"According to the time limit specified in the mediation agreement, the amount of 900000 yuan has been transferred to our company's account. Now the lawsuit has finally ended and we can focus on business development with peace of mind." On September 5, Luo Run, the case handling prosecutor of Hefei Luyang District Procuratorate, made a return call to Wang, the case application supervisor and the person in charge of a construction company in Chuzhou, talking about the situation after the case, Wang said excitedly.
Applying for procuratorial supervision after enforcement
On February 21 this year, the Luyang District Procuratorate accepted a case of application for procuratorial supervision against the effective civil judgment of the court. After a comprehensive review of the dossier materials, the prosecutor in charge of the case soon clarified the litigation process of the case.
In 2017, a construction company in Chuzhou undertook an environmental protection project in Hefei. Due to the needs of project construction, the company signed a Steel Purchase and Sales Contract with a trade company in Hefei, the respondent. Both parties agreed that a business company in Hefei would supply steel to a construction company in Chuzhou. Gao, the respondent, is the person in charge of the environmental protection project. As the agent of the contract demander, Gao issued a Special Agreement, promising to bear joint and several liability for the performance of the above contract. Later, a business company in Hefei supplied nearly 700 tons of steel to a construction company in Chuzhou, worth more than 2.67 million yuan. A construction company in Chuzhou has paid 1.8 million yuan in total. At the end of July 2018, the two companies reconciled and formed a statement. The liquidation list stated that a construction company in Chuzhou owed more than 870000 yuan to a commercial company in Hefei. Both parties agreed to settle all before the end of August of that year, with interest of more than 150000 yuan. However, the above payments were not settled as scheduled.
On June 4, 2020, a business company in Hefei filed a lawsuit to the court. On December 1 of that year, the defendants, a construction company in Chuzhou and Mr. Gao, did not attend the court proceedings without proper reasons. Later, the court ordered a construction company in Chuzhou to pay more than 1.35 million yuan of payment and interest to a business company in Hefei, and Gao was jointly and severally liable for settlement; If the performance is not completed within the period specified by the judgment, the debt interest during the period of delayed performance shall be doubled. After the first instance judgment came into effect, a business company in Hefei applied to the court for compulsory execution. On May 21, 2021, the court legally deducted more than 1.58 million yuan from the account of a construction company in Chuzhou, including more than 1.35 million yuan from the judgment and more than 230000 yuan from the doubled debt interest during the delay in performance.
After the execution of the case, a construction company in Chuzhou refused to accept the court's first instance judgment and compulsory execution. After the application for retrial was rejected, it applied to Luyang District Procuratorate for procuratorial supervision.
The nature of individual account transfer becomes the focus
At the opening of the first instance, why did a construction company in Chuzhou and Mr. Gao, as defendants, fail to appear in court to participate in the lawsuit without justified reasons? Later, the prosecutor in charge of the case found out that after a business company in Hefei filed a lawsuit, the court could not contact Gao by various means, so it adopted the notice of service; Although a construction company in Chuzhou received the notice of responding to the lawsuit, it forgot about it on the day of the court session.
The amount involved in the case is thoroughly clarified, which becomes the second question mark that prosecutors need to straighten. The opposition among the three parties involved in the case is serious, and the core issue is the amount involved. When a construction company in Chuzhou applied for procuratorial supervision, it believed that the amount owed for goods was only more than 260000 yuan, which was a huge difference from the 870000 yuan determined in the first instance judgment.
In order to find out the amount in arrears, the prosecutor handling the case obtained the relevant files of the court and inquired about the three parties involved one by one. The case handling prosecutor found that during the performance of the contract, in addition to the 1.8 million yuan payment for goods paid by a construction company in Chuzhou, Gao also transferred a total of more than 600000 yuan to the private account of the person in charge of a business company in Hefei and his family in several transactions. A construction company in Chuzhou and Gao both believe that the more than 600000 yuan is also the payment for goods. A business company in Hefei believed that the more than 600000 yuan was a deposit rather than a payment for goods, and therefore did not deduct the more than 600000 yuan when suing the court.
At the same time, the case handling prosecutor learned that after the first instance judgment came into effect, a trade company in Hefei negotiated with a construction company in Chuzhou and agreed to offset the payment of more than 600000 yuan paid by Gao, but the two parties failed to reach an agreement in the end.
Combine reason and law to reach a settlement
During the initial coordination, all three parties involved in the case considered themselves reasonable and the other party was at fault. A construction company in Chuzhou hopes that the procuratorial organ will strengthen supervision, promote the retrial of the case, and then make a new judgment that only needs to repay more than 260000 yuan and the corresponding interest. The prosecutor handling the case believed that although the three parties involved in the case all had opposing feelings, they all agreed with the actual arrears and hoped to solve the problem through legal means. Mediation should continue.
In the subsequent second and third rounds of mediation, the prosecutor handling the case communicated and reasoned with the three parties for many times. Later, the three parties involved softened their emotions and agreed to settle the case through mediation. However, during the mediation, a business company in Hefei and a construction company in Chuzhou had major differences on the amount of refund. A business company in Hefei was willing to refund more than 600000 yuan, but a construction company in Chuzhou believed that the rest of the executed funds should be returned after deducting the arrears and the corresponding interest. According to the case handling prosecutor, according to the refund scheme given by a business company in Hefei, its continued possession of funds exceeding the actual amount of damage is unfounded in law; However, a construction company in Chuzhou did not fully consider the cost of litigation, manpower, time and other costs paid by a business company in Hefei to recover the arrears, so it was not reasonable.
On May 19, 2022, during the fifth round of mediation, the three parties involved in the case held face-to-face consultations, and finally reached an agreement and signed a settlement agreement. The three parties agreed that Gao paid more than 600000 yuan to Yan and his family, the person in charge of a business company in Hefei in the early stage, to offset the payment for goods, and the two parties can no longer claim compensation from each other; Before June 30 this year, a business company in Hefei returned 900000 yuan to the construction company in four times; When the three parties involved in the case implement the settlement agreement, they will no longer investigate the original judgment and the original execution.
