Civil retrial application essay

Applicant: Liu Jinlong, male, born on November 4, 1974, Han nationality, individual industrial and commercial households, lived in the Xuyaogou group of Gezha Village, Xiaguan Town, Neixiang County.

Respondent: Zhou Xiaoshen, male, born on June 20, 1971, Han nationality, peasant, No. 5, No. 52, Zhuyang Street, Chengguan Town, Neixiang Township.

The applicant refused to accept the civil judgment of Nanmin Yichangzi No. 801 on January 11, 2019 of the Intermediate People's Court of Nanyang City, Henan Province, and applied for retrial according to law.

Requests:

1. The Civil Judgment of the No. 37 Civil Jurisprudence of the People's Court of Neixiang County and the Civil Judgment of Nanmin Yichangzi No. 801 of the Nanyang Intermediate People's Court were rescinded according to law, and the judgment was justified.

2. Dismissed the respondent's original claim.

Third, the legal judgment of the litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent.

Facts and reasons:

First, the facts of the original first and second instance judgments are unclear, and the evidence of the adopted evidence is contradictory.

Please note the following events identified in the original first and second instance judgments:

March 11, XX

Liu Jinlong issued a receipt to Zhou Xiaoshen: "Receipt the article, I received Zhou Xiaoshen’s cash and collects 10,000 yuan. Liu Jinlong, March 11, XX."

July to September XX

In the original first trial, Zhang Yuxiang appeared in court to confirm that Liu Jinlong had to borrow 250,000 yuan from July to September XX;

September 12, XX

In the original second instance, Zhou Xiaoshen submitted a share agreement: "The share agreement, today received Zhou Xiaoshen cash 叁 叁 10,000 yuan, accounting for 50% of the giant bath shares, Liu Jinlong accounted for 50%, investment 300,000 yuan? Liu Jinlong, September 12, XX. ”

November XX

In the original first trial, Liu Tianzhu and Yin Jianzhong went to court to confirm that they had arrived in Zhengzhou with the plaintiff Zhou Xiaoshen in November XX and asked the defendant Liu Jinlong to ask for a loan of 250,000 yuan.

From the above incidents, we can easily find contradictions and contradictions: if it is determined that the 25 yuan in the case is the nature of the loan, then the first item seems to be in line with common sense, but in the event Under the background, the first incident occurred, that is, in the case that Zhou Xiaoshen knew that Liu Jinlong owed him 250,000 yuan, and his wife Zhang Yuxiang repeatedly asked for unsuccessful results, he still paid Liu Jinlong 350,000 yuan as a partnership. . These violations of common sense have to make people doubt the authenticity of the above events. In addition, coupled with the first incident, Zhou Xiaoshen continued to ask Liu Jinlong for the case to borrow 250,000 yuan after the first incident!

These four events are contradictory and contrary to common sense. It is really difficult to justify themselves! Based on this, we can easily conclude that the claim of 250,000 yuan in this case was recognized as a loan, which is seriously inconsistent.

Second, the case should be the nature of the partnership dispute, the applicant has new evidence to overturn the original judgment judgment error.

In fact, the applicant and the respondent co-operated in the XX year of "luxury bathing people", the case disputed 250,000 yuan, it is the respondent's partnership contribution. Regarding this fact, the applicant confirmed the testimony of the witnesses Duan Fangming and Zhao Ligang after the civil judgment of Nanmin Yichangzi No. 801 was made.

At the same time, the “Share Agreement” of the respondent on September 12, XX submitted by the respondent in the original second instance further confirmed the fact that the partnership between the respondent and the applicant survived.

Only in this case can the whole case be self-explanatory, and it is also the case that the above-mentioned first incident, that is, the 250,000 yuan of the dispute in this case is recognized as the respondent’s partnership rather than the borrowing, will it be reasonable to occur in the first item and be applied for. The fact that the person subsequently increased the capital contribution of 350,000 yuan for the partnership. For the first and second events, in view of their contradictions with the first and second events, the applicant has sufficient reasons to doubt the authenticity of Zhang Yuxiang, Liu Tianzhu and Yin Jianzhong's testimony.

Third, the original judgment verdict ordered the applicant to pay interest, lacking facts and legal basis.

First, the original judgment found that the facts were wrong, there was no borrowing dispute between the applicant and the respondent, and it was even more difficult to pay interest.

Second, Article 211 of China's "Contract Law" stipulates: "If the loan contract between natural persons does not agree on the payment of interest or the agreement is not clear, it shall be deemed not to pay interest."

In summary, the original first and second instance courts only arbitrarily judged the applicant to bear the non-existent loan debt based on the receipt of the partnership and a series of contradictory evidence. It is really difficult for the applicant to serve. In order to protect the lawful rights and interests of the applicant, the application was submitted to the Higher People's Court of Henan Province, and the Provincial Higher People's Court was requested to retrial according to law.

Sincerely

Henan Higher People's Court

applicant: