Rolling was ordered to return 2 million yuan. Who won the lawsuit?

Zheng Shuang, are laws and regulations based on objective factual evidence and whether the chain of evidence is detailed? Many people don't have a guilty conscience, but they lost the lawsuit. I think that laws and regulations are fraudulent and complain. people who have a definition but want to do evil will try their best to leave no evidence. The most typical: loan, cash loan, no charge. If you don't leave all the evidence afterwards, you will naturally lose the case. The key point of Rolling's case is that he will lose. In the case of remittance, Zheng Shuang wrote down the name of the loan. Gungun didn't question the payment, it was his own problem. Whether this established enterprise works for Zheng Shuang or not, and whether it is in debt because of it, it will not endanger the debt with Zheng Shuang. Just for this 2 thousand. So if Zheng Shuang is the specific operator, who told you not to sign the contract? Anything not listed in the list will not be evaluated. There are many such situations in daily life.

a borrows money from b to open a physical store, and induces it to invest in the project. After getting the money, A made false accounts and embezzled the previous profits for various reasons. Cheat B into signing the company's equity transfer. At this time, the shopkeeper happened and said that the store still owed XX. A took the store and borrowed money from others in the name of B. In the end, it was always B. There were also, for example, WeChat official account, which operated on behalf of others and communicated by telephone beforehand. Can't pay after the operation. That's impossible. Admit it. You have no proof at all. Bian Xiao once bought a cello from her own teacher. After a period of time, it was found to be defective, and it was explicitly returned.

At this moment, the teacher turned his face and denied it. Not only did she say that I owed her the money she paid, but she also brazenly abused me. Fortunately, my WeChat chat record can be confirmed. However, due to the lack of evidence, I found several units, even the news media, and it didn't work. It is quite possible that many things in daily life can be said that victory is fairness and justice. But only laws and regulations depend on the objectivity of evidence and truth. This is especially important for everyone to recite. It's important to leave more vouchers.

Guess (1) Crushing was killed by a criminal defense lawyer.

(2) Rolling use of prosecution to find excuses for not paying back.

for the first one, it is very possible: in fact, the evidence in this case is very good. Zheng Shuang commented on the loan when he transferred tens of millions of dollars. Afterwards, Zhang Luo also admitted the objective fact of borrowing money, but Zhang basically did not call. Zhang's prosecution countermeasure is that he thinks the transfer of 2 million yuan is salary, but he can't produce relative evidence to prove it; It is believed that the solution should be to divide the assets according to cohabitation, but there is no mention of appeal or other prosecution; It is nonsense to think that the repayment period of the loan is ten years (illogical demand). I also suspect that it was put forward to better fill the space for complaints.

I think that under such circumstances, Rolling and his defense lawyer did not approve the verdict, which only showed that his defense lawyer was obliterating him, failing to tell him the truth and the risk of prosecution. The second case is very likely: in fact, Rolling's defense lawyer has made it clear enough, but Rolling doesn't know the verdict. Rolling is burdened with many lawsuits whose judgments have come into effect, but deliberately refuses to pay, claiming that the general ledger will be calculated after the verdict of this case comes out.

this kind of words that sound reasonable are actually just a common excuse for people who don't pay back the money. Because one thing is the same thing, now laws and regulations think that you owe money to employees, so you have to pay it back. As for the question that you think the money should be returned to Zheng Shuang, that is another lawsuit. Please pay before we talk. I don't know where the honey juice came from at that time, and he felt confident that he could win the lawsuit. He boasted that he would pay back the money after the lawsuit was finished. What's the result now? No, not yet, not yet. I want to wait for a retrial.

To sum up, the Zheng Shuang incident, whether it is the opinions of civil society or the official website, is blamed on Zheng Shuang. Now the people's court decided to repay the 2w borrowed from Zheng Shuang in a rolling way, and the appeal was rejected in a rolling way, and the procuratorate protested. No matter what key points this matter reveals from public opinion, I only firmly believe in the trial of laws and regulations. I infer that the whole thing is due to the breakdown of love between Rowling and Zheng Shuang. Zheng Shuang forced Rolling to repay 2, W, and Rolling was naturally (temporarily) unable to repay or refused to repay. After being forced to do nothing, he was exposed, taking this opportunity to intimidate Zheng, and the points about borrowing that were rolled out afterwards were also beneficial to Zhang.