Lawyer Zhang Jing answers: Generally speaking, in the case of a partnership company, the partnership agreement will clearly stipulate who is responsible for the financial affairs of the partnership. When a partner withdraws from the partnership, the person in charge of the financial affairs of the partnership shall provide evidence to prove the financial situation, make money and share the loss, and if he cannot provide evidence, he shall bear the responsibility of returning the capital contribution. However, there are very few cases where the partnership agreement does not stipulate the person in charge of finance, and if the person in charge of finance cannot be proved, it will be difficult to withdraw the investment funds according to the principle of who asserts and who bears the proof. In the following case, because the partnership agreement did not stipulate who was the financial person in charge of the partnership, the plaintiff's lawsuit for withdrawal and refund was dismissed by the court.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court held that this case was a partnership dispute Gu originally filed a lawsuit with this court for a private lending dispute, but later clearly changed it to file a lawsuit for a partnership agreement dispute The focus of the dispute in this case is: whether Mei 2 and Heng should return the share capital to Gu, this court analyzed and determined as follows: This case is a partnership dispute case, and Gu asserted that the "Cooperation Agreement on the Establishment of a Multi-person Joint Stock Company" signed by Gu and Mei 2, Wan, Liang, Liao, and Mei 1 was terminated on February 3, 2019 by consensus of all parties. And Mei 2 will return the personal capital contribution. Mei 2 defended that the parties agreed to terminate the contract on August 31, 2019, and discussed the plan to terminate the contract was to pay wages until August 31, 2019, pay social security until December 2020, and give Gu another 50,000 yuan in January 2020. Gu did not submit written evidence to support his above claims and Mei 2's own defenses, and the other partners were not parties to this case, Gu failed to apply for other partners to testify in court, and Gu applied for additional partners to participate in the litigation of this case and could not submit all the corresponding identity information or contact ** for the court to check, therefore, in the absence of other evidence to prove, only on the basis that Mei 2 had returned part of the share capital to Gu, it was claimed that the case involved the "Cooperation Agreement on the Establishment of a Multi-person Joint Stock Company" It was lifted on February 3, 2019, and the basis is insufficient, and this court does not support it. At the same time, because the capital contribution of the parties to the partnership is the common property of the partnership organization, Gu's claim that Mei 2 returned the capital contribution to him was essentially a request to withdraw from the partnership, so the basis for his withdrawal from the partnership should be provided in accordance with the law to be substantiated In this case, Gu did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that all the partners agreed to dissolve the partnership organization or agree to the withdrawal of Gu, nor did he provide evidence to prove the basis for the partnership organization to liquidate the partnership project, so according to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law Article 90 stipulates that Gu should bear the adverse consequences This court found that Gu's request for Mei 2 to return the investment money had no factual and legal basis and rejected his litigation claim In addition, Wan, Liao, Liang, and Mei1 were not necessary parties to this case, and Gu believed that the failure to add the above three people to participate in the trial in the first instance was a procedural violation and lacked legal basis, and this court did not accept it.