Husband to borrow money, "wife"secured. This morning,?mod=viewthread&tid=340756,air jordan femme pas cher, Qingpu District Court in this case to the sentencing of private lending disputes that this borrowing is not the couple's joint debt verdict borne by Liu Jie one person.
?
Liu Jie has been engaged in the transportation industry, after the acquaintance of a business owner Zhou Ming. Zhou boss often let Liu Jie shipments, one to two to the two established a good friendship. February 10, 2011, due to hand tight, cgi-bin topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=448493, Liu Jie Zhou Ming intends to borrow about 300,000 yuan turnover. For insurance purposes, to Zhou Jie issued a promissory note, and to ensure that March 9, 2011 to pay off.
?
The same day, Liu Jie come together as well as with a woman, according to Liu Jie, who is his wife leaves kind words, her capacity as guarantor of signature and thumbprint promissory note, and the identity of their own copy member attached to the promissory note afterwards. Liu, who agreed Tuesday to Liu Jie,jordan femme pas cher, a house as collateral,?mod=viewthread&tid=282635&fromuid=29708, and for the mortgage registration. The same day,?mod=viewthread&tid=74821, Zhou Ming will transfer through bank cards, 300,000 yuan will be transferred to the account within Liu Jie.
?
Seeing the repayment date approaching, Zhou Jie repeatedly in urging pay back the money, but Liu Jie always a variety of excuses. Then not only do not pay the debt,boutique louboutin paris, but also simply "disappeared." In desperation, Zhou Ming had submitted a petition to the court, the fact that the borrowing occurred during the marital relati**hip continues to exist Liu Jie couple as husband and wife together debt,?mod=viewthread&tid=703731, two people should work together to return the 300,000 yuan loan and interest. Liu Jie due to missing, the court served notice of the relevant respondent material.
?
Hearing the same day, Liu Jie, the first defendant has not appeared in court. The second defendant argued leaf kind words written, he had never sign the promissory note,chaussure nike pas cher femme, although the IOU guarantor "leaves a good word" of the ID number and their own exactly the same, but the identity card of the photo,chaussures louboutin hommes, but with its own does not match, the borrower has not used the couple live together, not agree to work together to return.
?
Qingpu court held that, according to the plaintiff stated, IOUs and banking credentials and statements,?mod=viewthread&tid=39601, facts sufficient to prove to Zhou Jie loans,?mod=viewthread&tid=489639, Liu Jie period should be returned. The second defendant was not involved in the setting for the kind words leaf loan contract or receive loans, as Liu Jie, "Ye kind words" knowingly when the borrower is not the second defendant,?mod=viewthread&tid=70620, still providing false documents, and the borrower as husband and wife, it was confirmed that the first defendant Liu Jie borrowing behavior is not based on the two defendants jointly borrowing accord. Therefore, the court verdict 300,000 yuan loan, interest and attorneys' fees paid by 6000 yuan Liu Jie one person returned. (Parties to the case are not his real name)
?
News** reporters in correspondent Yue Jiang Yueming Jing
?Share: welcome to comment to comment microblogging Recommended | hot microblogging today |
发表于 2019-1-1 14:25:16
收藏