It is said that in the summer, he went to the trial supervision division of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court as scheduled and met Miss Sun Ping, the economic magistrate. Pen ~ fun ~ Pavilion www.biquge.info she was very friendly to talk to Xia about the loan of Kishio Company. Xia is the one who has dealt with the scene in an economic dispute case, and while listening to Sun Ping's speech, he speculated about her intentions, and answered without leaking. Later, Sun Ping received the materials submitted by Xia Xia on behalf of the branch and asked Xia Xia to sign a routine signature on the transcript formed during the general questioning. Sun Ping took out a copy of Kishio Company's "Application for Retrial" and gave it to Xia, and said to Xia: "After you go back, discuss with President Wang, or write a defense opinion based on Kishio Company's "Application for Retrial" and hand it over to us." ”

Summer said, "Yes." ”

Sun Ping said again: "In addition, I would like to trouble you, please inform Xu Donghai to come to me at nine o'clock tomorrow morning to make a record." ”

Summer said, "Okay, I'll help you get there." ”

Because he was going to Bao'an Court to participate in the special financial implementation symposium in the afternoon of the same day, he returned home directly after coming out of the middle court.

The next morning, in the office, Summer read in detail Kishio's "Application for Retrial", which reads:

Application for retrial

Applicant: Shenzhen Baoan Anwei Economic Development Company

Respondent: Hubei Branch of Citizens Bank

Respondent: Shenzhen Anyan Automobile City Co., Ltd.

Matters to be applied: Because the original trial court made an untrue mediation under the circumstances of the respondent concealing the truth and providing false evidence, which violated Article 85 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it requested that the Municipal Intermediate People's Court's (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 Civil Mediation Document and (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1562 Civil Mediation Document be revoked and retried.

Facts and Reasons for the Application for Retrial:

Zhu Chier, the legal representative of the respondent Shenzhen Anyan Automobile City Co., Ltd., has been investigated by the Provincial Public Security Department for financial fraud, and Zhuang Yu, the former person in charge of the respondent Citizen Bank Hubei Branch (formerly Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Society), has also been investigated and punished for being involved in the criminal case, and according to the information that has been ascertained by the public security organs in the course of the investigation of the criminal case, there are major discrepancies with the facts identified in the previous (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562 civil mediation documents:

One Based on the false information provided by the respondent, the two mediation documents determined that it was not true that the applicant Shenzhen Bao'an Anwei Economic Development Company borrowed a total of 79 million yuan from the respondent Hubei Branch of the People's Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as its former name was Hubei Financial Services Society), but in fact the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society borrowed 169 million yuan from the respondent Shenzhen Anyan Automobile City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Anyan Company), and all of them were without signing a loan contract, and only listed the borrowing unit as Shenzhen Anyan Company and the amount of the loan in 18 transactions before June 10, 1994, the money was transferred to the account of the respondent Anyan Company for its use. On June 18, 1994, Zhuang Yu, general manager of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, learned that the Municipal People's Bank of China would send a working group to audit the accounts, focusing on the investigation of the loan of 215.5 million yuan from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society to the respondent Anyan Company, because the registered capital of the respondent Anyan Company was only 30 million yuan, and the loan was more than 200 million yuan, and neither the borrower nor the borrower had handled a loan contract, let alone a mortgage or guarantee, which clearly violated the relevant provisions of the state's financial work. In order to cover up the mistakes of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society itself and Zhuang Yu himself, Zhuang Yu, after conspiring with Zhu Chier, the legal representative of the respondent Anyan Company (who is also a suspect in financial fraud), summoned Qin Xianhong, deputy manager of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, Xu Donghai and Bu Ding, the heads of the credit department, and Lin Yun and Wu Dongmei, the general accountants of the business department, and others on the evening of June 19, 1994. At the meeting, the criminal suspect Zhu Chi'er proposed that the unpaid loan accounts of the respondent Anyan Company be decomposed by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society; of which 46.5 million yuan had already been re-applied for in April, but the mortgage registration formalities had not yet been completed by the applicant's Anwei Economic Development Company, but the mortgage registration formalities had not yet been completed, and the remaining 169 million yuan should be changed to the loan of the applicant Anwei Economic Development Company, and Zhuang Yu agreed with Zhu Chi'er's opinion at the meetingand arranged for Xu Donghai, the person in charge of the credit department, to be responsible for assisting Zhu Chi'er in handling the false loan contracts, loan IOUs and other written documents of 169 million yuan for 18 loans from the Anwei Economic Development Company, and Lin Yun and Wu Dongmei of the general counter of the business department were responsible for changing the accounting records of the loan of 169 million yuan from the respondent Anyan Company to the accounting records of the loan of 169 million yuan from the applicant Anyan Company in the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society. After this conspiracy, the respondent's responsible persons Zhu Chi'er and Zhuang Yu and the clerk Xiao Yilin, Xu Donghai went to Anwei Village the next day, found Liu Linlin, the main cadre of the Anwei Company, and first asked the Anwei Company to go through the procedures for a loan of 79 million yuan, and when the cadres of the Anwei Company disagreed, Zhu Chier immediately exerted pressure and coaxed Zhuang Yu in the name of the Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. In the future, the Kishio Economic Development Company will never be pursued for repayment in accordance with this procedure, and the accounts will be changed again after the inspection is due", Shen Mian, the principal cadre of Kishiwei Village, Liu Linlin, general manager of Kishio Company, and others have lost their principles and did not hesitate to harm the collective interests of all the people in Kishiwei Village, and affixed and signed the loan contract, loan IOU and other relevant loan documents that had been fraudulently filled out by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. and in the name of the applicant Kishio Economic Development Company for a loan of 169 million yuan. It should be pointed out that even the guarantor listed in the loan contract, Shenzhen Jinkaige Development Co., Ltd., is another scapegoat found by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society.

2. (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1562 Civil Mediation Statement found that: (July 11, 1994) after the contract was signed, the plaintiff (Hubei Financial Services Society) transferred RMB 57 million to the account of Kishio Company in accordance with the contract. However, neither the accounting accounts of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. nor the loan IOUs issued by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. have any records or vouchers for payments made to the applicant Kishio Economic Development Co., Ltd. after July 11, 1994. In the course of the litigation, Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. provided the following evidence to the court:

1994.4,136,000,000 yuan;

1994, 5, 97 million yuan;

1994,6,4,20,000,000 yuan;

1994, 6, 10,100,000,000 yuan, 1,000,000 yuan, 7,000,000 yuan, 8,000,000 yuan.

The above totals 59 million yuan.

Analyzing the evidence submitted to the court by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. listed above, it is clear that after July 11, 1994, after the signing of the contract, no payment was made to the applicant, Kishio Economic Development Company, and the respondent deceived the court and provided false evidence, resulting in the court issuing the (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1562 Civil Mediation Statement, which is obviously unfactual and should be corrected.

3. The evidence submitted to the court by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. is not only untrue, but also contradicts its accounting records. According to the principle that the interests arising from the parties' adducing evidence against themselves belong to the other party, it effectively proves that the applicant, Kishio Economic Development Company, has never actually borrowed a loan from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society.

1. In the course of the litigation in the (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1562 case, the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. provided the court with a list of so-called guarantees of the shore tail company, which listed seven loans totaling 59 million yuan, of which 1 million yuan was borrowed on June 10, 1994, and there was no loan IOU to support it.

2. In the litigation of (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562, the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. claimed that the applicant, Anwei Economic Development Company, had borrowed a total of 79 million yuan, but provided only seven IOUs of IOU evidence for financial transactions such as loan IOUs provided to the court, with a total face value of 70 million yuan, a difference of 9 million yuan, and failed to provide evidence in accordance with the principle of "whoever claims, who presents evidence".

3. In the litigation of (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562, the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society provided the main evidence to the court as the main evidence of the loan IOUs of the applicant, Kishio Economic Development Company, a total of seven documents, of which 6 million yuan was borrowed on April 13, 1994, 7 million yuan on May 9, 1994, and 20 million yuan on June 4, 1994, with a total of 33 million yuan. It was recorded in the accounting accounts of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. itself, which was recorded as a loan from the applicant Kishio Economic Development Company and a loan from the respondent Anyan Company. This circumstance shows that only the respondent, Anyan, actually borrowed money.

4. In accordance with articles 135 and 137 of the "General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China", the statute of limitations for filing a request to the people's court for protection of civil rights is two years; (1997) The two loan contracts involved in the Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562 cases were signed on June 10, 1994 and July 11, 1994 respectively, and the loan terms stipulated were June 10, 1994 to April 9, 1995 and July 11, 1994 to May 10, 1995 respectively, and the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. did not claim rights against the applicant to collect the money until May 11, 1997. In the course of the litigation, the Applicant submitted that the statute of limitations had expired in both cases, and the Respondent, Hubei Financial Services Society, subsequently provided the Court with a Loan Overdue Notice, which had the signatures and seals of the Applicant and its legal representative dated August 19, 1997, as the only evidence that it had claimed rights against the Applicant. However, a closer look at the Loan Overdue Notice shows that the first sentence of the Loan Overdue Notice, "Your unit borrowed multiple loans from the Bank on April 13, 1994 (the date of signing the contract)" shows that the Loan Overdue Notice has nothing to do with the (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562 cases. First, the two loan contracts (deeds) involved in the two notes were signed on 10 June 1994 and 11 July 1994 respectively, not 13 April 1994. Secondly, the sum involved in the two cases was only $6 million on 13 April 1994, which was not "multiple". It can be seen that the Notice of Loan Overdue provided by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. to the court cannot be used as evidence for the interruption of the statute of limitations in these two cases.

5. In the two cases of (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562, there seemed to be defects in the trial procedures and should be corrected. Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that only the basic people's courts shall apply the summary procedure when hearing civil cases, and the municipal intermediate people's court adopts the summary procedure of a single-judge trial when hearing the two cases, which is contrary to the provisions of the relevant laws.

Based on the above points, the Applicant believes that:

First, the signatures and seals of the loan contracts dated June 10, 1994 and July 11, 1994 respectively between the applicant and the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society were not the true intentions of both parties, the applicant did not borrow money from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, the real borrower was the respondent Anyan Company, and the real lending behavior occurred between the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society and the respondent Anyan Company. In accordance with Article 55 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the loan contracts involved in the two cases were not the expression of the true intentions of the parties, and the civil acts were not established.

Second, the signature and seal of the loan contracts dated June 10, 1994 and July 11, 1994 by the applicant were based on the oral promise of the respondent, Hubei Financial Services Society: "In the future, the Shore Tail Economic Development Company will never be pursued for repayment in accordance with this procedure, and it will be changed again after the inspection team dispatched by the Municipal People's Bank of China has been satisfied." This commitment reflects that the subsequent civil acts of lending between the applicant and the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society are false and illegal. At the same time, Zhuang Yu's undertaking was made on behalf of the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, and must be fulfilled by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, and the applicant should not have made a claim for repayment, but should have changed the loan procedures to restore the true fact that the respondent Anyan Company had borrowed money from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society.

Third, in the two cases (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562, the real facts are that the respondent Anyan Company borrowed 79 million yuan from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society. In the course of the trial of these two cases, they failed to distinguish between right and wrong on the basis of facts, that is, they conducted mediation, which violated the provisions of the law. Of course, the applicant also had a certain fault in handling the litigation of the two cases, that is, under the circumstance that Zhu Chier, a fraud suspect, made a guarantee that all the arrears would be fully repaid by his Anyan Company in a short period of time during the litigation, the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. also stated during the litigation that "if a mediation agreement can be reached, a longer repayment period can be given to Anyan Company to raise funds to repay the debts in order to settle the matter", and other coaxing and deceptive language, failed to clearly state the true situation that he knew in court. Admittedly, the Applicant's knowledge of the true circumstances was also limited, as the main fraudulent act was committed jointly by the two Respondents, and the Applicant could not have known all of it.

The applicant did not take out a loan from the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society, and the two loan contracts and related procedures signed by the two parties on June 20, 1994 and July 11, 1994 respectively, were false, and were signed by the respondent Hubei Financial Services Society and the respondent Anyan Company by fraudulent means to cause the applicant to sign against their true intentions The provisions of Article 58 shall be handled as invalid civil acts.

In view of the above, we sincerely request the people's court to revoke the (1997) Shen Zhong Fa Jing Chu Zi No. 1561 and No. 1562 civil mediation documents, retry the two cases, and change the judgment that the applicant does not bear civil liability, and that the respondent Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. and Anyan Company shall bear the corresponding civil liability.

This is presented

Municipal Intermediate People's Court

Shenzhen Baoan Anwei Economic Development Company (India)

5 October 1998

Official: The wording of the full text of the "Application for Retrial" of the Kishio Economic Development Company is obviously much milder than that of the "Application for Retrial" of the Industrial Village Committee, and it is more possessive of materials and evidence.

Summer pondered the basis of the article in detail, and the basic facts still hold up. Moreover, it only said that the loan of 79 million yuan with Kishio Economic Development Company as the borrower was untrue, and did not say that Kishio Company's act of taking out 29 properties to mortgage Anyan Company's 46.5 million yuan was not an expression of Kishio's true intentions, and it was obviously deliberate.

In this sense, Summer thinks that it is true and truth-seeking. Because at that time, Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. had not yet officially opened for business, and the real estate certificate of Kishio Company had already been obtained in the iron cabinet of the personnel department of Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. Prior to this, Anyan Company and Kishio Company also signed an agreement on the cooperation between the two parties to develop the automobile city and use the real estate financing of Kishio Village, why is it not the true intention of Kishio Village?

There is another question, which also made Xia fall into a long test: "Hong Hu and they made five transcripts of themselves, but they did not mention anything on the application, and only excerpted the testimony as a witness in the annex. So, what is the mystery of the task force not putting my name in the article? Was it negligent or deliberately avoided it, in the hope that I would have a greater room for maneuver in their favor when making decisions to respond to the lawsuit?"

However, the other company mentioned in the Application for Reconsideration, Shenzhen Jinkaige Development Co., Ltd., was described as a scapegoat because of its guarantee behavior, which is obviously inappropriate, because it is the beneficiary realized through the guarantee act. However, as a bank, it is impossible to say it, because as long as it is explained, it just confirms what Kishio Village said: it was the bank and Jin Kaige Company that used and colluded with each other to make false guarantees.

In the summer, he made three copies of the "Application for Retrial", one for each of the two presidents, one for himself, and one for legal counsel Hao Wenting. So that after everyone has finished reviewing the original text, they will be fully prepared to deal with it when they meet to study countermeasures. (To be continued.) )