Not long ago, there was a private lending dispute, the plaintiff Wang sued Jiufu Puhui, requesting that Jiufu Puhui be ordered to repay the principal and interest of the loan, and after the civil judgment of the municipal and provincial courts at all levels was lost, the plaintiff Wang was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme Court for a retrial. After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the focus of the review of this case was: (1) whether the legal relationship between Wang and Jiufu Puhui was a private lending;(2) Whether Jiufu Puhui should bear the responsibility of repaying principal and interest to Wang.
On the issue of whether a private lending relationship has been established between Wang and Jiufu Puhui, according to the ascertained facts, the "Lending Consulting and Management Service Agreement" reached between Wang and Jiufu Puhui stipulates that Jiufu Puhui will provide Wang with services such as lending information collection, information publication, information exchange, lending consulting services, and recommendation and matching of borrowers and/or creditor transferors. At the same time, the process of lending the funds involved in the case is as follows: Wang first signed the "Lending Consulting and Management Service Agreement" with the Jiufu Puhui Platform, and opened a personal depository account with the depository bank in accordance with the agreement, and before Wang registered as a lender on the Jiufu Puhui Platform, he needed to sign the "Lending Consulting and Management Service Agreement" in the form of click confirmation, and he needed to apply for an electronic signature in advance, and authorized the Jiufu Puhui Platform to provide intermediary services for him before he could lend funds. Then, Mr. Wang signed the "Lending Consulting and Management Service Agreement" with Jiufu Puhui to pay the loaned funds to the personal depository account in accordance with the contract, and when Mr. Wang lent the funds, the loaned funds were transferred to the borrower's account by the depository bank. The above-mentioned agreement and process show that there is no expression of intent to enter into a private loan contract between Wang and Jiufu Puhui, and objectively Wang does not actually lend money to Jiufu Puhui, nor does Jiufu Puhui actually lend money to the user. Therefore, the Jiufu Puhui Platform is an intermediary service agency that provides loan information services, and the relationship between it and Wang is an intermediary contract. Based on the above analysis, Wang's assertion that the establishment of a private lending relationship between him and Jiufu Puhui lacked factual and legal basis, and this court did not accept it.
As to the question of whether Jiufu Puhui should bear the responsibility of repaying principal and interest to Wang, firstly, according to the above analysis, the relationship between Jiufu Puhui and Wang is an intermediary contractual relationship, not a private lending relationship, so Jiufu Puhui does not need to bear the responsibility of repaying the loan in accordance with the law. According to the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases, which came into effect on September 1, 2015, "if the borrower and the borrower form a lending relationship through an online lending platform, and the provider of the online lending platform only provides intermediary services, and the parties request that they bear the guarantee liability, the people's court shall not support it" Wang has no right to require Jiufu Puhui Company to bear the guarantee liability. Therefore, Wang's claim that Jiufu Puhui should bear the responsibility of repaying principal and interest to him was not supported by this court.
In summary, Wang's application for retrial did not meet the requirements of Article 207, Item 6 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The Supreme People's Court rejected Wang's application for retrial. Legally speaking, the borrower of private lending refers to a person who borrows money from the lender and repays the loan and interest after maturity. Therefore, the most important thing for the court to review a private lending case is to examine whether the establishment of the "debt" conforms to the principle of authenticity, and the plaintiff and the defendant must have an actual lending relationship before they can claim the creditor's rights, and the lender and Jiufu Puhui are in an intermediary contractual relationship. Therefore, only when the lender sues the actual debtor of the online loan, the borrower, can it provide effective evidence and obtain legal support after the court files the case.
Disclaimer: This article is my website**, which aims to provide readers with more news information. The content involved does not constitute investment or consumption advice, and is for readers' reference only.