1. 首页
  2. 法律委托案例
  3. 中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司与路某某民间借贷纠纷上诉案

中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司与路某某民间借贷纠纷上诉案

中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司与路某某民间借贷纠纷上诉案北京市第一中级人民法院民事判决书(2012)一中民终字第6857号上诉人(原审被告)中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司。法定代表人刘书英,董事长。委托代理人陈啸飔。委托代理人李磊。被上诉人(原审原告)路某某。委托代理人刘永君,北京市铎声律师事务所律师。上诉人中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司(以下简称航空港公司)因与被上诉人路某某民间借贷纠纷一案,不服北京市海淀区人民法院(2012)海民初字第3261号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院于2012年5月8日受理后,依法组成由法官张印龙担任审判长,法官肖伟、甄洁莹参加的合议庭,进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。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...

中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司与路某某民间借贷纠纷上诉案

北京市第一中级人民法院

民事判决书

(2012)一中民终字第6857号

上诉人(原审被告)中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司。

法定代表人刘书英,董事长。

委托代理人陈啸飔。

委托代理人李磊。

被上诉人(原审原告)路某某。

委托代理人刘永君,北京市铎声律师事务所律师。

上诉人中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司(以下简称航空港公司)因与被上诉人路某某民间借贷纠纷一案,不服北京市海淀区人民法院(2012)海民初字第3261号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院于2012年5月8日受理后,依法组成由法官张印龙担任审判长,法官肖伟、甄洁莹参加的合议庭,进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。

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。

航空港公司在一审中答辩称:不同意路某某的诉讼请求。因为航空港公司经重组,账目不清,无法核实该笔借款是否真实存在。

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。

另查,2011年1月31日,中国航空港建设有限公司经工商核准,名称变更为中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司,中国航空港建设总公司装饰装修分公司系该公司分支机构,不具有独立法人资格,并于2011年6月24日被航空港公司撤销。

上述事实,有双方当事人陈述,借条二张、准予变更登记通知书二份及装饰装修分公司重组撤销文件等证据材料在案佐证。

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。

对于航空港公司辩称的因其公司重组,无法核实上述借款一节,于法无据,该院不予采信。综上所述,依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十条、《中华人民共和国合同法》第八条、第二百零六条、第二百零七条之规定,判决:中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司于判决生效后七日内偿还路某某借款本金共计一百九十八万零四百元及利息十九万八千零四十元、逾期付款利息(以三十万元为本金,自二○一一年十月十六日起至实际偿还之日止,按中国人民银行同期贷款基准利率计算;以一百六十八万零四百元为本金,二○一一年二月一日起至实际偿还之日止,按中国人民银行同期贷款基准利率计算)。

航空港公司不服一审法院上述民事判决,向本院提起上诉。其主要上诉理由是:一审判决认定事实不清,证据不足,而仅凭借条认定双方存在真实的借贷关系不妥,请求撤销原判,依法改判或发回重审。

航空港公司在本院审理期间未提交新的证据。

路某某服从一审法院民事判决,其针对航空港公司的上诉理由答辩称:一审法院判决认定事实清楚,证据充分,适用法律正确,故要求驳回航空港公司的上诉请求,维持原判。

路某某向本院提交以下新的证据予以证明:装饰装修分公司财务收支审计报告,证明航空港公司账面上体现出该两笔款项,且用途为借款。

航空港公司对路某某提交的上述证据真实性不认可,认为该证据与本案不具有关联性,不属于新证据。

本院经审查后认为,上述证据不属于《最高人民法院〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉》第四十一条第(二)项规定的二审程序中新证据的范畴,故本院对路某某提供的证据不予采信。

本院经审理查明的事实与一审法院查明的事实一致。

上述事实,还有当事人陈述意见在案佐证。

本院认为:依据查明的事实,以及路某某提供的借条内容显示,可以确认航空港公司与路某某之间民间借贷关系成立。该民间借贷关系系双方当事人之间的真实意思表示,未违反法律法规规定,应属有效。航空港公司以公司重组,无法核对财务账目中是否存在上述借款的抗辩理由,以及航空港公司上诉提出,一审法院在未查明资金来源、资金用途等基本事实的情况下,仅凭借条认定双方之间存在真实的借贷关系显属不妥,要求依法予以改判的上诉理由,均不能对抗路某某向法院所提交的借条的证明力,且航空港公司亦未提交能够支持其上诉主张成立的相关证据,故航空港公司应承担举证不能的后果,航空港公司的上诉理由,本院不予支持。综上,一审法院判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,处理结果并无不当,应予维持。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(一)项之规定,判决如下:

驳回上诉,维持原判。

一审案件受理费一万二千一百一十三元,由中国中铁航空港建设集团有限公司负担(于本判决生效后七日内交纳)。

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

Civil judgment

(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.

本文来自投稿,不代表君士君法律咨询网立场,如若转载,请注明出处:http://www.junshijun.com/wts/26558.html