In the office, Xia opened the judgment of the Provincial High Court on the appeal case of Shenzhen Youbang Industrial Co., Ltd., and read it carefully and carefully:

High People's Court of Canton Province

Civil Judgments

(1998) Yue Fa Jing Er Shang Zi No. 1X1

Appellant: Shenzhen AIA Industrial Co., Ltd. (defendant of first instance). Pen % fun % Pavilion www.biquge.info

Residence: Jiamei Building, Zhenxing Road, Futian, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Wei Jianliang, position: chairman.

Entrusted agent: Shen Gongbao, the company's legal counsel.

Appellee: Hubei Branch of Minmin Bank (plaintiff of first instance).

Residence: Hubei Road, Luohu, Shenzhen.

Person in charge: Wang Xianyao, position: president.

Entrusted agent: Hao Wenting, legal counsel of Hubei Branch.

The appellant, Shenzhen Youbang Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AIA), appealed to this court against the civil judgment of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1489 due to a dispute over a loan contract. This court formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law, and the trial has now been concluded.

After the trial, it was ascertained that, on September 12, 1994, AIA and Shenzhen 38 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "38 Company") signed a guarantee loan contract with the appellee, the Hubei Branch of the People's Bank of China (formerly known as Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Society, later changed to its current name, hereinafter referred to as "Hubei Branch"). Agreed: Hubei Sub-branch will lend RMB 5.4 million to AIA in two installments, with a monthly interest rate of 12.078‰ and a term of 12 months. The guarantee is provided by 38 Company, and the guarantee is in the form of joint and several liability guarantee, and the guarantee period is from the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. After the contract was signed, 38 Company issued an irrevocable guarantee to Hubei Sub-branch on September 13, 1994, in the same manner and term as the guarantee loan contract. After the contract was signed, Hubei Sub-branch transferred 5.4 million yuan to the account of AIA in two installments on September 17 and October 13, 1994. At the expiration of the performance period of the contract, AIA failed to perform its obligations under the contract, and 38 Company also failed to perform its guarantee obligations, so Hubei Branch filed a lawsuit with the court.

Another investigation: On September 15, 1994, 38 Company borrowed RMB 5.4 million from AIA for a period of one year, and claimed that the money would be returned directly to Hubei Branch after expiration. On May 15, 1995, a certificate was issued to the Hubei Sub-branch confirming the above facts.

After the trial of the case, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court held that the guarantee loan contract signed by Hubei Sub-branch with AIA and 38 Company and the irrevocable guarantee letter issued by 38 Company were true and valid and protected by law. AIA shall repay the principal and interest of the loan owed to Hubei Branch. 38 Company shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the above debts. The loan relationship between AIA and 38 has nothing to do with this case and can be handled separately. AIA's argument that the loan in this case was unrelated to it was not valid, so it was not supported. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 6, 15, 40, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 89, Paragraph 1, Paragraph 1 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first instance rendered the following judgment: 1. AIA still owes the plaintiff a loan of RMB 5.4 million, as well as interest, overdue interest (interest and overdue interest shall be calculated in accordance with the relevant regulations of the People's Bank of China) and should be repaid in full. The repayment shall be paid within 20 days from the date on which this judgment takes legal effect, and the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled after the deadline. 2. The 38 Company shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the above debts. The first-instance case acceptance fee of 41,890 yuan shall be borne by AIA.

Dissatisfied with the original judgment, AIA appealed to this court, claiming that: 1. The original judgment was negligent in the key facts of the case, so it failed to make a correct determination. The judgment of the original trial court held that: "The secured loan contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant ... Authentic and effective. It also determined: "The loan relationship between the defendant AIA Company and 38 Company has nothing to do with this case and can be handled in a separate case." None of the above determinations reflect objective facts. The facts are as follows: On 12 September 1994, AIA signed a guarantee loan contract with Hubei Sub-branch, and all formalities were handled by the actual user, the contract guarantor, the 38 Company. On 15 September 1994, 38 Company issued an IOU to AIA stating that the money was used by it and that it was responsible for all liabilities, and that the loan was remitted to AIA's account in two installments on 17 September and 13 October 1994, and was immediately at the disposal of 38 Company. On May 15, 1995, 38 Company sent a letter to Hubei Sub-branch to explain: "Due to the restrictions of your company's loan regulations, after negotiation between our company and Shenzhen AIA Industrial Co., Ltd., Shenzhen AIA Industrial Co., Ltd. will lend a loan of 10,000 yuan to your company, and our company will bear the principal and interest of the loan. On December 5, 1995, 38 Company sent another letter to Hubei Sub-branch to explain: "Our company shall bear the principal and interest of the bank for this loan. Later, it was ascertained that 38 Company used the land mortgage of Nanshanwo No. N101234X of Nanshan Wuda Co., Ltd. to obtain the mortgage guarantee qualification, and listed the loan collateral in the loan formalities inventory registration form of Hubei Sub-branch (formerly Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Society) as Nanshanwo Real Estate Certificate: No. N101234X. The owner of the collateral is 38 Company. When the above-mentioned mortgage procedures were to be handled, the seal of Wuda Company and the signature of the legal representative were forged (the original appraisal certificate is now stored in the Economic Division of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court). Therefore, the secured loan contract between AIA and Hubei Sub-branch cannot be said to be true and valid, and it cannot be considered that the loan relationship between AIA and 38 has nothing to do with the loan relationship in this case. The case was clearly a cartel fraud rather than an ordinary loan contract dispute. 2. The original judgment ordered AIA to bear responsibility, setting a bad precedent and sparing the real criminal company elements. This case is a collusion and fraud between the Hubei Sub-branch and the relevant personnel of the 38 Company, and if it is only treated as an economic dispute, the Hubei Sub-branch can pass on the losses and cover up the real criminal activities of the relevant personnel, and the relevant personnel of the notary public can also escape the charge of dereliction of duty. At the same time, the actual user of this case, 38 Company, can also escape criminal responsibility. It has a great negative effect on illegal and criminal activities in the financial system and economic field. In summary, the original judgment neglected the key facts of the case and failed to correctly determine the nature of the case, so it was impossible to produce a correct result, and in accordance with Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Law, the appeal was hereby filed with the higher people's court, requesting the higher court to ascertain the facts and support AIA's appeal request to protect the appellant's legitimate rights and interests. Maintain the normal socialist legal order.

Hubei Sub-branch replied that the facts found in the first-instance judgment were clear and the law was correctly applied, and it should be upheld. 2. AIA's claim that it was "unaware" of the loan is completely inconsistent with the facts, and the person in charge of the credit department of our bank had spoken with Wei Jianliang, the legal representative of the company, on the phone on several occasions, and when the Minmin Bank took over the service cooperative, the company also issued a "Debt Confirmation Letter" to the Shenzhen Audit Bureau. In fact, the company's former accountant had contact with the Hubei branch when he applied for the loan, and he has been in contact with the bank until now. Moreover, the company provided all the seals and seals for opening its account, so how can it be said that it has no knowledge of it? Third, the criminal company elements alleged by AIA are actually one of the initiators. It is understood that it is precisely because of the cooperation between AIA and 38 Company and other companies to build the so-called 38 Building that there is a financing move to the Hubei branch together. Now, while partnering to avoid debts, they are weaving some sensational statements in an attempt to lead the trial astray. His greed is clearly revealed. In summary, the court of second instance is requested to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment in accordance with the law.

This court held that the secured loan contract signed between Hubei Sub-branch and AIA should be deemed valid because its content was legal, the procedures were complete, and it was an expression of the true intentions of both parties. The Hubei Sub-branch's claim for creditor's rights is sufficiently evidenced and reasonable, and should be supported, while AIA's false claim that it "never knew about the loan" was not accepted by this court. The loan relationship between AIA and 38 Company is indeed within the scope of a separate case and can be prosecuted separately; as for the issue of corporate fraud raised by AIA, it is not within the scope of trial of this case, and this court will not deal with it. AIA's appeal was unwarranted and should be dismissed. In summary, the original judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and it should be upheld. In accordance with the provisions of Article 153, Paragraph 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was affirmed.

The second-instance case acceptance fee of 41,890 yuan shall be borne by AIA.

This judgment is final.

Presiding Judge: Gao Hongyu

Judge: Zhang Zhen

Judge: Li Wen

High People's Court of Canton Province (India)

20 July 1998

Clerk: Shen Suihui

After reading the verdict of the Provincial High Court in the summer, he took out AIA's appeal petition from the folder and compared it, and found that the Provincial High Court did not repeat some of AIA's sensational statements about criminal crimes in the appeal. In fact, this is also the place where many loan units in the summer look down on them the most after they become defendants in the court. You think, a loan is a loan; if you can repay it, if you can't repay it, you can't repay it; when an enterprise is about to go bankrupt, it will come to "both be the best and set up a memorial arch", pour dirty water on others, and say that others are economic criminals. It has only one aim: to attempt to entangle the debt. If during the Cultural Revolution, the person concerned was pasted with a few big-character posters by this kind of person, it would be enough for him to drink a few pots, and it would be difficult to stand up and be a man!

At this point, the wishful thinking of Wei Jianliang, the legal representative of Shenzhen Youbang Industrial Co., Ltd., was not as expected. Shen Gongbao, a practicing lawyer who has the same smell as Wei Jianliang and who is particularly fond of using sensational rhetoric to attract the attention of others after accepting the client's entrustment, once again ran into a wall in court and before the law, and the reasons presented in his representation case and appeal petition were rejected in accordance with the law.

"It's kind of a big deal. Xia said in his heart: "I should feel glad that at a time when the process of the country's reform and opening up has reached an irreversible level, the building of the country's legal system has developed to a relatively perfect level, and a large-scale political movement has ended, I am fortunate to have the privilege of engaging in this rather sensitive and complicated work, which is itself a product of reform and opening up, and a few years later it will be handed over to the social and political and legal organs to evaluate the merits of that year." What makes me different from many of the people involved is that a few years later, I am still on the front line as a representative of the bank, and I am still watching the people who were trying to get loans say in hindsight. Whenever I see their different faces, it is like an ancient fossil found by archaeologists in the desert, recording and feeding back the kindness and disdain of their respective lives. Of course, history is what the people say, and it will not change because of the hoarse shouts of a bunch of villains. In a positive sense, in terms of life experience, I cannot buy the experience and talent I have accumulated from responding to these lawsuits. ”

Thinking of this, Summer is a little leisurely, and my heart is full of relief.

At this time, Chen Jiao came to Xia's office and said to Xia: "Lao Xia, I'm going to the president's office for a meeting!"

Summer said, "Okay. After speaking, he put the verdict back in the folder, took the notebook to the president's office, and prepared to participate in the personnel appraisal meeting of the branch. (To be continued.) )