>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Wu Guojun v. Chen Xiaofu, Wang Kexiang, and Deqing County Zhongjian Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (private loan and guarantee contract dispute)
吴国军诉陈晓富、王克祥及德清县中建房地产开发有限公司民间借贷、担保合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Wu Guojun v. Chen Xiaofu, Wang Kexiang, and Deqing County Zhongjian Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (private loan and guarantee contract dispute)
(private loan and guarantee contract dispute)
吴国军诉陈晓富、王克祥及德清县中建房地产开发有限公司民间借贷、担保合同纠纷案

Wu Guojun v. Chen Xiaofu, Wang Kexiang, and Deqing County Zhongjian Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.

 

吴国军诉陈晓富、王克祥及德清县中建房地产开发有限公司民间借贷、担保合同纠纷案

(private loan and guarantee contract dispute) [裁判摘要]
[Abstract] 民间借贷涉嫌或构成非法吸收公众存款罪,合同一方当事人可能被追究刑事责任的,并不当然影响民间借贷合同以及相对应的担保合同的效力。如果民间借贷纠纷案件的审理并不必须以刑事案件的审理结果为依据,则民间借贷纠纷案件无须中止审理。
Where a private loan involves or constitutes the crime of illegal absorption of public savings and one party to the contract may be subject to criminal liability, it shall not necessarily affect the validity of the private loan contract and the corresponding guarantee contract. If the trial of the private loan dispute case need not depend on the outcome of the criminal case, the trial of the private loan dispute case need not be suspended. 
BASIC FACTS 原告:吴国军。
Plaintiff: Wu Guojun, male, 28, domiciled at Shizixiang Community, Aishan Sub-district, Huzhou City. 被告:陈晓富。
Defendant: Chen Xiaofu, male, 48, domiciled at Chunhui Street, Wukang Town, Deqing County, Zhejiang Province. 被告:王克祥。
Defendant: Wang Kexiang, male, 47, domiciled at Shenghua Yangguang Garden, Wukang Town, Deqing County, Zhejiang Province. 被告:德清县中建房地产开发有限公司。
Defendant: Deqing County Zhongjian Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., domiciled at Hemu Lane, Wukang Town, Deqing County, Zhejiang Province. 法定代表人:王克祥,该公司董事长。
Legal representative: Wang Kexiang, Chairman of the Board of Directors of this Company. 
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 原告吴国军因与被告陈晓富、王克祥、德清县中建房地产开发有限公司(以下简称中建公司)发生民间借贷、担保合同纠纷,向浙江省德清县人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff Wu Guojun instituted an action in the People's Court of Deqing County, Zhejiang Province against defendants Chen Xiaofu, Wang Kexiang, and Deqing County Zhongjian Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongjian Company”) for disputes over private loan and guarantee contracts. 原告吴国军诉称:2008年11月4日,原被告签订一借款协议,被告陈晓富共向原告借款人民币200万元,借款期限为 2008年11月4日至2009年2月3日,并由被告王克祥和被告中建公司连带责任担保,当日陈晓富收到吴国军的200万元的借款,因陈晓富拖欠其他债权人款项无法及时偿还,数额较大,并已严重丧失信誉,现陈晓富无力归还借款,依照协议,遂要求陈晓富提前归还,王克祥、中建公司承担连带责任。请求法院判令:1.解除原告与三被告之间订立的借款协议:2.陈晓富立即归还原告借款200万元,王克祥、中建公司承担连带清偿责任。
Plaintiff Wu Guojun alleged: on November 4, 2008, he and the defendants entered into a loan agreement, in which Chen Xiaofu borrowed a total of 2 million yuan from him. The term of the loan was from November 4, 2008 to February 3, 2009, and Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company should assume joint and several guarantee liability for the loan. On the same day, Chen Xiaofu received the 2 million yuan from Wang Guojun. Since Chen Xiaofu's reputation had been seriously damaged by his failure to repay a large amount of debts owed to other creditors in a timely manner and he was unable to pay the above loan, in accordance with the loan agreement, Wu Guojun demanded an early repayment of the loan from Chen Xiaofu and that Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company assume joint and several liability for the repayment. Wu Guojun requested the court to order that: (1) the loan agreement signed by the plaintiff with the three defendants be rescinded; and (2) Chen Xiaofu immediately repay the loan of 2 million yuan to the plaintiff and Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company assume joint and several liability for the repayment. 原告吴国军提交了如下证据:
Plaintiff Wu Guojun submitted the following evidence: 
1. A copy of the original loan agreement, to prove that Chen Xiaofu borrowed 2 million yuan from Wu Guojun, for which Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company assumed joint and several guarantee liability. 1.借款协议原件1份,证明被告陈晓富向原告吴国军借款200万元,并由王克祥、中建公司承担连带担保责任的事实。
2. A receipt signed by Chen Xiaofu, to prove that Chen Xiaofu received 2 million yuan from Wu Guojun on November 4, 2008. 2.被告陈晓富签字的收条1份,证明陈晓富于2008年11月4日收到原告吴国军所借的200万元人民币的事实。
3. A bank certificate, to prove that Wu Guojun lent 2 million yuan to Chen Xiaofu through bank transfer on November 4, 2008. 3.银行凭证1份,证明原告吴国军于 2008年11月4日通过银行转账将200万元借给陈晓富的事实。
Defendant Chen Xiaofu pleaded that it was true that he had borrowed 2 million yuan from Wu Guojun and failed to repay upon maturity; and he was unable to repay the loan for the time being but would try his best to repay the loan in the future. 被告陈晓富辩称:向原告吴国军借款人民币200万元到期未还是事实。目前无偿还能力,今后尽力归还。
Defendants Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company pleaded that: The procedures for this case were flawed. Because Chen Xiaofu was suspected of a crime, the trial of this case should be suspended. According to a civil ruling (No. 52-2 [2009], First Instance, Commercial, Deqing, Huzhou) issued by the People's Court of Deqing County on April 15, 2009, the trial of the case involved should be suspected and should resume after the criminal proceedings had been concluded. So far, the criminal case against Chen Xiaofu was still in trial. The nature of the loan in this case may be illegal absorption of public savings. The trial of this case should be suspended until the nature of the loan had been ascertained. Wang Kexiang and Zhongjian Company need not assume the guarantee liability if Chen Xiaofu was held liable for a crime. 被告王克祥、中建公司辩称:本案的程序存在问题,本案因被告陈晓富涉嫌犯罪,故应中止审理,2009年4月15日德清人民法院以(2009)湖德商初字第52号— 2号民事裁定,本案中止审理,且明确规定,待刑事诉讼审理终结后再恢复审理本案。现陈晓富的刑事案件并未审理终结。本案借款的性质可能为非法吸收公众存款。在未确定本案借款的性质时,该案应该中止审理本案。且如确定陈晓富是涉及犯罪的情况下,那么王克祥和中建公司无需承担保证责任。
Defendant Wang Kexiang submitted the following evidence: 被告王克祥提供了如下证据:
One copy of the original case-opening decision and letter, to prove that the investigation of the case of illegal absorption of public savings by Chen Xiaofu may lead to the invalidity of the loan agreement. 德清县公安局立案决定书及函原件1份,证明办案涉及被告陈晓富非法吸收公众存款案可能导致借款协议无效的事实。
The People's Court of Deqing County, the court of first instance, found that: 德清县人民法院一审查明:
...... 2008年11月4日,原、被告签订一借款协议,被告陈晓富共向原告吴国军借款人民币200万元,借款期限为2008年11月4日至2009年2月3日,并由被告王克祥和被告中建公司提供连带责任担保,当日原告履行了出借的义务,陈晓富于当日收到原告200万元的借款,因陈晓富拖欠其他债权人款项无法及时偿还,数额较大,并已严重丧失信誉,现陈晓富无力归还借款,依照协议,遂要求陈晓富提前归还,王克祥、中建公司承担连带责任。2008年12月14日陈晓富因故下落不明,原告认为陈晓富拖欠其他债权人款项数额巨大,已无能力偿还,2008年12月22日陈晓富因涉嫌合同诈骗和非法吸收公众存款罪被公安机关立案侦查,依照协议,遂要求陈晓富提前归还,王克祥、中建公司承担连带责任,直至开庭时,三被告均未履行还款义务。
 以上事实有各当事人陈述、借款和担保协议、被告陈晓富签字的收条、银行凭证、德清县公安局立案决定书及函原件等证据,足以认定。
 本案一审的争议焦点是:一、涉案民间借贷合同和担保合同的效力认定;二、本案是否需要中止审理。
 德清县人民法院一审认为:
 关于第一个焦点问题。本案原、被告之间的借贷关系成立且合法有效,应受法律保护。本案中,单个的借款行为仅仅是引起民间借贷这一民事法律关系的民事法律事实,并不构成非法吸收公众存款的刑事法律事实,因为非法吸收公众存款的刑事法律事实是数个“向不特定人借款”行为的总和,从而从量变到质变。《合同法》第五十二条规定了合同无效的情形,其中符合“违反法律、法规的强制性规定”、“以合法形式掩盖非法目的”两种情形的合同无效。当事人在订立民间借贷合同时,主观上可能确实基于借贷的真实意思表示,不存在违反法律、法规的强制性规定或以合法形式掩盖非法目的。非法吸收公众存款的犯罪行为与单个民间借贷行为并不等价,民间借贷合同并不必然损害国家利益和社会公共利益,两者之间的行为极有可能呈现为一种正当的民间借贷关系,即贷款人出借自己合法所有的货币资产,借款人自愿借人货币,双方自主决定交易对象与内容,既没有主观上要去损害其他合法利益的故意和过错,客观上也没有对其他合法利益造成侵害的现实性和可能性。根据《合同法》第12章规定,建立在真实意思基础上的民间借款合同受法律保护。因此,被告陈晓富向原告吴国军借款后,理应按约定及时归还借款。陈晓富未按其承诺归还所欠原告借款,是引起本案纠纷的原因,陈晓富应承担本案的全部民事责任。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese