilities.
To sum up, the partnership agreement, the withdrawal agreement, and the capital contribution certificates and correspondence documents of Party A, Party B and Party C in the process of concluding the agreement can all be used as factual evidence that the three parties actually want to establish a partnership, but this behavior is invalid according to the laws of our country at that time, and each party has the obligation to return the property. Party A can't ask for the return of the capital contribution based on the invalid withdrawal agreement, but can only claim that the partnership between the three parties was not established from the beginning, and regard it as a loan and ask Party C to return it.
Therefore, Party A's request for Party C to return the property should be supported.