In an office of the Economic Division of the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, presiding judge Li Qirui organized a meeting between economic and judicial officials Chang Qing and Wang Jun and clerk Liu Yibing, and what they held in their hands was the manuscript of the "Civil Judgment" of Shenzhen 38 Co., Ltd., which was to be deliberated at today's meeting. Pen Fun Pavilion wWw. ｂiquge。 ｉｎfo”

"Okay," Liu Yibing finished speaking, and read:

Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou Province

Civil Judgment (Proof)

Plaintiff: Hubei Branch of Minmin Bank, address: Hubei Road, Luohu, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Wang Xianyao, president of the sub-branch.

Entrusted agent: Hao Wenting, legal counsel of the sub-branch.

Defendant: Shenzhen 38 Co., Ltd., address: 3rd Floor, Shum Yip Building, No. 7 Wenjin Middle Road, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Chen Shanwei.

Defendant: Shenzhen Nanshan Wuda Co., Ltd. Residence: Huaguo Mountain, Nanshan, Shenzhen.

Legal representative: Shen Gongbo, general manager of the company.

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

In the case of a mortgage contract dispute between the plaintiff Citizen Bank Hubei Branch suing the defendant Shenzhen 38 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 38 Company) and the defendant Shenzhen Nanshan Wuda Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 57 Company), this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and conducted a trial in open court after accepting the case. The plaintiff entrusted an agent, Hao Wenting, and the defendant Wuda Company, an agent, Shen Gongbao, appeared in court to participate in the litigation, and the defendant 38 Company refused to appear in court without a legitimate reason after being lawfully summoned by this court. The case is now closed.

The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff and 38 Company signed a Mortgage Contract on June 13, 1994, which stipulated that the plaintiff would lend 15 million yuan to 38 Company in two installments, and Shenzhen Nanshan Wuda Company would use all of its land in Nanshanwo as collateral (property right certificate number: Shen Fang Di Zi No. N101234X). On June 16, 1994, the plaintiff transferred 8 million yuan to the account of 38 Company, and on August 2, 1995, 3.5 million yuan. However, as of September 20, 1996, the company still owed 11.5 million yuan in principal and 315,900 yuan in interest, and Wuda Company failed to perform its joint and several repayment obligations. The court requested the court to order 38 Company to immediately repay the loan principal of 11.5 million yuan, and the interest and penalty interest of 315,900 yuan. Wuda Company shall be jointly and severally liable for repayment, otherwise, it will auction and sell the loan collateral in accordance with the law. The defendant shall bear all the litigation costs of this case.

Defendant 38 Company did not reply.

The defendant Wuda Company argued that our company did not issue any documentary evidence related to the mortgage guarantee to 38 Company, and the mortgage statement was false and invalid, and this case was an economic fraud case. The plaintiff and 38 Company caused adverse political influence and economic losses to our company, and demanded that the plaintiff and 38 Company compensate for economic losses of RMB 500,000.

After the trial, it was ascertained that: on June 13, 1994, Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. (the predecessor of the plaintiff) signed a mortgage loan contract with 38 Company, stipulating that the plaintiff agreed to lend the borrower 15 million yuan, the loan term was from June 16, 1994 to December 16, 1994, a total of six months, and the monthly interest rate was 9.9‰; The loan was used in two tranches, the first tranche of $8 million on 16 June 1994 and the second tranche of $7 million on 30 June 1994, and the loan was repaid in two tranches: $8 million on 16 December 1994 and $7 million on 30 December 1994. When the loan matures, the borrower must repay the principal and interest of the loan in full, and if the loan is overdue, an additional interest of 50% will be charged, and the borrower shall use the No. N101234X real estate owned by the borrower as collateral for the loan. On July 1, 1994, that is, after the loan of 8 million yuan was issued, the Shenzhen Luohu Notary Office notarized the mortgage contract. At the same time, the notary office notarized a "Mortgage Declaration" for the declarant Wuda Company. The contents of the mortgage statement read: Wuda Company voluntarily used all its real estate (Shen Fang Di Zi No. N101234X) as a mortgage guarantee for 38 Company to borrow RMB 15 million from Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. for a period of 6 months. The mortgage statement has the seal of Wuda Company and the signature of Long Beibei, the legal representative at that time. On June 16, 1994, Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. lent 8 million yuan to 38 Company, and the balance of 7 million yuan was not loaned. On December 25, 1994, Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. and 38 Company signed a Loan Extension Agreement, stipulating that the loan term of the loan of RMB 8 million would be extended to June 16, 1995. After the expiration of the extension period, 38 Company failed to repay the principal and interest of the loan. On August 2, 1995, Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. signed a Supplementary Agreement to the Mortgage Contract with 38 Company, stipulating that Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. would increase the loan by RMB 3.5 million. On the same day, Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. lent 3.5 million yuan to 38 Company. 38 Company has not repaid the principal and interest of 11.5 million yuan of loans.

Another investigation: After Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. signed a mortgage contract with 38 Company, although it obtained the Shenfang Di Zi No. N101234X real estate certificate of Wuda Company, it did not go through the mortgage registration procedures with the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau. The real estate certificate was declared invalid by Wuda Company on March 25, 1995, and a new certificate was registered on July 4, 1995.

Shenzhen Hubei Financial Services Co., Ltd. was restructured into Hubei Branch of Citizens Bank on August 20, 1995.

This court entrusted the Municipal Public Security Bureau to conduct an appraisal of the authenticity of the signature of "Long Beifang" at the place where the mortgage statement was signed and the seal of Wuda Company, and the conclusion of the appraisal was that the handwriting of the signature of "Long Beifang" at the place where the mortgage statement was signed was not written by the same person as the handwriting of Long Beifang himself, and the seal of Wuda Company stamped on the mortgage statement was not the same seal as the sample of the corresponding seal of the Public Security Bureau.

The above facts are evidenced by the mortgage loan contract and its supplementary agreement, the loan extension agreement, the mortgage statement, the notarial deed, the real estate certificate, the appraisal of the Municipal Public Security Bureau, the two loan IOUs, and the trial transcript.

The court held that the mortgage contract signed between the plaintiff and 38 Company on June 13, 1994 clearly stipulated that the No. N101234X property owned by the plaintiff was used as collateral for the loan, and the No. N101234X property was not owned by 38 Company. The so-called mortgage statement issued by Wuda Company on June 18, 1994 was forged because the seal and the signature of the legal representative were forged, so the mortgage guarantee clause was invalid, and Wuda Company did not assume the guarantee liability for the mortgage contract. The plaintiff failed to strictly examine the real estate certificate used by 38 Company as collateral for the loan, and was also liable for the hasty lending of the loan. The mortgage loan contract and its supplementary agreement are actually two independent loan contracts, both contracts are valid, and both parties should strictly perform the obligations agreed in the contract. The loan of 11.5 million yuan obtained by 38 Company in accordance with the agreement shall be repaid to the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement. The plaintiff's reason for demanding that 38 Company repay the principal and interest of the loan is established, and this court supports it, while the plaintiff's reason for demanding that Wuda Company bear joint and several liability is not established, and this court does not support it. Wuda Company demanded compensation for economic losses from the plaintiff and 38 Company, but did not file a counterclaim, and this court did not hear the case. In accordance with Articles 4 and 16 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Loans and Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

1. Within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, 38 Company shall repay the loan of 11.5 million yuan, interest and penalty interest owed to the plaintiff, and if it fails to do so, it will pay double the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant, Wuda Company, is dismissed.

In this case, the case acceptance fee was RMB 61,000 and the appraisal fee was RMB 2,000, which was borne by the defendant 38 Company. The plaintiff paid a property preservation fee of RMB 71,000 in advance, which should be returned to the plaintiff in full because the court did not take preservation measures.

If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may file an appeal with this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the High People's Court of Guangzhou Province.

After clerk Liu Yibing finished reading, presiding judge Li Qirui said: "Do you have any other opinions?"

Judge Chang Qing said: "As far as common sense is concerned, this case is still suspicious. My impression is that when the loan is overdue, 38 Company can still sign a new supplementary agreement with the bank to add new loans, which shows what kind of cooperation the two sides have. However, the problem now is that the company does not appear in court, and we have no way to know the real situation. ”

Judge Wang Jun said: "Hao Wenting of the bank said that the bank has relevant evidence to prove that the loan was made to Wuda Company's partner in the preparation of the 38 Building, and in addition, Wuda Company's real estate certificate has been in the hands of 38 Company for more than a year. ”

Li Qirui said: "The question of where the money is going will be handled by the enforcement court at that time. It's just that Wuda Company seems to be suspected of shirking its responsibilities and avoiding debts. But no matter what, it was also published in the newspaper, and the bank couldn't see it, so it could only suffer a dumb loss. ”

After deliberation, everyone decided to report to the president for issuance.

This case makes people feel deeply emotional. Is:

People say that the high devil is higher, and the debt development is a strange scheme;

The accumulation of assets snowballed, and the grandson became fat and the grandfather fled. (To be continued.) )