The appellant Tang Zhengqun, dissatisfied with the civil judgment No. (2022) Hei 1283 Minchu 1227 of the People’s Court of Hailun City, Heilongjiang Province in the case of civil loan dispute between him and the respondent He Zhongxia, filed an appeal with this court. After the case was filed on August 3, 2022, this court held an open court hearing on this case on August 23, 2022 and September 5, 2022. During the court hearing on August 23, 2022, the appellant Tang Zhengqun and his authorized litigation agent Sun Hongyan, and the respondent He Zhongxia attended the trial. During the court hearing on September 5, 2022, the appellant Tang Zhengqun and his authorized litigation agent Sun Hongyan, the respondent He Zhongxia and her authorized litigation agent Wang Jue attended the trial. The case has now been concluded.

　　Tang Zhengqun’s appeal request: Request for the reversal of the first-instance judgment, and the rejection of He Zhongxia’s litigation claims; the litigation expenses of the first and second instances shall be borne by He Zhongxia. Facts and reasons: The first-instance judgment has incorrectly identified the facts, leading to an erroneous judgment result. There is no civil loan legal relationship between Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongxia; neither party has a loan agreement, and Tang Zhengqun has not received the said amount. In fact, it was He Zhongxia’s sister, He Zhongyan, who asked He Zhongxia to purchase 50,000 Radar coins. After He Zhongxia purchased the Radar coins, she worried about being deceived, so He Zhongyan asked Tang Zhengqun to issue a promissory note for He Zhongxia. Although Tang Zhengqun issued the promissory note, his real intention was to comfort He Zhongxia. Since there is no loan between the parties in this case, interest should not be supported. In summary, the appeal court is requested to investigate the facts and legally reject He Zhongxia’s litigation claims from the first-instance trial.

　　He Zhongxia argued that the appeal opinion of Tang Zhengqun is not true. If there was no lending relationship, Tang Zhengqun would not have issued a promissory note for me, and the promissory note also indicated the interest. Therefore, the determination of the facts by the first instance court is clear, and the application of the law is correct. He requested the second instance court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
website online casino online website，come on baby
　　He Zhongxia filed a lawsuit claim with the first instance court: 1. Request the court to order Tang Zhengqun to immediately return the principal of the loan of 50,000 yuan and pay interest at a monthly interest rate of 1% from August 9, 2020, to the date of payment; 2. The litigation costs shall be borne by Tang Zhengqun.

　　The first instance court determined the facts: On August 9, 2020, Tang Zhengqun borrowed 50,000 yuan from He Zhongxia, with an agreed monthly interest rate of 1% and a loan term of 1 year. Tang Zhengqun issued a promissory note for He Zhongxia, and He Zhongyan signed as an intermediary. After the deadline, the money was not returned after He Zhongxia requested it.

　　The first instance court believes that He Zhongxia and Tang Zhengqun are fully capable of civil conduct, and both parties’ expressions of intention regarding the loan are genuine. The lending relationship does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, nor does it violate public order and good customs. The民间借贷relationship between the two parties is legally effective. Legal lending relationships are protected by law. The fact that Tang Zhengqun borrowed 50,000 yuan from He Zhongxia is clear. He Zhongxia has fulfilled the obligation of lending, and Tang Zhengqun’s failure to repay the loan as agreed constitutes a breach of contract, and he should bear the responsibility for continuing to fulfill his debt to He Zhongxia. Therefore, the lawsuit claim of He Zhongxia requesting Tang Zhengqun to return the loan of 50,000 yuan should be supported. Regarding the lawsuit claim of He Zhongxia requesting Tang Zhengqun to pay interest at a monthly interest rate of 1% from August 9, 2020, to the date of payment, the interest rate standard requested by He Zhongxia for Tang Zhengqun to pay interest is in accordance with the agreement of both parties and does not exceed the legal provisions, and is supported. Tang Zhengqun argues that although he issued a promissory note for He Zhongxia, there was no lending relationship. Tang Zhengqun did not submit evidence to prove that his defense was justified, and the process of issuing the promissory note described by Tang Zhengqun was obviously unreasonable. Therefore, the defense opinion of Tang Zhengqun is not adopted. In summary, He Zhongxia’s lawsuit claim is in accordance with the provisions of the law and is supported. According to Article 143 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 107, 196, 205, 206, 207, and 210 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 31 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Loan Cases, and Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, it is ordered that Tang Zhengqun shall immediately return the loan of 50,000 yuan to He Zhongxia after the judgment takes effect, and pay interest at a monthly interest rate of 1% from August 9, 2020, to the date of payment. The filing fee of 1,302 yuan is reduced to 651 yuan, and shall be borne by Tang Zhengqun.

　　During the second instance hearing, the parties submitted new evidence, and the court organized the quality confirmation between the two parties. Tang Zhengqun submitted evidence one, 8 pages of WeChat chat records between Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongyan, and 2 pages of WeChat chat records between He Zhongxia and He Zhongyan, intending to prove that He Zhongyan recommended the purchase of Radar Coin to He Zhongxia. On August 9, 2020, He Zhongyan received a transfer of 50,000 yuan from He Zhongxia to purchase Radar Coin. Evidence two, one tape recording of a phone call between Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongxia, intending to prove that Tang Zhengqun wrote the involved IOU to comfort He Zhongxia after He Zhongxia purchased Radar Coin, and there is no civil loan relationship between the two parties. Evidence three, witness Tang and Wang confirmed that after He Zhongxia saved money to purchase Radar Coin, she issued a IOU to He Zhongxia due to concern about the risk at the Radar Coin studio in Hailun City. After the quality confirmation, He Zhongxia had no objection to the authenticity of evidence one, but believed that the content was false; had an objection to the authenticity of evidence two. Both parties had objections to the statements of the two witnesses, believing that the witness statements were not true, and the involved IOU was issued at her mother’s house. He Zhongxia submitted one tape recording with a third party, Ji Hailian, stating that she did not see the process of Tang Zhengqun issuing the IOU, but heard from Tang Zhengqun that he issued an IOU to comfort He Zhongxia to buy Radar Coin; evidence two, 5 pages of WeChat chat screenshots between He Zhongxia and Tang Zhengqun and 1 page of WeChat transfer electronic proof, intending to prove that the involved funds were a loan, and when He Zhongxia demanded the money back, Tang Zhengqun promised to repay by the end of October 2021. After the quality confirmation, Tang Zhengqun had no objection to the authenticity of the above evidence, but believed that it was He Zhongxia who lured the witnesses to make such statements. The court authenticated the evidence submitted by both parties as follows: Because He Zhongxia had no objection to the authenticity of evidence one submitted by Tang Zhengqun, the court adopted the authenticity of this piece of evidence. Although He Zhongxia had an objection to the authenticity of evidence two, she did not apply for identification of the authenticity of the tape recording, which was considered to acknowledge the authenticity of the recording, and the court adopted the authenticity of this evidence. Both witnesses did not see the content of the materials issued by Tang Zhengqun, and could not prove the facts in dispute, so the court did not adopt the witness statements. The court adopted the authenticity of the two pieces of evidence submitted by He Zhongxia.

　　The second instance trial found that Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongxia and He Zhongyan’s sister He Zhongyan are friends. After Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongyan bought Radar Coin, they persuaded He Zhongxia to buy Radar Coin on the grounds that they could obtain high interest income. He Zhongxia, out of trust in Tang Zhengqun and He Zhongyan, bought 50,000 yuan of Radar Coin on August 9, 2020. After purchasing Radar Coin, He Zhongxia was worried about the risk and Tang Zhengqun issued an IOU for He Zhongxia to dispel her concerns, the IOU states “Today, I borrow He Zhongxia 50,000 yuan (￥50,000) for one year (one interest rate) to make money, half for one person! Borrower on August 9, 2020: Tang Zhengqun, intermediary: He Zhongyan”. On September 11, 2021, when Tang Zhengqun was asked to repay 50,000 yuan by He Zhongxia, he replied that he would repay by the end of October.

　　It is further learned that Radar Coin is a network Online casino and How to find it, the Radar official website closed the Radar Coin website on October 19, 2021.

　　The court believes that the focal point of this case is whether Tang Zhengqun should repay the relevant funds. On August 9, 2020, He Zhongxia purchased 50,000 yuan of Radar Coin through the introduction of Tang Zhengqun. In order to eliminate He Zhongxia’s concerns about the risks of Radar Coin, Tang Zhengqun voluntarily issued the relevant IOU for He Zhongxia and agreed to pay interest. As a fully capable civil legal person, Tang Zhengqun, knowing that the funds were used to purchase Radar Coin, still issued the relevant IOU for He Zhongxia, indicating his willingness to bear the risks brought about by it. In addition, when He Zhongxia demanded the relevant funds from Tang Zhengqun in September 2021, Tang Zhengqun also explicitly stated that he would repay by the end of October, so Tang Zhengqun should bear the responsibility for repaying the relevant funds.

　　During the second instance, Tang Zhengqun applied to the court to obtain the bank deposit and withdrawal details of He Zhongxia and He Zhongyan on August 9, 2020. Because the issue to be proved by this application has been substantiated by other evidence, there is no need to obtain it.

　　In summary, Tang Zhengqun’s appeal reasons are not valid and should be dismissed. According to Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the first paragraph of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

　　The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is maintained.

　　Article source: Anti-fraud Research Studio (fpyjgzs) transferred from the China Judgment Document Network, hereby express our gratitude!

　　More anti-fraud articles

　　Recently, many Apple phones have received this text message…

　　For many years, the Alipay account of a woman in Daqing was fraudulently debited, and she decided to report to the police…

　　”8,000 units of resettlement housing allocation plan”? An area urgently denies it!

　　A man defrauded the same victim repeatedly, and the court sentenced him according to law!

　　Claiming that “Yu Mei Dongfang”内衣 can cure diseases? The merchant was investigated!lottery help and The latest strategy

　　The scam of making money by watching advertisements has come again! Jinyu Short Video claims to be a central enterprise, which is purely nonsense!

　　Haihui Mall: The crowdfunding model includes promotion benefits, and Huibao Token can also be exchanged for equity?

　　Yinglian APP: Can consumption points be exchanged for equity? How to interpret the multi-level agency system?

　　Yunle Song: The actual controller Wang Shaohua comes from Long Love Quantum, what kind of benefits can be enjoyed at five levels of position?

　　Beijing “Global Love Play Travel Network” and its affiliated companies were heavily fined, and were once suspected of illegal fund-raising