Recently, the Anhui Provincial High Court made a judgment on a private loan dispute case, adopted the protest opinion of the procuratorial organ, rescinded the second instance judgment, and changed the judgment according to law. This case is a case involving private enterprises. After the parties applied to the procuratorial organ for supervision, the procuratorial organ carefully reviewed the case and protested to the Provincial High Court according to law on the grounds of the error in the application of law in the judgment of the court of second instance. The Provincial High Court supported and changed the judgment, protecting the legal rights and interests of private enterprises according to law.
In this case, Shi, Jin, A, and Jin, B, an outsider, borrowed the qualification of a construction company in Chuzhou to bid for a project in April 2012. After winning the bid, the three agreed that Jin A and Jin B would withdraw from the partnership after transferring their shares to Shi, and help Shi coordinate the funds, and Shi would pay interest at a monthly rate of 2.1%.
In September 2012, Shi signed an internal construction contract with a construction company in Chuzhou, stipulating that a construction company in Chuzhou would contract the winning project to Shi. Then, a project department was set up for construction.
From August 2012 to May 2014, a certain time borrowed a total of 11.35 million yuan from Jinmou A. Before October 2013 (the total amount of the previous borrowings was 8.5 million yuan), interest was paid on time from time to time, and then no interest was paid and no principal was returned.
In January 2016, Shi stamped the seal of the project department involved in the case on the above loan slip according to Jin's requirements (the negotiation between Shi and Jin was recorded by Shi). In February 2016, Jin Moujia filed a lawsuit to the court of Fengyang County, asking a construction company in Chuzhou to repay the loan principal and interest together with Shi Moujia. The court of the county decided in the first instance that a construction company in Chuzhou and Shi jointly returned the principal of a loan of 11.35 million yuan and paid the corresponding interest. A construction company in Chuzhou appealed against the judgment of first instance, and the court of second instance upheld the original judgment.
After the judgment of the second instance, a construction company in Chuzhou applied to the court for retrial and was rejected, and then applied to the procuratorial organ for supervision. After examination, Chuzhou Municipal Procuratorate believed that the court of second instance was wrong in applying the law, and submitted to Anhui Provincial Procuratorate for protest. After careful review, public hearing and discussion at the joint meeting of prosecutors, the Anhui Provincial Procuratorate lodged a protest to the Anhui Provincial High Court. The Anhui Provincial High Court determined that Shi's borrowing behavior was neither a duty behavior nor a prima facie agency. A construction company in Chuzhou was not a joint borrower with Shi, and the original judgment found that a construction company in Chuzhou was responsible for repayment, lacking factual and legal basis, so it adopted the relevant protest opinions of the procuratorial organ and changed the judgment.
It is understood that after receiving the judgment of Anhui Provincial High Court, a construction company in Chuzhou is actively applying for the court to implement the reversal.
