Case: Qian xhua and Chen xming Civil Ruling on Trial and Supervision of Private Loan Disputes
Content: Qian xhua’s husband Zhang xqing and Chen xming agreed that Chen xming would issue a loan note totaling 1.4 million yuan to Zhang xqing. The loan note meant that Zhang xqing explained to Qian xhua the whereabouts of the money at home, not Chen xming’s real Cleared the price of 1.4 million yuan to Zhang X. Later, Qian xhua sued Chen xming to the court and demanded that he repay the arrears of 1.4 million yuan. After receiving the indictment, Chen xming approached Zhang xqing and asked him why he had to go to the court to sue him. Zhang xqing told Chen xming that he didn’t care, and Zhang xqing would handle the matter. So Chen Xming did not appear in court. At the end of the trial, Zhang Xqing called and asked Chen Xming to come to the court to sign an agreement. The matter was over. Chen Xming did not care about the content of the agreement and signed. It was not until Chen Xming received the court's enforcement notice that he learned that he was deceived by Zhang Xqing and Qian Xhua, so he applied to the court for a retrial.
Court decision: In the case of a private loan dispute between the plaintiff x Qin Hua and the defendant Chen x Ming in the original trial, this court issued (2018) Su 0206 Min Chu No. 4659 on September 11, 2018. The civil mediation letter has become legally effective. After the president of this court submitted it to the adjudication committee for discussion, the mediation statement was indeed wrong and should be retrialed. The ruling was made in accordance with Article 198, paragraph 1, and 206 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. as follows:
1. This case is retrial by this court;
2. During the retrial, the execution of the original judgment shall be suspended.
Comment: Because Chen Xming himself signed the mediation agreement, this case should have expressed the true intentions of the parties. However, the attorneys who represented the case continued to scrutinize the case and found important clues in order to make the case hopeful. In the final hearings organized by the court, we kept asking the opposing parties and supplementing our opinions, making the opposing party’s testimony full of loopholes before the adjudication committee made a retrial ruling.
