Hello everyone, today let's unveil the high-profile court drama, a fierce loan dispute reveals the unclear facts determined by the court, illegal lending funds and other shocking insiders and doubts. The thrilling nature of this trial, let's analyze it in depth!
Cause of dispute] In December 2015, the borrower Zhao Wenyin actually controlled the transportation *** lack of working capital to borrow 500,000 yuan from Yang Zhanke, the two parties reached an agreement, Yang Zhanke borrowed 900,000 yuan from Lingyuan Tianyuan Village Bank on the grounds of raising his own cattle, and on December 17, Yang Zhanke and Zhao Wenyin signed a loan contract, the contract agreed that the loan amount was 50, the monthly interest was 2 cents, and the loan period was 6 months, Li XX provided a guarantee for this loan. On the day of signing the loan contract, Yang Zhanke relented 400,000 yuan of the loan to Zhao Wenyin at an interest rate of 2 cents per month. The actual loan provided was based on a loan of 500,000 yuan, with an interest deduction of 120,000 yuan in advance, and 380,000 yuan was actually provided to Zhao Wenyin. After the loan expired, Zhao Wenyin was unable to repay the loan, and only paid 20,000 yuan in interest before running away. In September 2017, Yang Zhanke sued the Lingyuan Municipal People's Court. Fierce legal battles.
First-instance judgment] The Lingyuan Municipal People's Court ruled in absentia that Zhao Wenyin should repay Yang Zhanke's loan of 500,000 yuan and interest of 220,000 yuan until it was repaid. The guarantors Zhao XX and Li XX shall be jointly and severally liable for liquidation. The court rejected the plaintiff's demand for attorney's fees, and the first-instance trial found that the amount of the loan was wrong and that the lending of funds was illegal.
Retrial of unjust cases] Li XX was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed a retrial, citing new evidence that the actual loan was 380,000 yuan, not 500,000 yuan, and accused Yang Zhanke of taking loans from financial institutions for re-lending. The court erroneously determined that the loan amount was $500,000. The lender Yang Zhanke's lent funds were not examined**, which caused the society to be dumbfounded.
The issue of review responsibility] 1. The review responsibility of the retrial court on key issues has been questioned. Why did the court erroneously determine the amount of the loan?Was there an oversight in the review?It has aroused widespread attention and deep thinking.
Illegal funds**] The retrial judgment exposed the illegality of Yang Zhanke's lending of funds. This involves not only the case itself, but also the loopholes in the court's review of funds. The public has questioned the impartiality of justice.
In-depth excavation of the court's bottom line] The court did not conduct an in-depth review of the illegality of Yang Zhanke's lending of funds, and the legal omission was intolerable. We call for a more nuanced scrutiny of the court's judgments and a deeper exploration of the bottom line of the law.
Looking forward to the court's in-depth review] In the continuous attention, we expect the court to conduct an in-depth review of this complicated case, correct the erroneous judgment, and restore the truth. The retrial verdict may trigger a bigger legal storm, let us wait and see the arrival of fairness and justice.