路某某在一审中起诉称：路某某与航空港公司下属的不具有法人资格的分公司中国航空港建设总公司装饰装修工程分公司(以下简称装饰装修分公司)曾有过合作。该装饰装修分公司在运营中资金周转发生困难，于2010年2月1日、10月16日分别向路某某借款1 680 400元、300 000元，共计1 980 400元。两次借款均出具了借条，两张借条均载明：期限一年，借款利率为10%，到期日本金加利息一次付清。借款到期后，装饰装修分公司未偿还上述借款。故路某某诉至法院，请求依法判令航空港公司：1、偿还借款1 980 400元及借款利息198 040元，并承担逾期付款利息(至偿还借款之日止，按中国人民银行同期贷款利率计算);2、承担本案诉讼费用。
一审法院审理查明：路某某曾向装饰装修分公司以现金方式出借过两笔借款：第一笔借款时间为2010年2月1日，借款金额为1 680 400元，期限为一年，借款利率为10%，借款期限自2010年2月1日起至2011年1月31日，双方出具了一份借条，约定到期日本金加利息一次还清;第二笔借款时间为2010年10月16日，借款金额为300 000元，期限为一年，借款利率为10%，借款期限自2010年10月16日起至2011年10月15日，双方又出具了一份借条，约定到期日本金加利息一次还清。上述借款，装饰装修分公司至今未偿还任何本息。
一审法院判决认定：合法的民间借贷关系受法律保护。依据装饰装修分公司向路某某出具的两张借条，可以认定双方之间存在民间借贷关系，系双方当事人真实意思表示，且未违反国家法律、行政法规的强制性规定，故应属有效。因装饰装修分公司系航空港公司分支机构，不具有独立法人资格，且已被航空港公司撤销，故其对外民事行为产生的法律责任应由航空港公司承担，故上述两份借条对航空港公司具有约束力。现航空港公司未按约偿还上述借款本息，应属违约，应承担相应的违约责任，故路某某要求航空港公司偿还借款本金1 980 400元及相应利息的诉讼请求，符合合同约定，且借款期限内约定的利息计算方法未超过中国人民银行同期贷款利息的四倍，于法有据，该院予以支持。
Limited company of group of construction of airport of the iron in China and road are such-and-such record of appeal of civilian leasehold issue
Beijing court of the first intermediate people
(2012) one in civilian eventually word the 6857th
Appellant (first trial the accused) airport of the iron in China builds group limited company.
Legal representative Liu Shuying, president.
Zuo of attorney Chen Xiao.
Attorney Li Lei.
Appellee (first trial accuser) the road is such-and-such.
Attorney Liu Yong Jun, beijing solicitor of office of bell sound attorney.
Airport of the iron in appellant China builds group limited company (company of airport of the following abbreviation) because of leasehold dispute of as such-and-such as appellee road folk one case, refuse to obey court of people of Beijing Haidian division (2012) Hai Minchu word the 3261st civil judgment, mention to this academy appeal. This academy was accepted on May 8, 2012 hind, comprise lawfully hold the position of a presiding judge by judge Zhang Yinlong, the judge is like the Wei, collegiate bench that Zhen Jieying joins, undertook cognizance. This case already was tried now terminative.
The road is such-and-such sue in first instance say: The does not have corporate organization branch China airport of some and airport company subordinate builds Lu Mou head office adornment decorates project branch (adornment of the following abbreviation decorates a branch) ever had had collaboration. This adornment decorates a branch to lay difficulty in transmit of week of the fund in operation, on Feburary 1, 2010, will part on October 16 Xiang Lu is such-and-such loan 1 680 400 yuan, 300 000 yuan, add up to 1 980 400 yuan. Two loan all issued receipt for a loan, two pieces of receipt for a loan all carry bright: Deadline one year, loan interest rate is 10% , maturity capital increases interest paid. After loan expires, adornment decorates a branch to did not repay afore-mentioned loan. Some appeals to reason Lu Mou to the court, the request sentences lawfully your airport company: 1, refund 1 980 400 yuan reach loan interest 198 040 yuan, assume exceed the time limit to pay accrual (the day to refund stops, by the corresponding period of Chinese people bank loan interest rate is calculated) ;2, assume this case legal cost to use.
Airport company replies to a charge in first instance say: Do not agree with such-and-such lawsuit to request. Because airport company classics recombines, items of an account is not clear, cannot check this loan whether actual existence.
Cognizance of court of first instance finds out: Adornment of such-and-such Ceng Xiang decorates the road the branch spends two borrow or lend money with cash means lend: Time of brushstroke loan is on Feburary 1, 2010, loan amount is 1 680 400 yuan, deadline is a year, loan interest rate is 10% , loan time comes since Feburary 1, 2010 on January 31, 2011, bilateral issued a receipt for a loan, conventional maturity capital adds accrual to pay off; time of the 2nd loan is on October 16, 2010, loan amount is 300 000 yuan, deadline is a year, loan interest rate is 10% , loan time comes since October 16, 2010 on October 15, 2011, bilateral issued a receipt for a loan again, conventional maturity capital adds accrual to pay off. Afore-mentioned loan, adornment decorates a branch to did not repay up to now any principal and interest.
Check additionally, on January 31, 2011, classics of limited company of Chinese airport construction is industrial and commercial approve, name change builds group limited company for airport of the iron in China, chinese airport builds head office adornment to decorate a branch to fasten this company branch, do not have independent corporate organization, and on June 24, 2011 by airport company cancel.
Afore-mentioned facts, have bilateral party state, receipt for a loan 2 pieces, the allow change advice note that register reachs adornment 2 times to decorate a branch to recombine the evidence of evidential material on record such as cancel file.
Court decision of court of first instance maintains: Legitimate civilian leasehold concern gets legal protection. Decorate a branch according to adornment two pieces of receipt for a loan that to Lu Mou some issues, can maintain civilian leasehold relation exists between both sides, true meaning shows party of department both sides, and what did not disobey state law, administrative regulations is mandatory regulation, reason should be belonged to effective. Because adornment decorates a branch to fasten airport company branch, do not have independent corporate organization, and already by airport company cancel, reason its external the legal liability that civil action produces should be assumed by airport company, two afore-mentioned receipt for a loan are opposite reason airport company has sanction. Show airport company to was not pressed repay about afore-mentioned loan principal and interest, should belong to break a contact, the agree carries corresponding responsibility of breach of contract, reason road is such-and-such 1 980 400 of capital of refund of requirement airport company yuan the litigant request that reachs corresponding accrual, accord with contract agreement, and what the accrual calculation method that agrees inside loan time limit did not exceed interest of loan of the corresponding period of Chinese people bank is fourfold, have at the law according to, this courtyard gives support.
Because of its to what airport company argue says the company recombines, cannot check afore-mentioned loan, do not have at the law according to, this courtyard does not grant to collect a letter. The place on put together is narrated, according to " general rule of civil code of People's Republic of China " the 90th, " contract law of People's Republic of China " the 8th, the 206th, the 207th regulation, court decision: Limited company of group of construction of airport of the iron in China at adjudicating become effective hind repays inside 7 days such-and-such loan principal add up to to reach accrual eighty thousand five hundred and ninety yuan ninety-eight thousand and fifty yuan, exceed the time limit pays accrual (it is capital with 300 thousand yuan, from two years October rises 16 days to stop to the day that repays actually, by loan of the corresponding period of Chinese people bank standard interest rate is calculated; is capital with eighty thousand five hundred and sixty yuan, rose to stop to the day that repays actually two years on Feburary 1, by loan of the corresponding period of Chinese people bank standard interest rate is calculated) .
Airport company refuses to obey court of first instance afore-mentioned civil judgments, mention to this academy appeal. Its basically appeal reason is: First instance adjudicates cognizance fact is not clear, evidence is insufficient, and maintain the leasehold relation misgivings with bilateral actual existence by receipt for a loan only, request cancel original judgement, lawfully change the original sentence or hair answer heavy careful.
Airport company did not submit new evidence during this academy is tried.
The road is such-and-such and obedient court of first instance is civil court decision, its rejoin in the light of a:appellant reason of airport company say: Court of first instance adjudicates cognizance fact is clear, evidence is sufficient, applicable law is correct, reason asks the appeal that rejects airport company requests, maintain original judgement.
The road is such-and-such refer to this academy the following new evidence gives proof: Adornment decorates report of audit of income and expenses of branch finance affairs, prove body reveals these two money on face of airport company Zhang, and utility is loan.
Airport company satisfy the need is such-and-such afore-mentioned referred evidence authenticity are not approbated, think this evidence does not have associated sex with this case, do not belong to new evidence.
After this academy classics is examined, think, afore-mentioned evidence are not belonged to " top people court < a certain number of regulations about civil suit evidence > " the 41st (2) the category of new evidence in 2 careful program of the regulation, satisfy the need of reason this academy is such-and-such offerred evidence does not grant to collect a letter.
The fact that this academy finds out via trying the fact that find out and court of first instance is consistent.
Afore-mentioned facts, still party states evidence of opinion on record.
This academy thinks: According to the fact that find out, and the content of receipt for a loan that some provides Lu Mou shows, can affirm civilian leasehold relation establishs airport company and Lu Mou between some. This folk leasehold relation fastens the true meaning between bilateral party to express, not lawbreaking code sets, should belong to effective. Airport company recombines with the company, cannot check whether the contradictory reason of afore-mentioned loan exists in financial accounts, and airport company appeal puts forward, court of first instance is below the case that did not prove the basic fact such as use of financing source, fund, show by the existence is real leasehold concern between cognizance both sides of receipt for a loan only belong to misgivings, the requirement gives lawfully a:appellant reason of change the original sentence, all cannot defy the proof force of some receipt for a loan that some refers to forensic place, and airport company also did not refer the relevant witness that can bear its appeal view to hold water, promise of reason airport company carries quote incapable consequence, a:appellant reason of airport company, this academy does not grant to support. On put together, court of first instance adjudicates cognizance fact is clear, applicable law is correct, handle a result and do not have undeserved, should grant to maintain. According to " code of civil law of People's Republic of China " the 153rd the first (one) regulation, the court decision is as follows:
Reject appeal, maintain original judgement.
First instance case accepts fee twelve thousand one hundred and thirteen yuan, build burden of group limited company by airport of the iron in China (after this adjudicative become effective) is handed in inside 7 days.