Henan Senyuan Electric Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Zhongyuan Electric Power Co., Ltd. and Liu Kai.
The content is as follows:
Plaintiff: Legal Representative of Henan Senyuan Electric Co., Ltd.: Chu, chairman of the board of directors of the company. Authorized Agent: Yue Yingzhou, lawyer of Henan Qixingcan Law Firm. Authorized Agent: Du, legal minister of the company. Defendant: legal representative of Anhui COSCO Electric Power Co., Ltd.: Liu Junfeng, manager of the company. Authorized Agent: Zhou Rongchun, lawyer of Anhui Huangshansong Law Firm. Defendant Liu Kai, male. Authorized Agent: Zhou Rongchun, lawyer of Anhui Huangshansong Law Firm.
The plaintiff Henan Senyuan Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) had a debt dispute with the defendant Anhui COSCO Electric Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant COSCO) and Liu Kai. After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed in accordance with the law to hear the case in public. The plaintiff entrusted agents Yue Yingzhou and Du, and the defendants COSCO and Liu Kai entrusted agents Zhou Rongchun to attend the proceedings. The case has now been closed.
According to the original report, on June 5438+February 3, 20061day, the defendant COSCO Company borrowed RMB 3 1 54380 from the plaintiff, and the defendant Liu Kai provided the repayment responsibility guarantee; On September 22, 2008, the defendant repaid 300,000 yuan. Later, the plaintiff failed to claim the creditor's rights from the defendant, and requested the people's court to order the defendant to repay the loan of 2,854,380 yuan immediately, compensate for the loss of interest, and bear the legal costs of this case.
The defendant COSCO Company argued that the fact that the plaintiff sued for a loan did not exist, and this case should be regarded as a dispute over a sales contract; On June 5438+February 3, 20061,the receipt issued by the defendant COSCO Company to the plaintiff was true, but Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company had business dealings with the plaintiff. This is because the payment owed by Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company has been transferred to the defendant COSCO, but there is no loan relationship between the defendant COSCO and the plaintiff. At the same time, as the plaintiff, the electrical products of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company had quality problems, which caused Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company to suffer great economic losses. Later, the business of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company was transferred to the defendant COSCO, so the defendant COSCO had reason to refuse to pay the remaining payment. Request the people's court to reject the plaintiff's claim. Defendant Liu Kai argued: Defendant Liu Kai did not guarantee the repayment responsibility; The defendant Liu Kai's sales remuneration during his time as plaintiff in Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company totaled 438,428 yuan, which the plaintiff has not paid so far, which can further explain why the defendant COSCO Company refused to pay the remaining payment. Request the people's court to reject the plaintiff's claim.
Our court found through trial that Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. had long-term business dealings with the plaintiff, and Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. had debts to the plaintiff. On June 5438+February 3, 2006, the defendant COSCO Company issued a receipt with the number №00 15663 to the plaintiff. "We have received a loan of RMB 3,000/54 from Henan Senyuan Electric Co., Ltd., 300 yuan." Defendant Liu Kai signed the words "person in charge of (Liu Kai)" on the receipt. At the same time, the plaintiff issued a receipt with the number №00 15748 to Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd., "We have received the payment of RMB 3,0154,380.00 yuan from Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd." The defendant COSCO Company repaid the plaintiff 300,000 yuan in the form of bank acceptance bill on September 9, 2009. During the trial, the plaintiff stated that on June 5438+February 3, 2006, the defendant COSCO Company directly repaid the corresponding debt of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. with the plaintiff's loan of 3 1 54380 yuan. Liu Bing, the defendant of COSCO and Liu Kai who applied to testify in court, testified in court: 1, 12, 2006, and 3 1. Liu Bing worked as an accountant in COSCO and Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd., and Liu Kai, then the general manager of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd., informed Liu Bing to check with the plaintiff, and Liu Bing worked with the plaintiff as an accountant in Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd., 2. 3. On the receipt of payment issued by the defendant COSCO, the meaning of the signature of the defendant Liu Kai (the person in charge of Liu Kai) is unclear. Defendant said: I don't know the relationship between Defendant Liu Kai and Defendant COSCO, and Defendant Liu Kai is one of the principals of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. ..
We believe that on June 5438+February 3, 20061day, the defendant COSCO Company issued a receipt with the number №00 15663 to the plaintiff, with the purpose of repaying the plaintiff's debts on behalf of Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd.; Judging from its contents, the defendant COSCO borrowed 365,438+054 from the plaintiff, 380 yuan. Although there is no payment in this process, the defendant COSCO enjoys the corresponding "cash" right. After the defendant COSCO issued the receipt to the plaintiff, a new creditor-debtor relationship was formed, that is, the plaintiff enjoyed 365,438+054 380 yuan's creditor's rights against the defendant COSCO. The plaintiff Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. owes the plaintiff 365,438+054, and 380 yuan's debt will be eliminated after the plaintiff issues a receipt with the number №00 15748 to Hefei Xinhuan Electric Co., Ltd. The above behavior does not violate the legal provisions, and our court confirms the legality of this behavior. If the defendant COSCO fails to repay the plaintiff's remaining amount in time after paying the plaintiff 300,000 yuan, the defendant COSCO shall bear the corresponding legal consequences, that is, repay the amount and compensate the corresponding economic losses, and the amount shall be calculated according to the interest of similar loans of the People's Bank of China in the same period. Defendant Liu Kai only signed the words "the person in charge (Liu Kai)" on the receipt with the number №00 15663 issued by Defendant COSCO, which can't reflect that Defendant Liu Kai provided a guarantee for this behavior of Defendant COSCO, and our court can't make an expanded interpretation on this basis to determine the guarantee behavior of Defendant Liu Kai. The defendant COSCO Company argued that Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company suffered great economic losses due to the quality problems of the electrical products represented by Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company, so it is not the same legal relationship with this case, and our hospital will not define it here. Defendant Liu Kai argued that his sales remuneration during the period when he represented the plaintiff in Hefei Xinhuan Electric Company amounted to 438,428 yuan, but the plaintiff has not paid it so far. This defense does not belong to the same legal relationship with this case and is not defined here. According to the provisions of Article 84, Article 108 and Item 7 of Paragraph 1 of Article 134 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:
1. The defendant COSCO Company repaid the plaintiff RMB 2,854,380 within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, and paid interest at the monthly interest rate of 5.4‰ from February 3, 20061. 2. Reject the plaintiff's other claims. The legal cost of this case is 29,635 yuan, and the property preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendant COSCO Group. If the defendant COSCO fails to fulfill its obligation to pay money within the period specified in this judgment, it shall pay double interest on the debt during the delayed performance in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can file an appeal with our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and provide copies according to the number of the other parties, pay the appeal fee and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Xuchang City, Henan Province.