Demonstration Reply on Private Lending Disputes (I) Respondent: Li XX
The respondent made the following reply to the appeal filed by the appellant Chen XX on the case of private lending dispute:
First, the court of first instance clearly identified this case, with accurate legal characterization, appropriate evidence, fair responsibility identification and proper interrogation measures. So, Guangzhou? People's court (20 12)? What is the first word of the French? 1 The civil trial was fair and just. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent, it was appealed to the court of second instance to be upheld according to law. The proven situation in this case is as follows:
1. The defendant borrowed 5,000 yuan from the plaintiff, which was related to private lending by both parties.
201118 The plaintiff lent the defendant 5000 yuan by transfer, and the defendant returned it by SMS on 20 12. Because the defendant never paid off the loan.
Although the defendant confirmed that he borrowed 5000 yuan from the plaintiff, he argued that the plaintiff orally entrusted him to introduce foreign tools and agreed to spend 2000 yuan a month. Now the handling fee owed by the plaintiff can be offset by the loan owed by the defendant. After the offset, the defendant no longer owes the plaintiff money. In this regard, the defendant only provided the department e-mail, the plaintiff's personal photos and materials and the data proof of the collection tools, but the plaintiff refused to confirm this, saying that he did not entrust the defendant to provide any labor services or find tools, and the two sides did not reach any agreement.
Second, the defendant's refutation of the appellant's concept.
1. The appellant Chen XX's appeal grounds are not established. The Respondent did not entrust or authorize the Appellant to help him find foreign tools on the Internet at the end of 201February, nor did he verbally agree to the agreement that he needed to translate and explore 2000 yuan per month, so there was no agreement between the Respondent and the Appellant.
2. The appellant begged the respondent to repay 6000 yuan, and did not provide new evidence to prove it.
To sum up, there is private lending between the Respondent and the Appellant, and there is no verbal agreement or any agreement unrelated to private lending. I think the appellant's appeal is unreasonable and the judgment of the court of first instance is correct. I hope that the people's court of second instance will support it according to law.
I am here to convey
? City Intermediate People's Court
Respondents:
date month year
Model Complaint of Private Lending Disputes (II) Respondent: Wang Address: _ _ _ _ City _ _ Street ID Number: _ _ _ _ Tel: _ _ _ _ Respondent Address: _ _ _ _ Respondent Address: _ _ _ _ Respondent Address: _ _ _ _ _ Address: _ _ _ Respondent Address: _ _ _ Respondent Address: _ Respondent Address: _ Respondent Address: _ Respondent \u
Authorized Agent: Lawyer Qian.
Due to the case of plaintiff Ma Moumou v. Respondent's private lending dispute, Respondent put forward the following defense opinions according to facts and laws:
1. If the plaintiff does not require the respondent to undertake the guarantee responsibility within the guarantee period stipulated in the IOU, the respondent shall be exempted from the guarantee responsibility.
According to the IOU, the loan took place on March 3, 20____ _, and was agreed to be repaid in one lump sum on April 2, 20____, with the guarantee period ending two years after the expiration of the loan period, namely, April 1 day, 20____ _ _; The prosecution time in this case is June 7, 20 13, which has exceeded the guarantee period for two years. According to the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if the creditor fails to ask the guarantor to undertake the guarantee responsibility within the guarantee period stipulated in the contract and the guarantee period stipulated in the preceding paragraph, the guarantor shall be exempted from the guarantee responsibility. Therefore, the plaintiff did not ask the respondent to bear the guarantee responsibility within the agreed guarantee period, and the respondent was exempted from the guarantee responsibility.
Two, the plaintiff's prosecution and withdrawal, does not mean that the plaintiff has asked the respondent to bear the guarantee responsibility.
The civil ruling No.53 of Shengzhou People's Court of Zhejiang Province submitted by the plaintiff shows:? The plaintiff, Ma Moumou, did not pay the legal fees in advance within seven days according to the notice of our court, nor did he apply for judicial assistance. In accordance with the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Measures for the Payment of Legal Fees, the prosecution was dismissed. ? As a matter of fact, the defendant knew nothing about the plaintiff's prosecution and withdrawal, and did not receive a copy of the complaint, which was against the law? Asking for guarantee responsibility? Form of expression. First of all, the Guarantee Law stipulates that the general surety shall have the right of defense before litigation. During the guarantee period, the creditor must first file a lawsuit or arbitration against the debtor, and then the limitation of action of the guarantee contract shall be calculated from the date when the judgment or arbitration award takes effect. The law does not stipulate that joint guarantee must take the form of litigation or arbitration. This case is a joint and several guarantee liability, and the plaintiff does not need to ask the guarantor to bear the guarantee liability through prosecution. Secondly, the plaintiff's actions of suing and withdrawing the lawsuit show that it is not his true intention to ask the respondent to bear the guarantee responsibility. Because we all know that the court accepts a case on the premise of paying legal fees (or getting relief from the court), the plaintiff's behavior of not paying legal fees without reason can only lead to the result of withdrawing the lawsuit. It is not the true intention of the plaintiff to ask the defendant to bear the guarantee responsibility when he knowingly commits a crime. Finally, from the perspective of effectiveness, although the plaintiff sued the court, the defendant did not receive the notice from the court or a copy of the complaint. Requirements? It was not effectively transmitted to the respondent, and such a lawsuit certainly has no legal effect. Therefore, the plaintiff's actions of suing and withdrawing the lawsuit cannot be regarded as the plaintiff's request for the respondent to bear the guarantee responsibility.
Three, the provisions on the interruption of the statute of limitations do not apply to this case.
Article 31 of the Interpretation of Guarantee Law: The guarantee period shall not be interrupted, suspended or extended for any reason. Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the Interpretation of the Guarantee Law: If the creditor who is jointly and severally liable requests the guarantor to assume the guarantee responsibility before the expiration of the guarantee period, the limitation of action of the guarantee contract shall be calculated from the date when the creditor requests the guarantor to assume the guarantee responsibility. During the guarantee period, the plaintiff never asked the defendant to assume the guarantee responsibility, so there is no question of limitation of action, let alone the interruption of limitation of action.
To sum up, the respondent requested the people's court to reject the plaintiff's claim.
I am here to convey
_ _ _ _ City _ _ District People's Court
Respondent: _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _