Gome Microfinance Co., Ltd. may cooperate with a number of online lending institutions, so there will be cases where Gome Finance does not apply for loans, but Gome Microfinance Co., Ltd. will lend money.
The loan app of Gome Microfinance Company, formerly known as Gome Lending Treasure, was later renamed Gome Easy Card. The interest of Gome Lending Bao is 0.03% per day, but in addition to the loan interest, Gome Lending Bao will also charge 0.27% for the quick review of credit information, so the daily rate is increased by 0.3%. The specific calculation method of interest is as follows: for example, if you borrow 1 0,000 yuan, the loan term is 10 day, and the interest expense is 1 0,000 *10 = 57 yuan.
According to the algorithm given by netizens, it is obvious that Gome Credit Card is a usury, not only the problem of usury, but also the problem of beheading interest. In the complaint, the woman surnamed Li borrowed 6,000 yuan, but the contract amount was 6,593.41yuan, and the repayment amount reached 9,323.16 yuan, with interest exceeding 50%. More netizens.
The Chaoyang District People's Court held that the loan agreement signed by Gome and the borrower was the true intention of both parties and was legal and valid. Gome Small Loan Company requires the borrower to repay the loan principal, interest and penalty interest within the loan period, which is in line with the contract and legal provisions. June 5438+October 2020 10, the first instance ruled that the above-mentioned borrower should repay the loan principal, interest and penalty interest within the loan term to the plaintiff Gome Microfinance Co., Ltd. from the effective date of the judgment 10 (based on the total loan amount, according to the annual interest rate of 24%, since 2065438,
Gome brought this large-scale lawsuit against the borrower for two reasons:
First, Gome Microfinance Company urgently needs to withdraw funds. Because of its low audit intensity and easy lending, most users are overdue;
Second, such a large-scale prosecution can effectively deter other overdue users and promote the collection of results. However, Gome ignored its own problems, and Bian Xiao suggested that the sued borrower launch a collective appeal against its beheading, usury and illegal collection, and asked the court to reject the original judgment, identify the fact that Gome borrowed usury and illegal collection, repay the loan at the interest stipulated by the state, and compensate the borrower for the mental loss caused by its explosion of the address book.