civil judgment

(20 14) Shu Min Zi Chu 0004

The plaintiff Xu, female, Han nationality,1was born on April 4, 963.

Authorized Agent: Zhu Jinglong, lawyer of Jiangsu Hezhan Zhaofeng Law Firm.

Defendant Yu Maogen, male, Han nationality, 1958+65438 was born on June 3rd.

Authorized Agent: Yan Guojun, lawyer of Jiangsu Shao Ping Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Culy Zhu, lawyer of Jiangsu Shao Ping Law Firm.

Defendant Yu Jianming, male, Han nationality,1born on June 29th, 962.

Defendant Wu Heying, female, Han nationality,1was born in August 1965.

Plaintiff Xu v defendants Yu Maogen, Yu Jianming and private lending dispute was filed in our hospital on February 23, 20 13+65438. According to the law, the judge passed the Tiejun and applied the summary procedure. The trial was held in public on 24 October, 2004/KLOC-0. Zhu Jinglong, the attorney of plaintiff Xu, and Yu Jianming, the attorney of defendant Yu Maogen, attended the proceedings. The case has now been closed.

Plaintiff Xu claimed that on February 8th, 20 12, Plaintiff and Defendant Yu Maogen signed a 1 loan contract, and Defendant Yu Maogen borrowed 5 million yuan from Plaintiff, with the agreed loan interest rate of 18% and the term ended on August 8th, 20 12. On April 28th, 20 12, the defendant Yu Maogen repaid the loan of 2 million yuan. Afterwards, the plaintiff asked the defendant Yu Maogen for a loan and interest. Yu Maogen had no money to repay, and the defendants Yu Jianming, Wu Heying, Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Tianshunda Diamond Co., Ltd. provided guarantees until the principal and interest of the loan were paid off. On February 28th, 20 12, Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and others applied for bankruptcy and reorganization, and the plaintiff declared the creditor's rights to the administrator, and the compensation amount was 208,045.57 yuan. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant Yu Maogen immediately repay the remaining loan of RMB 27,965,438+0,954.43, and pay the interest of RMB 865,438+0.45 and RMB 27,965,438 from February 8, 2065,438+0.03 to June 8, 2065,438.

Defendant Yu Maogen argued that the loan was true, but the plaintiff had declared the creditor's rights to the manager of Yihua Company, and the debt had been transferred to Yihua Company, so the defendant no longer assumed the repayment responsibility, so he requested the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying argued that if we had an agreement with Yu Maogen, he would repay the money, which had nothing to do with us, and demanded that the plaintiff's claim against us be rejected.

It was found through trial that on August 8, 20 1 1, the plaintiff and the defendant Yu Maogen signed a loan contract 1 copy, stipulating that the defendant Yu Maogen would borrow 5 million yuan from the plaintiff, with a loan period of 6 months and an annual interest rate of 18%. The plaintiff paid the defendant Yu Maogen 5 million yuan by bank transfer on the same day. On February 8, 20 12, the defendant Yu Maogen paid the plaintiff the loan interest of 450,000 yuan. On the same day, the two parties re-signed the loan contract of 1 borrowing 5 million yuan, stipulating that the defendant Yu Maogen borrowed 5 million yuan from the plaintiff, with a loan period of 6 months, from February 8, 20 12 to August 8, 20 12, with an annual interest rate of 18%. On April 28th, 20 12, the defendant Yu Maogen returned the plaintiff's loan of 2 million yuan. On June 4th, 20 12, the defendant Yu Jianming, Wu Heying, Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., Changshu Tianshunda Diamond Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. signed and sealed the above loan contract, clearly providing the defendant Yu Maogen with joint liability guarantee for the above loan, and the guarantee period was until the principal and interest of the main debt were fully paid off.

It is also found out that on October 7th, 2065438+2003/kloc-0, our institute ruled that it would accept the bankruptcy reorganization applications of six Yihua enterprises, including Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., Changshu Tianshunda Diamond Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd.. On April 5, 20 13, our hospital ruled to merge and reorganize six enterprises in Yihua. The plaintiff allowed to declare the creditor's rights to the manager of Yihua Enterprise during the creditor's rights declaration period, and the manager confirmed that the total amount of the creditor's rights allowed was 3 million yuan. On 20th13rd,165438+110th 1 1, our institute ruled to approve the merger and reorganization plan of Yihua enterprises. The amount of compensation for plaintiff Xu's creditor's rights is 208,045.57 yuan.

The above facts are supported by the evidence provided by the plaintiff, such as loan contract, remittance voucher, notice of creditor's rights audit result, court transcript and so on.

We believe that the loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant Yu Maogen is legal and valid. Defendant Yu Maogen borrowed 5 million yuan from the plaintiff and only returned 2 million yuan. Those who fail to repay all the loans as agreed shall bear civil liability for repayment and interest. After the plaintiff declared his creditor's rights to Yihua Enterprise Manager, the compensation amount was 208,045.57 yuan, and the remaining amount of 27,965,438 yuan+0,954.43 yuan should still be borne by the defendant Yu Maogen. Now the plaintiff requests the defendant Yu Maogen to repay the loan of 279 1954.43 yuan, pay interest of 8 14500 yuan, and take 201kloc-0/.9 yuan as the base in 2003 until the effective date of this judgment. Defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, as guarantors, signed the iou and agreed to bear joint and several liability for the above-mentioned loan of Yu Maogen, and the guarantee period was until the principal and interest of the principal debt were fully paid off. Therefore, the plaintiff asked the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying to bear joint and several liabilities for the above repayment obligations of the defendant Yu Maogen, and our court supported them. Accordingly, according to the provisions of Articles 205 and 206 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law and Articles 18 and 21 of People's Republic of China (PRC) Guarantee Law, the judgment is as follows:

1. Defendant Yu Maogen repaid the plaintiff's loan of 279 1954.43 yuan and paid interest of 8 14500 yuan, totaling 36,064,543 yuan, with the payment base of 279 1954.43 yuan. Or remit it to Changshu People's Court. The bank of deposit: China CITIC Bank Changshu Southeast Economic Development Zone Sub-branch, account number: 73246101831000065438).

2. Defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying are jointly and severally liable for the above repayment obligations of Defendant Yu Maogen.

If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).

The acceptance fee of this case is 35,702 yuan, the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, and all the legal fees are 40,702 yuan, which shall be borne by defendants Yu Maogen, Yu Jianming and Wu Heying (the plaintiff agrees that the legal fees paid in advance shall be paid directly by the defendant, which will not be refunded by our court, and shall be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant within ten days from the effective date of this judgment).

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of this judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opponents to appeal to Suzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province, and at the same time pay the appeal case acceptance fee to our court in advance (account name: Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, bank: China Agricultural Bank Suzhou Industrial Park Branch Business Department, account number:10-550/).

Judge Guo Tiejun

20 14 March 2 1 day

Staff Zhu Jing

Changshu People's Court of Jiangsu Province

the people

Material judgment

(20 14) Shu Min chuzhinuo. 0 1003

Plaintiff Yang Shengsheng.

Authorized Agent: Du Cunpeng, lawyer of Cheng Jintian (Suzhou) Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Gu Jian, lawyer of Cheng Jintian (Suzhou) Law Firm.

Defendant Yu Jianming.

Defendant Wu Heying.

On September 29th, 20 14, 10, our hospital filed a case of plaintiff Yang Shengsheng v. defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying on the dispute over the guarantee contract, and formed a collegial panel to hold a public hearing on October 29th, 2014,65438/kloc-0. Gu Jian, the attorney of plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, and Yu Jianming, the defendant of Wu Heying, attended the lawsuit. The case has now been closed.

Yang Shengsheng, the plaintiff, claimed that the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying were shareholders of Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. borrowed 4.5 million yuan from Changshu Lierbong Rural Microfinance Co., Ltd. on 201219, and both parties signed a loan contract, with the agreed loan term of 201. 20 1 165438 Changshu lierbang rural microfinance co., ltd. issued the loan principal of 4.5 million yuan to Jiangsu huacheng pipe industry co., ltd. as agreed. 20 1 1 12.22, Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd. borrowed 4.5 million yuan from Changshu Lierbang Rural Microfinance Co., Ltd., and both parties signed a loan contract, with the agreed loan period of 20112.22 to 20/. And guaranteed by the plaintiff Changshu Huaxia Real Estate Co., Ltd., 20 1 165438, Changshu Lierbang Rural Microfinance Co., Ltd. distributed the loan principal of 4.5 million yuan to Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd. as agreed. The loan term of the last two loans was extended to September 22nd, 20 12. 20 12 On June 22nd, the plaintiff signed a counter-guarantee mortgage contract with the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, and the debtors Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., stipulating that the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying would mortgage a house in Changshu Jinfeng Garden 147 to the plaintiff, and handled the house ownership certificate. Later, due to the inability of Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd. to repay the loan, the plaintiff compensated Changshu Li Erbang Rural Microfinance Co., Ltd. for 6.97 million yuan on September 20, 2002, fulfilling the obligation of guarantee compensation, thus the plaintiff obtained the right to recover from the two defendants according to law. In addition, on October 7th, 2065438+2003/KLOC-0, six enterprises, including Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., were reorganized by Changshu People's Court according to law, and the amount of plaintiff's creditor's rights was verified by the administrator to be RMB 6.97 million. 20 165438+2003 10, the enterprise reorganization plan was passed by the creditors' meeting, and the plaintiff could get the settlement amount of 44,365,438 yuan+0,465,438 yuan +0.94 yuan. After deducting the money, the two defendants should return it to the plaintiff, so they requested the court to order the two defendants to pay the plaintiff compensation of 6,526,858.06 yuan. And the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 6.1/kloc-0+5% is RMB 808,378.56 from September, 2004, and the interest will be calculated at the annual interest rate of 6. 15% until the judgment date. Request to order the plaintiff to give priority to the compensation for the proceeds from the auction, sale and discount of Jinfeng Garden 147 house in Changshu City owned by the two defendants; The legal fees in this case shall be borne by the two defendants.

Defendant Yu Jianming argued that the loan is a fact, but the main borrowers are Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd., both of which are insolvent and have repayment ability, so the company should repay the loan instead of disposing of the houses mortgaged by the two defendants. It is requested that the defendant's criminal case be settled through consultation and all debts be handled together.

Defendant Wu Heying did not reply.

It was found through trial that the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying (husband and wife) were shareholders of Jiangsu Huacheng Pipe Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huacheng Company) and Changshu Yihua Diamond Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihua Company).

20111219, Huacheng Company borrowed 4.5 million yuan from Changshu Lierbang Rural Microfinance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lierbang Company), and the signature number of both parties was 320581005201. The agreed loan term is 201165438+February 22, 2065438+June 22, 2002, and the monthly interest rate is 20.3333%. On the same day, the debtor Huacheng Company, the guarantor plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, Changshu Huaxia Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huaxia Company) and the creditor Lierbang Company signed the guarantee contract No.0064 with the number of 20 1 1, stipulating that the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng and Huaxia Company shall bear joint and several liability guarantee for the above-mentioned loan of Huacheng Company, and the scope of guarantee is the principal, interest and overdue interest of the debt under the main contract. The guarantee period is two years from the date when the debtor's debt performance period agreed in the master contract expires. If the creditor and the debtor reach an extension agreement on the debt performance period of the main contract, the guarantor shall continue to bear the guarantee responsibility, and the guarantee period shall be two years from the expiration of the debt performance period agreed in the extension agreement. 20111February 23rd, Lierbong Company issued a loan principal of 4.5 million yuan to Huacheng Company. 20 12 On June 22nd, Huacheng Company and Lierbong Company signed a loan extension contract with the contract number of Changshu Lierbong Loan Zhanzi No.2012 No.003, and agreed to increase the loan principal in the loan contract by RMB 4,500,000.08+00052010020/kloc. On the same day, Huacheng Company also signed an entrustment guarantee contract with the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, stipulating that the plaintiff would continue to provide guarantee for the above loan, but Huacheng Company must provide counter-guarantee to the plaintiff, and the two parties shall sign a separate contract for specific matters.

20 1 1 On February 22nd, Yihua Company borrowed 4.5 million yuan from Lierbong Company, and both parties signed a loan contract with the number of 320581005201002031. The agreed loan term is 2011/kloc-0 from February 22nd to June 22nd, and the monthly interest rate is 20.3333%. On the same day, the debtor Yihua Company signed a contract with the guarantor plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, Huaxia Company and creditor Lierbong Company with the number of 20 1 1. It is agreed that the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng and Huaxia Company shall bear joint and several liability guarantee for the above loan of Yihua Company. The scope of guarantee includes principal, interest, overdue interest, etc. For debts under the main contract, the guarantee period is two years from the date when the debtor's debt performance period agreed in the main contract expires. If the creditor and the debtor reach an extension agreement on the debt performance period of the main contract, the guarantor shall continue to bear the guarantee responsibility, and the guarantee period shall be two years from the expiration of the debt performance period agreed in the extension agreement. 20111On February 23rd, Lierbong Company issued a loan principal of 4.5 million yuan to Yihua Company. 20 12 On June 22nd, Yihua Company and Lierbong Company signed a loan extension contract with the contract number of Changshu Lierbong Loan Zhanzi No.2012 No.004, with the agreed number of 320581005201kloc-0/0020365438. On the same day, Yihua Company also signed an entrustment guarantee contract with the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, stipulating that the plaintiff would continue to provide guarantee for the above loan, but Yihua Company must provide counter-guarantee to the plaintiff, and the two parties shall sign a separate contract for specific matters.

20 12 On June 22nd, plaintiff Yang Shengsheng signed a counter-guarantee mortgage contract with Huacheng Company, Yihua Company, defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, and appointed plaintiff Yang Shengsheng as the guarantor to provide guarantee for two loans of Huacheng Company and Yihua Company, totaling RMB 9 million. Now the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying provided the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng with a counter-guarantee mortgage with the house at Jinfeng Garden 147, Changshu City (house ownership certificateNo.: 000000000). : the promise of Yushan. ×××× and nothing. ×××××). The scope of mortgage guarantee includes all debts (including loan principal, interest and penalty interest) paid by the mortgagee on behalf of the debtor, as well as guarantee fees, liquidated damages and the amount that the debtor should pay to the mortgagee. The amount of mortgage creditor's rights is 6,976,500 yuan. On July 6, 20 12, both parties handled other property ownership certificates (other property ownership certificate number: SHFTZ YushanziNo). 12008309).

On August 6, 20 12, 16, the defendant Yu Jianming was criminally detained on suspicion of evading capital contribution. On September 20 12 1 1 day, the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng paid compensation of 6.97 million yuan to Lierbong Company.

On October 7th, 2065438+2003/KLOC-0, our hospital ruled that six Yihua enterprises, including Yihua Company and Huacheng Company, were accepted for bankruptcy and reorganization. On April 5, 20 13, our hospital ruled to merge and reorganize six enterprises in Yihua. Plaintiff Yang Shengsheng declared the creditor's rights of 6.97 million yuan to the manager of Yihua Enterprise within the period of creditor's rights declaration, and the manager confirmed that the total creditor's rights of Plaintiff Yang Shengsheng were 6.97 million yuan of ordinary creditor's rights. On 20th13rd,165438+110th 1 1, our institute ruled to approve the merger and reorganization plan of Yihua enterprises. The plaintiff Yang Shengsheng's claim payment is RMB 44,365,438+0,465,438 +0.94, which the plaintiff has received.

According to the above facts, the loan contract No.32058100520100201,the guarantee contract No.0064, the loan extension contract No.201and the loan extension contract No.000/submitted by the plaintiff. Loan Contract No.3205810052011002031,Guarantee Contract No.0067, Loan Extension Contract No.201/kloc-0, and Exhibition No.004. 20 12, and copies of Jiangsu agricultural loan receipt (No.004 counter-guarantee mortgage contract, real estate mortgage list and house ownership certificate; Notice of credit loss of Changshu Rural Commercial Bank and repayment voucher of Jiangsu Agricultural Loan; A notice of creditor's rights review result, a civil ruling and the court hearing record are in the evidence volume.

The court held that when a third party provides a guarantee for the debtor to the creditor, it may require the debtor to provide a counter-guarantee. The counter-guarantee mortgage contract signed by plaintiff Yang Shengsheng and defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying is legal and valid. Yang Shengsheng, the plaintiff, has the right to recover from the debtors Yihua Company, Huacheng Company and the counter-guarantors Yu Jianming and Wu Heying after repaying the loan of 6.97 million yuan to Li Erbang Company. Now, after Yang Shengsheng declared his creditor's rights to the manager of Yihua Enterprise and confirmed that the amount of creditor's rights was 6.97 million yuan, he has received compensation of 44,365,438 yuan+0.465,438 yuan +0.94 yuan, and the remaining amount is 6,526,858.06 yuan. The plaintiff can recover from the counter-guarantors, namely the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying. Defendant Yu Jianming pointed out that the main borrowers are Huacheng Company and Yihua Company, both of which are insolvent and have repayment ability. The company should repay the loan, not dispose of the house mortgaged by the two defendants. The court held that Huacheng Company and Yihua Company had been ruled bankrupt and reorganized by the court because of insolvency, and the amount of compensation for the plaintiff's creditor's rights after reorganization was only 44,365,438 yuan+0,465,438 yuan +0.94 yuan. For the unpaid part of 6,526,858.06 yuan, the plaintiff has the right to claim priority in compensation for the mortgaged property provided by the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, so our court does not adopt the opinions of the defendant Yu Jianming. The proceeds from the disposition of the mortgaged property ownership of Building Jinfeng Garden 147 in Changshu City provided by plaintiffs Yu Jianming and Wu Heying with counter-guarantee are well-founded in law and supported by our court, but the scope of priority compensation is limited to the outstanding creditor's rights of 6,526,858.06 yuan. As for the plaintiff's claim for compensation from defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, our court does not support the claim for compensation from defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying, because the counter-mortgage guarantee contract only stipulates that defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying provide mortgage guarantee for the plaintiff, but does not stipulate that defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying provide guarantee.

As for the interest, the plaintiff demanded that it be calculated at the annual interest rate of 6. 15% from September, 2065+02 to the date of payment determined by the court. The court held that, according to the stipulations of the counter-guarantee mortgage contract, the amount of the counter-guarantee creditor's rights is limited to all debts paid by the mortgagee on behalf of the debtor, and when the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng claims rights from the principal debtor, it is managed by Yihua Department. Defendant Wu Heying refused to appear in court without justifiable reasons after being legally summoned by our court, which shall be regarded as his waiver of litigation rights such as cross-examination and defense. Accordingly, according to Article 4 of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Article 179 of the Property Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:

1. Plaintiff Yang Shengsheng has the right to receive priority compensation for the proceeds from the auction, discount or sale of the houseNo. 147 in Jinfeng Garden, Changshu City owned by defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying (house ownership certificateNo.: 2006/2007) (the priority compensation scope is RMB 6,526,858.06). : the promise of Yushan. ×× and no. ××).

2. Reject the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng's other claims.

The case acceptance fee is 63,277.00 yuan, which shall be borne by the plaintiff Yang Shengsheng, 63 197.00 yuan, and the defendants Yu Jianming and Wu Heying shall bear 80 yuan (the plaintiff agrees that the defendant shall directly pay the part of the case acceptance fee paid in advance, which will not be refunded by our court, and the defendant shall pay it to the plaintiff within ten days from the effective date of this judgment).

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties to appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province. At the same time, according to the relevant provisions of the Measures for Payment of Litigation Fees, our court should pay the acceptance fee of the appeal case in advance (account name: Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, bank: China Agricultural Bank Suzhou Industrial Park Branch Business Department, account number:10 ××××× 99).

Presiding judge Yang Jinqiong

People's juror Zhang Hongpei

People's Juror Zhao Ying

201September 8, 5

Bookkeeper Zhu Jing

Changshu People's Court of Jiangsu Province

the people

Decision book

(20 14) Shu Shang min zi Chu No.0036

Plaintiff Cao, male, Han nationality,1born on March 30th, 969.

Plaintiff Zhu Xiaoquan, male, Han nationality, was born in1June, 950+10/year1October.

The above two plaintiffs * * * entrusted their agents Tao Junkui.

Defendant Yu Jianming, male, Han nationality,1born on June 29th, 962.

Defendant Wu Heying, female, Han nationality,1was born in August 1965.

On October 6, 2014,65438/kloc-0, our hospital accepted the case of plaintiff Cao and Zhu Xiaoquan v defendant Yu Jianming, which was tried by Judge He Bin in summary procedure according to law. Now the case has been concluded.

Plaintiffs Cao and Zhu Xiaoquan sued: On February 20 1 1, the defendant Yu Jianming borrowed money from the two plaintiffs in his own name on the grounds that the capital turnover of the enterprise was difficult. On the same day, the two plaintiffs paid 1 500,000 yuan to the defendant Yu Jianming, and the defendant Yu Jianming issued1receipt to the two plaintiffs. After the expiration, the plaintiff repeatedly urged it to be unsuccessful. The two defendants are husband and wife, and the above debts are the same debts of the two defendants. Therefore, the two defendants * * * are required to return the loan of 1 500,000 yuan to the two plaintiffs and pay the interest of 257,550 yuan calculated at the annual interest rate of 6.06% of the loan from February 20/kloc-0 to February 20/20 1 3. Pay the above loan principal and interest, and the overdue repayment interest shall be calculated according to the loan interest rate of the People's Bank of China during the same period from February 20 13 to February 20 1 year to the date when the judgment determines the payment.

According to the examination of our hospital, on February 4th, 20th13rd, the defendant Yu Jianming was placed on file for investigation by Changshu Public Security Bureau on suspicion of illegally absorbing public deposits. According to the relevant provisions in the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Economic Disputes Suspected of Economic Crimes, if the people's court finds that the actor's behavior is suspected of economic crimes in the trial of civil cases, it shall rule to dismiss the prosecution. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 119th of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:

Reject the claims of plaintiffs Cao and Zhu Xiaoquan.

If you refuse to accept this ruling, you can file an appeal with our court within 10 days from the date of delivery of the ruling, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province.

Judge He Bin.

201February 7, 4

Clerk Chen Han.

Changshu People's Court of Jiangsu Province

Executive order of the president of the United States

(20 14) Shuzhizi No. 0 1798

Application executor Xu.

Executed by Yu Maogen.

Due to Jianming's execution.

Executed by Wu Heying.

The civil judgment (20 14) Zi Chu No.0004 made by our hospital on March 4th, 1965, which applied for the executor to sue the persons subjected to execution, namely Yu Maogen, Yu Jianming and private lending disputes, has taken legal effect. According to this judgment, first of all, the executor Yu Maogen returned the application executor with a loan of RMB. Pay the interest of 814,500 yuan, totaling 3,606,454.43 yuan, and pay the interest at the annual rate of1.9% from 20/kloc-0 to the effective date of the judgment in 2003. 2. The executed persons Yu Jianming and Wu Heying are jointly and severally liable for the above repayment obligations of the executed person Yu Maogen. If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed performance shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The acceptance fee of the case is halved to 35,702 yuan, the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, and the total legal fees are 40,702 yuan, which shall be borne by the executed persons Yu Maogen, Yu Jianming and Wu Heying. Because the person subjected to execution failed to fulfill the obligations specified in the effective legal documents, the person subjected to execution applied to our hospital for execution, and our hospital filed a case on 20 14 10 15.

During the execution, our hospital investigated the property under the name of the executed person ex officio, and found that the executed person was involved in many lawsuits and enforcement cases and was heavily in debt. Yu Jianming and Wu Heying are suspected of criminal offences, and the case is under trial. The assets under its name have been investigated and controlled by the public security organs. Yu Maogen and the outsider Jie Gu * * * have a mortgaged house in Room X, Building 3, No.48-/KLOC-0, Yuhai North Road, Changshu City, which has been sealed up by our hospital. This case is not suitable for handling. Yu Maogen's bankruptcy creditor's rights of Yihuaji enterprise have been seized by this case at the trial stage and cannot be disposed of at present. In addition, there is no other property available for execution under the name of the person subjected to execution. This case has not been executed in place, 3856553.43 yuan and interest.

The court issued a notice of proof within a time limit to the person subjected to execution, informing the person subjected to execution of the above-mentioned situation and asking him to provide the court with other property clues of the person subjected to execution. The person subjected to execution fails to provide the property clues that the person subjected to execution can execute within the time limit specified by the court.

The above facts are confirmed by evidence such as the property inquiry receipt and the notice of proof within a time limit issued by the assisting execution unit.

The court believes that the creditor's rights enjoyed by the person subjected to execution in this case are protected by law, but the realization of creditor's rights depends on whether the person subjected to execution has the ability to perform debts. At present, the person subjected to execution has no property available for execution, and the applicant for execution has not provided other clues about the property available for execution. The execution program will be terminated. In accordance with the provisions of Item (11) of Paragraph 1 of Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:

End the execution procedure of this (20 14) civil judgment of Shu Min Chu Zi No.0004.

In the future, it is found that there are other properties available for execution, and the applicant executor may apply to our court for resumption of execution.

If you are dissatisfied with this ruling, you can submit an objection application and a copy in quadruplicate to our hospital within ten days from the date of service of this ruling.

Presiding judge Wang Yu

Judge Wang Fang

Acting judge Tang

201April 23, 5

Bookkeeper Tao Zhen

Changshu People's Court of Jiangsu Province

Civil adjudication

(20 13) Shu Min chuzhinuo. 092 1

Plaintiff Zhang Xiaoxia.

Authorized Agent: Feng Xue, lawyer of Jiangsu Shao Ping Law Firm.

Defendant Changshu Huatong Heat Exchanger Co., Ltd. is located in Yushan High-tech Industrial Park, Changshu Economic Development Zone.

Legal Representative Yu Jianming.

On 20 12, 10129, our hospital accepted the case of plaintiff Zhang Xiaoxia v. defendant Changshu Huatong Heat Exchanger Co., Ltd., and formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law. The case is now closed.

Plaintiff Zhang Xiaoxia claimed that on February 22, 20 12, Yu Jianming and Wu Heying confirmed to borrow RMB180,000 from the plaintiff, and the loan was guaranteed by the defendant. At the same time, the defendant mortgaged the house located at No.29, Shenzhen Road, 1 to the plaintiff and registered the mortgage. Because the borrowers Yu Jianming and Wu Heying failed to pay the principal and interest as agreed, the defendant was required to assume the responsibilities as guarantor and mortgagor, return the plaintiff's loan principal of 1 80,000 yuan, and pay the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 25%. The plaintiff has the right to receive priority compensation for the house mortgaged by the defendant at No.291Changshu City.

We believe that the plaintiff Zhang Xiaoxia sued the defendant Changshu Huatong Heat Exchanger Co., Ltd. and asked the defendant to bear the corresponding responsibilities: on February 22nd, 20180,000 yuan was borrowed from the plaintiff by Yu Jianming, and on February 4th, 20 13, Changshu Public Security Bureau filed an investigation on Yu Jianming's crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. The loan involved in this case is included in the criminal proceeds of Jianming's crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. As the above-mentioned criminal cases are still in the stage of investigation and public prosecution, the plaintiff's claim that the defendant should bear the guarantee responsibility should not be accepted and should be rejected. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 154th of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows:

Zhang Xiaoxia's complaint was rejected.

The property preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, which shall be borne by plaintiff Zhang Xiaoxia.

If you refuse to accept this ruling, you can file an appeal with our court within 10 days from the date of delivery of the ruling, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province.

Presiding Judge Zhang Jinliang

People's Juror Zhang Liyun

People's Juror Guo Min

201August 8, 4

Bookkeeper's study room