Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

Lawyer Chen Ye

April 20, 2011

Case Description: On August 10, 2006, the borrowers Wang and Chen (in a marital relationship) mortgaged their own property to a financial institution for financing due to a lack of funds. Since March 2008, the two lenders failed to repay the loan as agreed upon. Therefore, a financial institution entrusted this institution to sue and demand the principal and interest of this loan. But the two lenders denied the loan, arguing that the signing of the loan contract was blank, the loan purpose was incorrect, and the loan receipt was also signed in blank; After borrowing, the passbook is kept at someone else's place and is not collected by others and reported to the public security organs for filing. Therefore, the loan in this case has nothing to do with them and should not be returned by them. This case has gone through the first and second trials, and the excerpts of the second trial proxy words are as follows:

Dear Chief Justice and Judge

A Chinese bank limited by shares, Taizhou Branch (appellee) entrusted Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm with a loan contract dispute with appellants Wang and Chen, and appointed Lawyer Chen Ye as its litigation agent for the second instance. Now, according to the verdict of the first instance, the court investigation of the second instance and the focus of the dispute in this case, we propose the agency opinion for the reference of the Judicial panel.

1.The loan procedures of the appellant are legal and compliant, and the loan contract between the appellant and the appellant is legal and valid

The two appellants are in a marital relationship. On August 10, 2006, appellant Wang borrowed money from the respondent and used the jointly owned house of the two appellants as collateral for the loan. On that day, the three parties personally signed a "Personal Purchase Guarantee Loan Contract". For this loan, the appellant provided the appellee with identity certificate, marriage certificate, household register, house property certificate, income certificate, etc., and registered the mortgage of the houses owned by the two appellants in the housing management department of a city, with the Hypothec as the appellee. On August 23, 2006, the appellant granted a loan of 720000 yuan to the appellant Wang's account. At this point, the appellant has fulfilled the obligations stipulated in the loan contract, and the loan contract relationship between both parties is legal and valid. The appellant argued that he signed the blank loan contract and believed that the loan was invalid, but he did not provide corresponding evidence to prove it, which was not in line with common sense. Therefore, his argument was not valid.

2.The appellant is aware of his/her account opening behavior, and his/her agent's account opening behavior on behalf of him/her complies with laws and regulations

The appellant Wang gave the original of his ID card to his agent Liang to open an account, which was in line with Article 6 of the Regulations on the Real Name System of Individual Deposit account promulgated and implemented by the State Council on April 1, 2000: When an individual opens an individual Deposit account in a financial institution, he shall present his ID card and use his real name. If an agent opens an individual Deposit account in a financial institution on behalf of others, the agent shall present the identity documents of the principal and the agent. According to Article 5 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Provisions on the Real Name System of Individual Deposit account of a Chinese bank, when opening individual Deposit account on behalf of others, the name and number of the real name certificates of the agent and the principal shall be filled in the deposit slip, and the real name certificates of the agent and the principal shall be presented. According to the operating procedures for opening an account mentioned above, appellant Wang opened an account with the respondent on August 6, 2006, with the account number xxxx. And this account is clearly stated in Article 6 of the Personal Housing Guarantee Loan Contract signed by both parties. The above behavior reflects that Wang is aware of his account opening behavior. However, the appellant Wang argued that his act of opening an account on behalf of Wang violated the provisions of laws and regulations, which was clearly a misunderstanding of the understanding and application of laws and regulations. His act of opening an account occurred on August 6, 2006, while the appellant granted a loan to Wang's xxxx account on August 23, 2006. If the appellant Wang believes that his account has been embezzled or lost by others, he can fully implement relief measures such as reporting the loss of his passbook. Therefore, the appellant Wang's account opening behavior is legal and compliant.

3.The withdrawal from the account of appellant Wang is compliant and knowingly

According to Article 4 of the "Operating Regulations for Over-the-Counter Business of a Bank of China Zhejiang Branch", it is required to verify whether the ID card for large withdrawals (RMB 50000 or more, foreign currency 10000 or more) meets the requirements of the real name system. For withdrawals by proxy, it is also necessary to verify the agent's valid identity document and extract the type and number of the ID card on the withdrawal receipt. From the withdrawal situation of Wang's xxxx account, two of them (withdrawal of 209200 yuan on August 23, 2006 and withdrawal of 180000 yuan on August 31, 2006) exceeded RMB 50000. However, according to the above procedures, the appellant has verified and extracted the identity of the agent when handling the appellant's withdrawal business. Moreover, the appellant Wang can only handle the withdrawal process by handing over his original ID card to the agent, so Wang is aware of the withdrawal behavior.

4.From the loan repayment records on the appellant's account, it can be seen that the two appellants are also aware of the loan

The appellant's loan was disbursed from August 23, 2006 to February 23, 2008, and was repaid normally for a period of one and a half years. One of the repayments occurred on October 22, 2006, and it was Li who repaid on behalf of appellant Wang. The income certificate provided by the appellant to the appellant for the loan in this case also included Li's signature. It is understood that appellant Wang and Li are closely related. Moreover, the last three repayments before the repayment deadline in this case, namely December 2007, January 2008, and February 2008, were all personally repaid by another appellant, Chen. Prior to this, the repayment on the appellant Wang's account was also normal, and the appellant did not demand payment from him. Therefore, the two appellants were aware of their loan and the repayment amount they should have. The appellant argues that due to her daughter's departure from the country, preventing a decline in credit rating, she was forced to make three installments of repayment, which is not in line with objective facts.

In summary, the agent believes that the loan contract relationship between the two parties in this case is a true and valid expression of intention. The appellant shall bear the responsibility for repayment, interest payment, and breach of contract as stipulated in the contract. As for the appellant's belief that the deposit in the account was falsely withdrawn after the loan, it is not related to this case. Therefore, in order to protect the property of national financial institutions, we request your court to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment!

Case Result and Warning: This case has now been finally adjudicated, and the two borrowers will repay the principal and interest of the loan and compensate for the related losses. The lender must carefully read the content of the loan contract during the loan process to avoid default caused by overdue repayment. And keep your passbook and ID card safe, even if it is a good relationship with relatives or friends, you cannot borrow them at will. We should transition from a relationship oriented society to a contract oriented society; If there is any loss, it should be reported in a timely manner to avoid legal adverse consequences.