Xinyang Intermediate People's Court released 6 typical cases of protecting small and medium-sized investors in the third quarter of 2022
Protecting the rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors is a key link in stimulating market vitality and promoting modern corporate governance, and is also an important measure to create a law-based and market-oriented business environment. Typical cases not only show the judgment rules and judicial concepts of the people's courts to protect the rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors in accordance with the law, but also play a leading and exemplary role in protecting small and medium-sized investors in accordance with the law and promoting the standardized governance and stable operation of the company. 6 typical cases of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors are now publicly released to the public:
1. Dispute case for the validity of the resolution of Company B suing Company A and Su Moumou's shareholder meeting
Basic facts
On May 28, 2019, the defendant Company A (Party A) signed a "Share Transfer Agreement" with the plaintiff Company B (Party B), the main content is: Article 1. A transfers all its equity in the target company to Party B, and Party B, as the state-owned holding company , is willing to accept the transfer of equity by Party A. Among them: 70% of the total equity of the target company is the equity actually transferred to Party B; 30% of the equity of the target company is the equity actually owned by Party B (see the equity holding agreement for details). Article 2. The conditions for cooperation and equity transfer, both parties agree and confirm that after Party A transfers 70% of its equity to Party B, Party B shall assume reasonable and legal debts (including project funds, bank loans, loans, etc.) arising from Party A's financing and project projects before the transfer of the equity of the target company, and raise funds to ensure the normal operation of the target company and the smooth progress of the development project; from the date of completion of the equity transfer registration procedures to the end of 2019, Party B must provide RMB 30 million to solve the previous problems of the project... Article 3. After the restructuring, the operation mode of the target company shall be determined by Party A and B in consultation (in principle, operation and management are both responsible by the general manager, the general manager is appointed by Party B, and Party A appointed personnel to enter the board of directors. Major resolutions are voted by more than half of the directors of the board of directors. The legal representative is appointed by Party B, Party B appoints a chairman and a director, Party A shareholder appoints two directors, Party B’s superior competent authority appoints an independent director, the finance is jointly managed by Party A and Party B, and Party A shareholder appoints an accountant), and use this to determine the target company articles of association after the equity restructuring... On June 10, 2019, the shareholders of the defendant Company A were changed from Yang to Plaintiff Company B, and the plaintiff holds all the shares of Company A. The shareholders of the defendant Company A held a plenary meeting of shareholders in the conference room of Company B on March 18, 2021. After unanimous approval by all shareholders, the following resolutions were made: 1. Remove Su from his position as executive director; 2. According to the provisions of the " Company Law " and the company's articles of association, Bi Moumou was elected as the company's executive director, and at the same time, the company's legal representative was changed to Bi Moumou. The plaintiff now sued the court for the defendant Su Moumou's refusal to cooperate with the plaintiff to go through the change registration procedures, demanding that the shareholders' meeting resolution made by defendant Company A on March 18, 2021 be valid, and ordered the two defendants to cooperate with the change registration procedures of Company A's legal representative.
Judgment result
Yihe District People's Court held after the trial that the legal civil rights and interests of citizens and legal persons should be protected by law. The necessary litigation interests are the premise for the court to accept the parties' confirmation lawsuit . The shareholders' meeting resolution falls within the category of internal autonomy. As long as the intentions of internal members are consistent, their effectiveness does not need to be confirmed by the court except for invalid or revocable circumstances.Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit request to change the shareholders' meeting resolution of the executive director and legal representative lacks the interest in litigation, that is, there is a lack of the disputed basis for requesting the people's court to make a judgment. Moreover, the plaintiff's lawsuit to confirm the effectiveness of the company resolution with Company A and Su Moumou as the defendants is not a necessary and effective way to conduct the corresponding industrial and commercial change registration. At the same time, the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (IV)" only stipulates that shareholder directors and supervisors have the right to file a lawsuit that is invalid, revoked or insofar as the company resolution, and does not list the lawsuit to confirm the validity of the company resolution as the scope of acceptance of civil cases in the people's courts, so the plaintiff's lawsuit request does not fall within the scope of the people's court's acceptance of civil litigation. Ruling: The plaintiff Company B's lawsuit was dismissed.
Typical significance
According to Article 22 of the Company Law, if shareholders believe that the resolution of the shareholders' meeting violates laws and regulations and the company's articles of association, and the meeting convening procedures and voting methods violate the laws and regulations and the company's articles of association, they have the right to file a lawsuit for invalidity or revocation. However, the Company Law, other laws and regulations and judicial interpretations do not stipulate that shareholders have the right to file a lawsuit to confirm the validity of the shareholders' meeting resolution. So is the lawsuit that confirms the validity of the company's resolution falls within the scope of acceptance of civil cases in the people's courts? This issue should be analyzed from two aspects: First, in the confirmation lawsuit, the principle of "no interest is no right to sue" should be adhered to. When accepting cases that confirm the validity of the company's resolution, the court should review whether the plaintiff has the interest in litigation. If the company's resolution does not have a reason to prevent the effectiveness and has no flaws in effect, it should be determined that there is no interest in litigation, and the plaintiff's lawsuit will not be accepted or rejected. That is to say, unless there is a possibility that the company resolution is invalid or revoked, a valid and undisputed resolution does not need to be confirmed by the court, and the company resolution will take effect from the time it is made. Second, judicial intervention in corporate governance needs to be both legitimacy and necessity. Only when the conflict between the company's direct participants and stakeholders develops to an irreconcilable level, and the rights and interests of the relevant parties are damaged to the point where they cannot be relieved through the company's internal mechanism, judicial intervention does not constitute excessive intervention in corporate autonomy affairs. Company control plays an important role in the internal management of the enterprise. The content of the company's control can be reflected through the internally agreed company articles of association, or it can be realized through legal and valid resolutions. Regarding the resolution made by the company to change the legal representative, if the resolution is made in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the legal procedures and the company's articles of association, and the content of the resolution does not violate the law or the company's articles of association, then the company's original legal representative and relevant shareholders shall cooperate with the industrial and commercial department to handle the relevant change procedures. Otherwise, the company and its shareholders have the right to request the court to make a judgment to assist in the registration procedures for industrial and commercial change. In this case, the plaintiff requested to confirm that the shareholders' meeting resolution was valid but did not meet the legitimacy and necessity of judicial intervention in corporate governance, and the ruling that the rejection of the lawsuit was in line with the principle of corporate autonomy.
2. A concrete company sued a real estate company, a residential group company, a certain engineering management company bill payment right dispute case
basic case
1 The plaintiff's concrete company provided concrete materials for a real estate project undertaken by the defendant's real estate development company . On December 15, 2021, the plaintiff received two electronic commercial acceptance bills . The issuer of the two bills was a real estate development company, the acceptance was a residential group company, and the receipt was a project management company. The expiration date of the bill was May 24, 2022. After the bill of exchange expired, the plaintiff prompted the payment through the system many times, but it was unable to repay. The current bill status showed "refusal to pay and recourse to be paid". The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to protect his legitimate rights and interests.
Processing results
Under the auspices of the court, the plaintiff and the defendant reached an mediation opinion: 1. The defendant's real estate development company paid the plaintiff's concrete company 500,000 yuan before October 31, 2022; 500,000 yuan on December 31, 2022; 2. If the defendant's real estate development company fails to pay within the deadline, it voluntarily pays interest to the plaintiff and bears the litigation fees in this case. The interest shall be calculated based on the unpaid amount, and shall be calculated from the loan market quotation rate announced by the National Interbank Interbank Deposit Center on May 24, 2022 to the date of actual repayment.
Typical meaning
Notes are an important payment method and financing tool . Using bills as payment tools can save money, reduce the country's currency issuance , and can also reduce unnecessary troubles of carrying and inspecting cash, achieving the purpose of safe, rapid and accurate operation of funds, thereby improving the efficiency of funds, and therefore widely used in the construction industry. However, due to the impact of the epidemic, the company has difficulty operating, the real estate industry is sluggish, and the collection of payments has slowed down, which has led to the delay in cashing of notes to suppliers and material manufacturers. The rule of law is the best business environment, and maintaining market stability is a key link in creating a good business environment. Based on the actual situation of trial and execution, the people's courts will find the right points and focus for the court to serve and protect local economic and social development, give full play to the judicial judicial function, consciously strengthen judicial responsibility, continuously optimize work measures, actively use diversified solutions, carefully choose and apply judicial compulsory procedures, properly handle civil and commercial disputes involving enterprises, and escort the healthy development of enterprises. In this case, considering that there are constant news about large real estate companies such as Evergrande , successive crises have severely hit the market confidence of the real estate industry. If a mandatory ruling is enforced, it may have a negative impact on the development of the local real estate industry and related industries. Therefore, the presiding judge notified both parties to carry out mediation work, adhered to the principle of equal protection, promoted win-win cooperation between the two parties, and actively promoted communication between the two companies, prompting the two parties to finally reach an agreement on mediation opinions, achieved good legal and social effects, and contributed to the creation of a good market order and operating environment.
3. Debt dispute case between Hu Jia and Yue Moumou, Hu B and other partnerships
Basic facts
A hotel was established on May 23, 2012. It is an individual industrial and commercial household. The operator is the plaintiff Hu Jia, and it was cancelled on December 30, 2019. During the operation of the hotel, the plaintiff Hu Mousheng and the defendant Yue Moumou once borrowed money from others to raise funds and actually participated in the operation. The defendant Hu B had economic transactions with the plaintiff Hu Jia. Later, due to insufficient funds to maintain the hotel's daily business activities, the debts they bear were unable to be repaid, resulting in the plaintiff being sued by others and included in the list of dishonest persons. The plaintiff claimed that he and the two defendants were the actual partners of the hotel and asked the three parties to share foreign debts together, so he filed a lawsuit.
judgment result
First instance court held that to determine whether the legal relationship between the parties is a partnership should be analyzed from the legal characteristics of the partnership. The defendant Yue Moumou is a partner of a hotel and has been confirmed by the previous court's effective judgment. However, the plaintiff Hu Jia and the defendant Hu Yi did not have written partnership agreement , and there is no registration from the industrial and commercial administrative department. The plaintiff Hu Jia did not provide evidence to prove the amount of capital contribution, surplus distribution, debt responsibility, entry, withdrawal, partnership termination, etc. of the defendant Hu Yi, and the matters where the defendant Hu Yi has jointly contributed, joint operation, joint labor, and joint operation profit distribution. The plaintiff's existing evidence can only prove that the defendant Hu Yi has some business and economic transactions with the plaintiff, and cannot prove that the defendant Hu Yi is a partner of a hotel. Based on the actual situation of this case, the judgment was made: 1. Confirm that the plaintiff Hu Jia and the defendant Yue Moumou are partners of a hotel; 2. Dismiss the plaintiff Hu Jia's other litigation requests. After the verdict was announced, Hu Jia was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal.The second instance court held that the evidence submitted by Hu Jia could not prove that Hu B had invested in a hotel in a partnership, participated in business management, distributed operating profits, and assumed profit and loss risks. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal request to confirm that Hu B was a partner of a hotel was not supported. The judgment was: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
typical significance
In private operations, personal partnerships are widely used because of their advantages such as convenience in startup, complementary advantages, resource sharing, and risk diversification. They are mostly built between natural persons such as friends and relatives with a certain trust basis. However, while partnership operations have these advantages, they are also accompanied by shortcomings and defects, such as incomplete agreements, loose management and operations, irregular financials, etc. When the business situation is good, these problems are ignored and covered up. When the business is incurred, these defects will shake the trust basis between the partners and cause various partnership disputes. Partnership is risky, so be cautious when joining the partnership. In order to avoid falling into partnership agreement dispute litigation and forming a long-term and good cooperative relationship, the following points should be paid attention to in partnership operation: First, enter into a partnership agreement in writing and clarify the main terms that the agreement should contain. In addition to clarifying the investment share, profit and loss burden of each partner, the partnership agreement should also make an agreement on matters such as withdrawal, joining, and dissolution. The proportion of profit distribution and loss sharing can be determined based on the investment share. The second is to establish a sound and complete financial system. For matters that are prone to disputes such as the choice of credentials and the procedures to be recorded through, it must be clear in writing, and pay attention to regular reconciliation during the execution process, and carefully keep financial accounts and vouchers so that there are rules to follow and evidence to verify when disputes arise in the future. 3. When the partnership is terminated, it must be liquidated in a timely manner. The surplus should be distributed in a timely manner, the debt should be repaid in a timely manner, and the settlement results should be fixed to reduce disputes. In this case, the court analyzed and determined that the existing evidence submitted by the plaintiff and determined that there was no partnership between the defendant Hu B and the plaintiff Hu Jia, which allowed the defendant Hu B to avoid debt risks, protect his legitimate rights and interests, maintain normal social and economic order, and help create a fair and orderly market economy environment.
4. A company sued Hu, Wuhan Branch of PICC Property Insurance Company Contract Undertaking Dispute case
Basic case
At around 15:30 on August 13, 2019, the defendant Hu drove a car and hit the rear of the car driven by Li, a third person in the same direction, causing a traffic accident in which the two vehicles were damaged. The traffic police brigade determined that Hu Moumou was fully responsible for the accident, and Li Mou, a third-party, was not responsible. After mediation, Hu Moumou was responsible for the damage to the car driven by Li Moumou, and Hu Moumou was responsible for the damage to the car driven by Hu Moumou. Subsequently, the vehicles of both parties were sent to a plaintiff's company for repair. The plaintiff's vehicle repair fee totaled 10,513.35 yuan, and the defendant's vehicle repair fee totaled 3,993.00 yuan. On July 29, 2021, the Xinxian Branch of PICC Property Insurance Company issued two loss-making orders for this car repair, confirming the loss of motor vehicle insurance, and determining the vehicle loss caused by this accident was RMB 10,513.35 and RMB 3,993 respectively. Later, the plaintiff failed to receive the repair fee because the defendant Hu Moumou failed to sign and confirm the loss payment, which led to the plaintiff's failure to receive the repair fee. It was also investigated that the defendant Hu Moumou had commercial insurance in the Wuhan Branch of the defendant PICC Property Insurance Company, of which car loss insurance is 67,239 yuan and third-party insurance is 500,000 yuan.
Judgement result
Xinxian People's Court held after trial that the defendant Hu Moumou sent his vehicle and the victim vehicle to the plaintiff's office for repair after the accident. The plaintiff repaired the vehicle in accordance with the defendant Hu Moumou's request, so the plaintiff's lawsuit request to the defendant Hu Moumou to pay the vehicle repair costs should be supported. Article 535 of the " Civil Code " stipulates: "If the debtor fails to exercise his or her claim or the accessory rights related to the claim, which affects the realization of the creditor's due claims, the creditor may request the people's court to exercise the debtor's rights against the counterparty in his or her own name, except where the right belongs to the debtor himself."The defendant Hu Moumou failed to exercise his rights and failed to sign the confirmation of the loss of the motor vehicle insurance vehicle, causing the plaintiff to fail to receive the repair fee. Therefore, the defendant PICC Property Insurance Company Wuhan Branch shall bear the corresponding contractual compensation liability for paying the plaintiff the maintenance cost of the vehicle in the accident within the scope of the vehicle damage insurance and third-party insurance compensation purchased by Hu Moumou. The judgment was then made: the defendant Hu Moumou paid the plaintiff company 10,513.35 yuan and 3,993 yuan of repair payments owed to the plaintiff company within ten days from the date of the effectiveness of this judgment; the defendant PICC Property Insurance Company Wuhan Branch shall bear the liability for compensation for the vehicle maintenance payment of 10,513.35 yuan within the scope of the vehicle damage insurance purchased by the defendant Hu Moumou, and shall bear the liability for compensation for the vehicle maintenance payment of 3,993 yuan of repair payments of Li Mou, the non-party insurance shall be within the scope of the third party insurance, and the two funds shall be paid directly to the plaintiff.
Typical significance
After a motor vehicle traffic accident occurs, the party responsible for the entire accident shall be responsible for the repair of the damaged vehicle. As the full responsible party and the vehicle repairer, a contractual relationship is formed between the full responsible party and the insurance company due to the signing of an insurance contract. If the responsible party sends the vehicle to the vehicle repairer for repair, if the responsible party refuses to pay the relevant maintenance costs, it will cause payment of the vehicle repair costs, resulting in the inability to realize the claim of the vehicle repairer. In this case, the defendant Hu Moumou bears full responsibility for the motor vehicle traffic accident and he bears the responsibility for repairs for the damage to the two vehicles. A contractual relationship was formed between the plaintiff's company and the defendant Hu Moumou due to vehicle maintenance, and an insurance contractual relationship was formed between the defendant Hu Moumou and the defendant's Wuhan Branch of the People's Insurance Property Insurance Company due to signing an insurance contract, forming two different legal relationships. The defendant Hu Moumou sent the vehicle to the plaintiff's office for repair. After the vehicle repair was completed, the defendant Hu Moumou refused to pay the repair costs, which made the plaintiff's debt unable to be realized. According to the principle of relativity of the contract, contracts established in accordance with the law can only enjoy contractual rights by the parties to the contract, and any third party other than the parties cannot claim contractual rights from the contract debtor. If the provisions of this principle are strictly followed, it will be detrimental to the protection of the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. Based on the exceptions to the principle of contract relativity and the relevant provisions of creditor subrogation , the court broke through the principle of contract relativity in accordance with the law and ordered the insurance company to directly pay the plaintiff's maintenance costs, which reduced the burden of litigation between the parties and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors.
5. A construction engineering company sued Geng, Zhang, etc. right of recovery dispute case
basic case
defendants Geng, Ma, Zhang and a third-party Zhu jointly undertake the construction of the No. 1 project of the Agricultural Machinery Market. Since the four people did not have construction qualifications, the defendant Geng Moumou negotiated with the plaintiff's construction engineering company to undertake the construction of the project in the name of the plaintiff. On December 10, 2019, the two parties reached a cooperation agreement: Party A (plaintiff) is responsible for providing Party B (defendant Geng Moumou) with necessary construction conditions and relevant materials for this project; Party B independently and fully authorized to invest in and build the project, and Party A does not enjoy profit distribution. It was also found that the defendants Zhang and Ma were the actual partners of the project involved in the case and jointly participated in the production and operation. After the contract was signed, the defendant organized workers to carry out the construction, but the three defendants failed to pay the migrant workers' wages on time, and a total of 3.6 million yuan in wages were owed to migrant workers. After handling by the Labor and Social Security Supervision Brigade, the plaintiff will pay part of the salary of 1807,595 yuan. On January 27, 2021, the plaintiff withdrew 1 million yuan in cash through the bank to pay the wages of migrant workers. On January 20, 2021, the plaintiff applied for an insurance claim of 807,595 yuan from the insurance company. On February 9, 2021, the insurance company transferred the above insurance compensation to the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau account to pay wages owed to migrant workers. Later, because the plaintiff failed to repay the loan to the insurance company at the agreed time, the insurance company filed a lawsuit and requested the plaintiff to repay it. On November 5, 2021, the court ruled that the plaintiff would repay the insurance company's compensation of 807,595 yuan. The plaintiff advanced the wages of migrant workers 1807,595 yuan, and after repeated urges the defendant to fail to do so, a dispute arose.
Judgement result
Guangshan County People's Court held that: According to Article 19, paragraph 2 of the " Regulations on the Protection of Wage Payment of Migrant Workers", employers allow individuals, units that do not have legal business qualifications or have not obtained the corresponding qualifications to operate externally in the name of the employer, resulting in the default of wages of migrant workers recruited, the employer shall pay the compensation and may pursue compensation in accordance with the law. The plaintiff has advanced the salary of migrant workers on behalf of the defendant, and has a payment voucher and a court effective judgment to support it. The facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive. Therefore, his lawsuit request to repay the compensation of 1807,595 yuan should be supported in accordance with the law. The three defendants acknowledged that the project involved in the case was constructed in partnership, and in the investigation and interrogation record of the Labor and Social Security Supervision Brigade, they all agreed to reach a partnership agreement, and agreed to jointly manage the project involved in the case, and all participated in the actual operation of the project involved in the case, and responded to the debts arising from the partnership affairs involved in the case in accordance with the law, namely the wages of migrant workers paid by the plaintiff, joint and several liability for . Therefore, the judgment: The three defendants paid the plaintiff 1807,595 yuan and interest to the migrant workers advance wages of 1807,595 yuan and interest within 30 days from the date of the effective date of this judgment, and the plaintiff's other lawsuits were rejected.
Typical meaning
The right of recovery refers to the right of joint debtor to assume the debt beyond the part that should be shared according to the internal relationship and enjoys the right to seek compensation from other debtors. Disputes on the right of recovery are divided into three situations: disputes on the right of recovery of guarantee liability, disputes on the right of recovery of partnership debt, and disputes on the right of recovery of other situations. The dispute over the right to recover in this case is a dispute over the right to recover in other circumstances. According to Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Regulations on the Protection of Wage Payment of Migrant Workers, an employer allows individuals, units that do not have legal business qualifications or have not obtained the corresponding qualifications to operate externally in the name of the employer, resulting in the default of the wages of migrant workers recruited, the employer shall pay the compensation and may pursue compensation in accordance with the law. Article 973 of the Civil Code also makes clear provisions on the right to recover, and partners shall bear joint and several liability for partnership debts. Partners who pay off their partnership debts exceed their share that they should bear have the right to seek compensation from other partners. The plaintiff in this case has advanced the wages of migrant workers on behalf of the defendant and has a payment certificate, so he enjoys the right to seek compensation from the defendant in accordance with the law. Joint and several liability refers to the legal liability for the debtor to jointly repay the debt. Each responsible person shall not share the shares and shall bear the liability according to the request of the right holder in any order. When the right holder makes a request, each responsible person shall not refuse on the grounds that it exceeds the part he should bear. Partners shall bear joint and several liability for the debts of partnerships, including partnership joint ventures, unless otherwise provided by law. Partners who repay the partnership debt exceeds the amount they should bear have the right to seek compensation from other partners. The parties to the partnership joint venture shall bear joint liability for joint venture debts in accordance with relevant laws, regulations or contracts. In this case, the three defendants were in partnership with the project involved in the case, and the three defendants all recognized the verbal conclusion of the partnership agreement in the investigation and interrogation record of the Labor and Social Security Supervision Brigade, and agreed that the partnership operation of the project involved in the case was jointly and severally liable in the partnership (including partnership joint ventures) clearly stipulated by the law. Therefore, the court ruled that the three defendants bear joint liability for the wages and interest of migrant workers advanced by the plaintiff, which not only safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of migrant workers, but also optimized the legal business environment and created favorable conditions for the healthy development of private enterprises.
6. Li Moumou sued Lei Moumou, Wang Moumou and others for sales contract dispute
Basic facts
plaintiff Li Moumou is the person in charge of a trading company . The business scope of the trading company mainly includes building materials retail. In 2012, Li Moumou signed a supply agreement with the defendant Qi Moumou and others on behalf of the company, agreeing to provide steel for the construction site contracted by Qi Moumou and others.After the agreement was signed, the plaintiff fulfilled the supply obligation as agreed. After reconciliation between the two parties, the defendant owed more than 1.7 million yuan in the payment of goods, and the interest generated by the overdue payment reached more than one million yuan. The defendant proposed to use the house to pay the arrears. Later, the two parties never reached an agreement on the location, price and other matters of the payment of the house. The plaintiff repeatedly urged the above-mentioned arrears and interest, but the defendant never paid back on the grounds that there was no current payment. The two parties had a dispute over the payment of goods for ten years. In recent years, due to the impact of the epidemic, the plaintiff's company's operating conditions have been deteriorating. Now the company's capital turnover is difficult. In order to relieve its difficulties, Li Moumou sued the court and asked Qi Moumou and others to repay the owed payment and interest.
Processing result
During the trial, after the court presided over the mediation, the parties voluntarily reached an agreement: 1. Regarding the IOU of 800,000 on August 14, 2014 and the IOU of 627,900 on the same day, the plaintiff and the defendant confirmed that the defendants Lei Moumou, Wang Moumou and Qi Moumou owed the plaintiff Li Moumou a total of steel payments for the two IOUs. 1427,900 yuan and interest of RMB 1427,900 yuan, regarding the principal of owed 1427,900 yuan, the defendants Lei, Wang and Qi voluntarily paid off the debt before July 31, 2022; regarding the interest of RMB 1427,900 yuan, the plaintiff and the defendant settled separately, and no longer dealt with in this case; 2. If the defendants Lei, Wang and Qi fail to fulfill the obligation to repay the principal of owed 1427,900 yuan within the deadline, the content of the separate settlement of the arrears between the plaintiff and the defendants will be invalidated. The interest arrears in this case, the defendants Lei, Wang and Qi voluntarily paid the plaintiff Li 324,000 yuan, and the monthly interest rate will be 1.5% from August 14, 2014 based on the principal of RMB 1427,900 yuan. (Actually 18%) interest payments until August 19, 2020, and interest payments after August 20, 2020 will be paid at a base of 1427,900 yuan at four times the interest rate of the same bank loan in the same period until the payment is cleared. 3. For the above two repayment obligations, the defendants Lei, Wang and Qi each bear one-third of the repayment obligations, and they will live up to the obligations of joint repayment for each other.
Typical significance
This case is a typical case of protecting small and medium-sized enterprises and optimizing the business environment. Small and medium-sized entrepreneurs have weak ability to resist risks and protect themselves, and their legitimate rights and interests are easily infringed. In addition, due to the impact of the epidemic, companies are very likely to have difficulties in their operations. Therefore, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs and helping small and medium-sized enterprises to alleviate their difficulties is an inherent meaning of optimizing the legal business environment. In this case, the plaintiff, as the person in charge of a trading company, failed to recover the payment for goods for ten years and sued the court. The presiding judge immediately activated the green channel for cases involving business environments and gave priority to the trial of the case in order to resolve it efficiently. By reviewing the file materials, it was found that the facts of the case were clear and there was little controversy. The presiding judge contacted all parties to organize mediation in a timely manner, and fully considered the actual needs of the parties during the mediation process and continuously improved the mediation plan. Under the efforts and coordination of the judge, all parties weighed the pros and cons and finally reached an agreement on the repayment time and amount. The defendant fulfilled the owed 1 million yuan to the plaintiff on the spot and promised to pay the remaining amount by the end of the month. The dispute over the sale contract was successfully resolved within 20 working days. Using a multi-party dispute resolution mechanism to quickly and efficiently resolve disputes is an effective way to reduce litigation costs, an important manifestation of the integration of , reason, and . It is of great significance to safeguarding corporate rights and interests, promoting corporate development, and optimizing the business environment. (Xinyang Intermediate People's Court Research Office)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-