The Shanghai Second Intermediate Court made a final judgment in the case of Zheng Shuang v. Zhang Heng’s private lending dispute: dismissed Zhang Heng’s appeal and upheld the original judgment
The final court verdict that Zhang Heng needs to return Zheng Shuang 20 million yuan
On March 31, according to the latest news from the “Shanghai Second Middle Court”: In November 2019, Zheng Shuang sued the Jing’an Court for an order to order Zhang Heng to return the loan of RMB 20 million and pay the corresponding overdue interest. The first-instance judgment supported all of Zheng Shuang’s claims. After the judgment of the first instance, Zhang Heng refused to accept and appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court, requesting a revised judgment to dismiss all of Zheng Shuang’s first-instance petitions or remand for retrial. On March 31, 2021, the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court made a final judgment on the case: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Zhang Heng issued a reply saying that he could not accept the verdict and would file a retrial application with the Shanghai High Court.
In Zhang Heng’s case, it is also very fascinating that the court must issue a judgment. In his case, finding ways to promote mediation is the more appropriate way. In this case, through mediation, at least three levels of goals can be achieved: the lowest goal: reduce or exempt “overdue interest”; the intermediate goal: installment repayment; the highest goal: the principal discount. The second-instance judgment has not been announced yet, but since the original judgment is upheld, you can also analyze the first-instance judgment first. In the first instance, the plaintiff Zheng Shuang’s litigation request was: return 20 million yuan of borrowing; pay overdue interest (based on 20 million yuan, 6% per year as the standard, calculated from the date of the lawsuit on November 12, 2019 to the actual Until the settlement date). Defendant Zhang Heng’s defense was: 20 million yuan was the resignation compensation paid by Zheng Shuang to Zhang Heng and the prepaid ten-year labor remuneration; 20 million yuan was the property division dispute during the cohabitation period. The evidence submitted by Zheng Shuang is simple. The first set of evidence, WeChat chat records between the two parties. The second set of evidence, transfer records, note “borrowing”; the third set of evidence, reminders for repayment. From a professional point of view, the three sets of evidence are still very clean. Use the first set of evidence to prove that the two parties reached an agreement on “borrowing 20 million.” Use the second set of evidence to prove the fact of the transfer, and once again strengthen the nature of the money-“borrowing.” The third set of evidence is used to prove the fact that Zheng Shuang urged Zhang Heng to repay. This set of evidence is mainly used to support the “overdue interest” of the 6% annual interest rate. The third group can be elaborated. According to Article 25 of the Supreme Law “Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases”, if there is no agreed interest for loans between natural persons, the lender cannot claim interest from the borrower during the loan period. In the case where Zheng Shuang sued Zhang Heng, the two did not agree on the loan interest. However, Zheng Shuang claimed “overdue interest” in the litigation request, and the court finally supported it. How did this thing come from? Zheng Shuang used a series of very standardized actions to fix the evidence and exercise his rights. Friends who are worthy of borrowing money but don’t want to come back can learn from it. First, because Zheng Shuang and Zhang Heng did not agree on the repayment period, Zheng Shuang began to urge Zhang Heng to repay the loan on October 1, 2019. This action triggered Article 206 of the Contract Law (Article 675 of the Civil Code) Provisions-if there is no agreement on the term of the loan or the agreement is not clear, and the loan cannot be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of this law, the borrower can repay at any time; the lender can urge the borrower to repay within a reasonable time limit. This “reasonable period” is calculated from October 1, 2019, and finally settled on November 12, 2019. From this day on, the Supreme Law “Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases” The regulations have begun to start-Article 29. If the borrower and the lender have not agreed on the overdue interest rate or the agreement is unclear, the people’s court can handle different situations in different situations: (1) Neither the interest rate nor the overdue interest rate has been agreed upon, lending People claim that the borrower should pay the interest during the period of capital occupation at an annual rate of 6% from the date of overdue repayment, the people’s court should support this 6%, which is “interest on overdue repayment.” Zheng Shuang’s three sets of evidence form a complete chain of evidence: confirming the agreement of the loan→determining the fact of the loan→determining the repayment date→determining the overdue interest. Let’s look at the evidence provided by Zhang Heng: three sets of recordings between Zhang Heng and Zheng Shuang’s parents. In the recording, Zheng Shuang’s parents “recognized that the money involved in the case was the statement that the plaintiff paid the defendant ten years in advance”. This evidence was used, and it can be considered that Zhang Heng and his lawyers did their best. The money was lent by Zheng Shuang to Zhang Heng, and the legal relationship between the loan and loan only exists between them. As a third party and outsider, Zheng Shuang’s parents, in the view of the court, their statements cannot overturn the chat records between Zheng Shuang and Zhang Heng. The WeChat chat record was formed at the time of the transfer and occurred directly between the two parties. The recording evidence was formed before and after the lawsuit and between the parents of both parties. From the perspective of time and subject, the WeChat chat record can better reflect the situation of both parties at the time of the transfer. True meaning. [Civil Judgment of the People’s Court of Jing’an District, Shanghai (2019) Hu 0106 53290] If Zhang Heng did not hire a lawyer, then he has reason to have illusions about the recorded evidence. Since he has already hired a lawyer, he should know that. The evidence is not sufficient to fulfill the purpose of proof. With the participation of professionals, only this level of evidence can be produced. It can be seen that Zhang Heng has almost no hope of winning the case at the level of “speaking the law.” And this, when preparing evidence, the lawyer and him can know. When assessing such “clear facts and weak evidence” cases, lawyers should try their best to avoid going to court and promote mediation in order to maximize the interests of the parties. I believe that the lawyers who can take up this kind of case should also have this basic consciousness. But where is the problem? On November 9, 2020, the first instance of the “Zheng Shuang-Zhang Heng Lending Case” was pronounced. On January 18, 2021, Zhang Heng broke the news on Weibo about the “Zheng Shuang surrogacy incident”. On March 31, 2021, the second instance of “Zheng Shuang-Zhang Heng Lending Case” was pronounced. Zhang Heng may not want to mediate. It is also possible that during the first instance, he tried to negotiate with Zheng Shuang using “surrogacy” as one of the bargaining chips. To be honest, on the average person, the other party negotiates with the “overseas surrogacy”, but anyone who needs a bit of public image will discuss it. But what Zhang Heng faced was Zheng Shuang, she was Zheng Shuang! Of course, it is also possible that Zhang Heng did not discuss this condition, although in my opinion, the probability of not playing this hand is still very low. In short, the mediation failed in the first instance, Zhang Heng broke the news in a rage, and as a result, he gave Wang Zhan as soon as he got started (maybe they didn’t expect this to be a “wang bomb”), Zheng Shuang was reimbursed for his acting career, and naturally there was no room for mediation in the second instance. . Zhang Heng said that he would apply for a retrial, unless he wanted to use the “20 million + overdue interest” in disguise to increase his exposure, otherwise he should wake up. This kind of “long live assault” litigation solution is not suitable for Zhang Heng. Before breaking the news next time, listen to lawyers more.