10 109088 safe and inclusive

Hebei Baoding Intermediate People's Court

civil judgment

(2020) Ji 06 Min Duan No.5206

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Dong X, male, Han nationality, born in August 3 1976, living in Baoding, Hebei Province.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Ping An Pratt & Whitney; Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. lives in Units B and C of Asia-Pacific Business Building 13, Hanzhong Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.

Legal Representative: Zhu Yong, general manager of this company.

Authorized Agent: Zhang Yunxia and Li Jianhong, lawyers of Hebei Weien Law Firm.

The appellant Dong Yin and the appellee Ping An Pratt & Whitney Company had a dispute over compensation. Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. refused to accept the civil judgment. People's Court of Jingxiu District, Baoding City, Hebei Province (2020) 1055 in the early Republic of China. 10 filed a case on June 22, 2020, and a collegial panel was formed according to law for trial. This case has been closed.

Dong *' s appeal request: 1. Revoke the judgment of first instance, revise the judgment or send it back for retrial according to law; 2. All the litigation expenses of the first and second instance of this case shall be borne by the appellee. Facts and reasons: The signatures on the Loan Contract, the Repayment Plan, the Supplementary Agreement of the Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract and the Power of Attorney for Data Transmission and Trench Service on which the judgment of first instance was based were not the appellee's signature, but forged by the appellee. The first-instance judgment found the facts wrong.

Ping An Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. replied that, firstly, the respondent submitted multiple sets of evidence such as Credit Agreement, Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract, Maximum Guarantee Contract and Maximum Counter-guarantee Mortgage Contract. Appellant Dong * admitted that the above contract documents had been signed off-line, recognized the basic facts of the loan, and denied the loan contract, repayment plan and supplementary agreement of the maximum entrusted guarantee contract. 2. Appellant Dong X submitted a written application for appraisal in the first instance, but failed to pay the appraisal fee in advance within the time limit specified by the court, and should bear the legal risk of failing to provide evidence; Third, the court should consider that the respondent has submitted authentic materials that can prove the authenticity of evidence such as electronic contracts.

Ping An Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. brought a lawsuit to the court of first instance:

1. ordered the defendant to pay compensation of 93 153.72 yuan to the plaintiff (including principal of 90299. 12 yuan, interest of 2209.28 yuan and liquidated damages of 645.32 yuan);

2. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff a guarantee fee of 2 180.66 yuan;

3. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff a penalty of 65,438+0,242.05 yuan (based on the compensation amount, from August 8, 2065,438+09 to August 28, 2065,438+09, and then based on the compensation amount, calculated at the annual interest rate of 24% until the date when the defendant paid off all the money);

4. Request the people's court to make a judgment to confirm that the plaintiff has the priority to be compensated for the mortgaged property (located in Baoding, with the title certificate number: Baoding house certificate number: Baoding house certificate number) in the above four creditor's rights. );

5. Order the defendant to bear the lawyer's fees that the plaintiff needs to pay 10000 yuan;

6. The defendant is ordered to bear all the expenses paid by the plaintiff to realize the creditor's rights, including but not limited to the legal fees, preservation fees, announcement fees and other expenses in this case (the above total amount: 106576.43 yuan).

The court of first instance found the facts: On October 7th, 2065438+2007/KLOC-0, the defendant Dong * signed a contract and loan contract with Shenzhen Ping An inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. with the number DY 20 17 100909796, stipulating that the defendant Dong * would provide limited small loans to Shenzhen Ping An as a borrower. The service term of the credit line is 20 1710/0 month17 to 202310/0 month 16. The Borrower has the right to request the Lender to issue the loan according to this contract. If the borrower fails to obtain full compensation from the guarantor, the lender will charge a penalty interest of 0. 1% for the overdue loan principal and interest on a daily basis from the overdue date to the date of payment or compensation.

According to the credit agreement, the defendant should pay a handling fee of 5070 yuan, and the defendant applied to the lender to directly pay the corresponding part of the defendant's loan to Ping An Pratt & Whitney Information Service Co., Ltd.

On the same day, the plaintiff and the defendant Dong * signed a loan contract, stipulating that the defendant Dong * entrusted the plaintiff as a guarantor to provide joint and several liability guarantee for the loan under the maximum entrusted guarantee contract and the Credit Agreement.

After performing the guarantee responsibility, the plaintiff has the right to recover from the defendant: (1) all the compensation paid by the plaintiff, including but not limited to the principal, interest, default interest and liquidated damages; (2) All other expenses incurred by the plaintiff to recover the above sum, including but not limited to appraisal fees, travel expenses, legal fees, preservation fees, execution fees, attorney fees and notarization fees; After the plaintiff performs the guarantee responsibility, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff a penalty of 0. 1% of the plaintiff's compensation amount every day from the date when the plaintiff obtains compensation to the date when the plaintiff pays all the money.

On the same day, the defendant Dong * signed the Loan Contract and the Maximum Counter-guarantee Mortgage Contract with the plaintiff, and the defendant Dong * provided counter-guarantee mortgage for the plaintiff's guarantee responsibility in his name, located at 30-3-502 Shuangcai Community, with the title certificate number: Baoding F.Q.Z.Zi No.,and signed it on 2017/kloc-0. The real estate registration certificate shows that mortgage is the second order.

On the same day, the plaintiff, as the guarantor, signed a letter of commitment with the lender Shenzhen Ping An inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. to provide guarantee for all debts arising from the Maximum Guarantee Contract and its single loan contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Master Contract"). The guarantee method agreed in the credit agreement is joint and several liability guarantee; The scope of guarantee includes the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, liquidated damages and the plaintiff's compensation for the debts under the main contract.

Both parties agree that when any payables of the defendant are overdue for 80 days; When the matters agreed in this contract occur, the creditor announces that the loan is due in advance, but the defendant fails to pay off the debt within the specified time limit, and the plaintiff shall assume the guarantee responsibility to the lender. 20 17 17124 October, the plaintiff applied for a loan of 169000 yuan from Shenzhen Ping An inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd., and the repayment method was 36 equal principal and interest, with an annual interest rate of 9.2%. It is agreed that the defendant will repay the principal and pay all the interest according to the repayment plan.

201710/9, Shenzhen ping an inclusive microcredit co., ltd., after deducting 3% handling fee, passed ping an fu technology service co., ltd.

Tell Dong * to provide a loan 163930 yuan.

In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant signed the Supplementary Agreement on Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract, stipulating that the guarantee fee is 828. 1 yuan per month. Defendant Dong * repaid the loan principal of 78,700.88 yuan and paid the monthly guarantee fee of 828. 1 yuan from 20 17 to 20 19 April/9. However, the defendant still owes the plaintiff a guarantee fee of RMB 265,438+080.66 for two months and 65,438+09 days from May 2065,438+09 to August 7, 2065,438+09.

On August 9, 20 19, the plaintiff fulfilled the guarantee responsibility to Shenzhen Ping 'an inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. and compensated the loan, with the compensation amount of 93 153.72 yuan. On August 30th, 20 19, the plaintiff signed the Special Entrustment Contract for Legal Services with Hebei Wayne Law Firm, stipulating that the plaintiff entrusts Hebei Wayne Law Firm to represent the case that the defendant was told to protect the right of recovery, and the plaintiff will pay the lawyer's fee to Hebei Wayne Law Firm 10000 yuan after receiving the notice of filing. Later, the defendant told our hospital to repay the plaintiff's compensation on time.

Hebei Wayne Law Firm issued a special invoice for value-added tax in Hebei Province for the plaintiff. During the trial, the defendant pointed out that the signatures on the Loan Contract, Repayment Plan, Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract, Supplementary Agreement and Power of Attorney for Data Transfer and Custody Service were not signed by himself, but failed to submit a written application and pay the appraisal fee in advance within the time limit specified by our court.

The court of first instance held that the defendant recognized the fact of borrowing money and signed the Credit Agreement and the Maximum Counter-guarantee Mortgage Contract during the trial, both of which mentioned that the original defendant signed the Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract and the lender signed the Maximum Guarantee Contract with the plaintiff. Therefore, regarding the loan contract and repayment plan proposed by the defendant,

The credit agreement and loan contract signed by the defendant Dong * and Shenzhen Ping 'an inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. are the true intentions of both parties, and their contents do not violate the prohibitive provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and they are legal and effective contracts. Shenzhen Ping 'an inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. has fulfilled its loan obligation, and the defendant Dong * should fulfill the repayment obligation according to the contract. The maximum counter-guarantee mortgage contract signed by the defendant Dong * and the plaintiff is the true intention of both parties, and its contents do not violate the prohibitive provisions of laws and administrative regulations. Legal and valid, both parties shall perform in good faith.

Defendant Dong * failed to fulfill the repayment obligations as agreed in the Credit Agreement and the Loan Contract, while the plaintiff fulfilled the guarantee obligations in accordance with the Maximum Guarantee Contract signed with Shenzhen Ping 'an inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd., and obtained the right to recover from Defendant Dong * according to law. When Shenzhen Ping An inclusive microcredit Co., Ltd. provided a loan to the defendant Dong *, it deducted 3% handling fee of 5070 yuan in advance and actually paid the defendant a loan of 163930 yuan, and the loan principal provided by it should be calculated as 163930 yuan, so the plaintiff should ask the defendant to pay the unpaid principal of 85299. 12 yuan (loan principal of 65438.

As for the plaintiff's claim for compensation interest of 2,209.28 yuan and penalty interest of 645.32 yuan, our court supported it according to law because the amount claimed did not exceed the upper limit prescribed by law. The court of first instance supported the plaintiff's claim that the guarantee fee of 2 180.66 yuan was in line with the contract and did not violate the law.

The plaintiff claims to calculate the liquidated damages at the annual interest rate of 24%, which is in line with the law and our court supports it. The lawyer's fee for the plaintiff to realize the creditor's rights is 10000 yuan, which is borne by the defendant, in line with the contract and the amount is reasonable, and the court of first instance supports it. The defendant voluntarily provided the maximum mortgage counter-guarantee for the above debts with the property under his name, and registered the mortgage. The plaintiff's claim to have the priority right to compensation for the mortgaged property is in line with the law and supported by the court of first instance.

To sum up, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 4, 18, 31 and 33 of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Article 179 of the Property Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 30 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases, it is decided that:

1. Defendant Dong * paid compensation of 88,083.72 yuan to the plaintiff Ping An Pratt & Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. within ten days after this judgment came into effect (including compensation principal of 85,229.12 yuan, compensation interest of 2,209.28 yuan and penalty interest of 645.32 yuan), and from August 8, 2009, the annual interest rate was 24%, which was 88,083.72 yuan.

2. The defendant Dong * paid the guarantee fee of 2 180.66 yuan to the plaintiff Ping An Pratt & Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. within ten days after this judgment came into effect;

3. The defendant Dong * paid the plaintiff Ping An Pratt & Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. the lawyer's fee of 10000 yuan within ten days after this judgment came into effect;

4. The plaintiff Ping 'an Pratt & Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. has the mortgage right to the property located at 30-3-502 in Shuangcai Community (property certificateNo.: O20 14 15470) and has the priority to be compensated for the proceeds from the auction of the property within the above-mentioned first, second and third debts;

Verb (the abbreviation of verb) rejects the plaintiff Ping An Pratt & Whitney Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd.' s other claims ... The case acceptance fee is 2432 yuan, halved to 12 16 yuan, and the security fee is 1052 yuan, totaling 2268 yuan. The plaintiff shall bear 108 yuan, and the defendant shall bear 2 160 yuan.

During the second trial of our court, the parties submitted evidence according to law around the appeal request, and the appellee submitted evidence 1. The letter of proof of Ping An Pratt & Whitney Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. requires operational verification of the loan contract before binding the bank card; Evidence 2. Notarial certificate, which proves that the loan needs to go through a very strict audit process, and the borrower needs to operate before borrowing; Evidence 3. Dong *' s photos taken by the App when he borrowed money online proved that the loan was his own operation. The appellant Dong * cross-examined that the authenticity and relevance of the three pieces of evidence were not recognized, and I took photos because the salesman said I had to take photos before I could do business. Our court confirmed the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the appellee in the second instance. We confirm the facts ascertained by the court of first instance.

We believe that the main reason for the appellant's appeal is that the signature of the loan contract and repayment plan is not his own signature. However, the appellant's recognition of the fact of receiving the loan, the statement of the agreed interest and the amount of interest to be repaid in each installment, and the evidence and litigation request submitted by the appellee can confirm each other.

At the same time, the Appellant's signatures on the Credit Agreement, the Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract and the Maximum Counter-guarantee Mortgage Contract were all recognized by him, and the real estate mortgage registration was handled.

In the second trial, the third party responsible for App operation issued a letter of proof, confirming that the App loan application needs to be verified by inputting the name, ID number, bank card number and mobile phone number reserved by the bank card, and sending the information to the issuing bank for matching. After success, you can bind the bank card, and then confirm the loan amount, installment times and repayment plan, and then you can issue the loan to the bound bank card.

Based on the fact that the appellant approved the IOU, the court of first instance found that the authenticity of the IOU was not improper. At the same time, due to the appellant's overdue repayment, the appellee made compensation according to the stipulations of the Credit Agreement, the Maximum Entrusted Guarantee Contract and the Maximum Guarantee Contract, which were confirmed by the above-mentioned contracts, repayment details, compensation amount and other evidence. The appellee's claim for the right of recourse has factual and legal basis, which is supported by the court of first instance and well-founded in law.

To sum up, Dong *' s appeal cannot be established. In accordance with the provisions of Item (1) of the first paragraph of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), our judgment is as follows:

Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

The acceptance fee for the second-instance case is 2432 yuan, which shall be borne by the appellant Dong.

This is the final judgment.

Li Li, presiding judge

Judge Zheng Dong

Judge Chen Meng.

December 28th, 2002

Assistant Judge Guo Zizhen

Bookkeeper Meng Ruichao

Related Questions and Answers: Related Questions and Answers: How is the interest of Ping An Pratt & Whitney calculated? Total interest/principal/number of monthly payment periods

You can probably get the approximate monthly interest rate,

The interest of Ping An Pratt & Whitney is generally higher.

But it has been controlled within the red line.

The interest rate of private lending has two red lines and three intervals, which are referred to as two lines and three zones for short. The video has a detailed explanation, I hope it will be useful to you:

\n