Zhou Zeshi’s Private Lending at Ningxiang People’s Law

Civil Judgment of the People's Court of Ningxiang County, Hunan Province

(2016) Xiang 0124 Minchu No. 2669

Plaintiff: Zhou Zeshi, male, September 15, 1986 Born on July 1, Han nationality, lives in Ningxiang County.

Entrusted litigation agent: Wen Yizhi, lawyer at Hunan Yanming Law Firm. (Special authorization)

Defendant: Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd., domiciled in Quwanba Group (Xiao Xinmingzhai), Da'an Village, Qingzhuhu Town, Kaifu District, Changsha City.

Legal representative: Xia Keli, chairman of the company.

The authorized agent is Zhong Qiongwu, a lawyer at Hunan Qiongwu Law Firm. (Special authorization)

The case of a private loan dispute between the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi and the defendant Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Keli Garden Company) was accepted by this court on May 31, 2016. , ordinary procedures were applied in accordance with the law, and the trial was held in public. Plaintiff Zhou Zeshi and his attorney Wen Yizhi, and defendant attorney Zhong Qiongwu attended the court and participated in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.

Plaintiff Zhou Zeshi filed the following claims with this court: 1. The defendant should immediately repay the principal of the plaintiff’s loan of 750,000 yuan; 2. The defendant should pay the plaintiff a loan interest rate of 4 yuan for the same period of the People’s Bank of China starting from August 23, 2014. times the interest calculated (the interest calculated to April 22, 2016 is 307,500 yuan), and the subsequent interest is calculated until the date when the defendant pays off the principal of the loan; 3. The defendant pays the plaintiff 30,000 yuan in attorney fees for realizing the creditor's rights ; 4. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs related to this case. Facts and reasons: In May 2014, the defendant Keli Garden Company shareholder Liu Xinrong (Liu Xinrong was also the person in charge of the Zhuhai Branch of Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd.) wanted to use the name of Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (later changed to Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AVIC Xin Engineering Company) undertook the "Baixing Home. Times Washington" project developed by Leiyang Baixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Baixing Real Estate Company). Because the project required Baixing Real Estate Company to pay a deposit of 580,000 yuan, but due to Liu Xinrong's capital turnover difficulties, he asked Qin Qibao, a non-party to the case, to advance the deposit and promised that Tan Qibao would contract some labor services after taking over the project. Qin Qibao then borrowed 620,000 yuan from the plaintiff. On May 19, 2014, Qin Qibao paid a deposit of 580,000 yuan to Baixing Real Estate Company. On the same day, Baixing Real Estate Company issued a receipt in the amount of 580,000 yuan to AVIC Xin Engineering Company. After that, Liu Xinrong borrowed 170,000 yuan from Qin Qibao several times for construction project expenses, and the above 750,000 yuan was provided by the plaintiff. After Qin Qibao paid the above-mentioned deposit to Baixing Real Estate, Qin Qibao's wish to contract labor services for the project was frustrated due to the delay in starting construction of the above-mentioned project. After Qin Qibao informed the plaintiff about the project, Qin Qibao and the plaintiff approached Liu Xinrong many times to ask him to repay the loan of 750,000 yuan. On August 8, 2014, Liu Xinrong authorized the plaintiff in the name of AVIC Xin Engineering Company to return the above-mentioned 580,000 yuan deposit to Baixing Real Estate Company and issued a notice of payment to Qin Qibao to Baixing Real Estate Company. However, Baixing Real Estate Company had actually ceased business and could not refund Qin Qibao. of the above security deposit. After several negotiations between the plaintiff, Qin Qibao, and Liu Xinrong, Liu Xinrong admitted that the actual user of the 750,000 yuan was the defendant, and agreed that the defendant's unit would issue an IOU with the company's official seal to directly change the creditor to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and Qin Qibao agreed. On August 23, 2014, Liu Xinrong issued an IOU in the name of the defendant, with a loan amount of 750,000 yuan and promised to pay the money before October 30, 2014. If the payment is overdue, the plaintiff will be charged four times the bank's loan interest rate for the same period. The defendant shall pay interest on overdue payments and bear all expenses incurred by the plaintiff in realizing its creditor's rights, but so far the defendant has not repaid the principal and interest of the plaintiff's loan of 750,000 yuan.

The plaintiff believes that Liu Xinrong is a shareholder of the defendant company and is also the person in charge of AVIC Xin Engineering Company. Although Liu Xinrong signed a construction contract with Baixing Real Estate Company in the name of AVIC Xin Engineering Company and paid a deposit to it in the name of AVIC Xin Engineering Company, Because the defendant ratified the behavior of its shareholder Liu Xinrong after the fact, and its act of ratification clearly indicated that the defendant was willing to assume the repayment obligation of the loan, and the defendant should repay it in a timely manner as stipulated in the IOU, so the lawsuit was filed.

The defendant Keli Garden Company argued that 1. The plaintiff’s IOU to prove that it actually lent 750,000 yuan to the respondent cannot be established. The IOU in the amount of 750,000 yuan submitted by the plaintiff was actually forced to sign by Liu Xinrong in Leiyang, and Liu Xinrong also made a written statement about this matter. The defendant was unaware of the signature and seal on the IOU submitted by the plaintiff. The loan stated in the IOU submitted by the plaintiff did not have any proof of delivery.

2. The plaintiff’s other evidentiary materials prove that it did not pay the 750,000 yuan loan to the respondent. The IOU issued by Qin Qibao and the bank transaction statement submitted by the plaintiff are the relationship between the plaintiff and Qin Qibao and have nothing to do with the defendant. The supplementary agreement to the construction contract submitted by the plaintiff can only prove the existence of a construction contract relationship between Baixing Real Estate Company and AVIC Xin Engineering Company. This is a contract between two independent legal persons and has nothing to do with the delivery of the 750,000 yuan loan that the plaintiff needs to prove. sex. The receipt from Baixing Real Estate Company submitted by the plaintiff cannot prove that the plaintiff paid 580,000 yuan to AVIC Xin Engineering Company in advance. This receipt cannot prove that the plaintiff paid 580,000 yuan to the respondent. This receipt has no connection with the plaintiff's loan. . The "Special Payment Notice" and "Authorization Letter" of AVIC Xin Engineering Company submitted by the plaintiff are all related to the return of the deposit between Baixing Real Estate Company and AVIC Xin Company, and have no connection with the defendant. The letter of commitment submitted by the plaintiff on August 6, 2015 was issued personally by Liu Xinrong and did not represent Keli Garden Company. It was a commitment with additional conditions for the start of construction and had nothing to do with the loan. Moreover, the letter of commitment could not actually prove that the actual payment had been made. 100,000 to the respondent. The above evidence submitted by the plaintiff negates the IOU dated August 23, 2014 provided by the plaintiff itself.

3. There is no legal basis for the plaintiff to require the respondent to bear attorney fees. The IOU in this case was forced to issue, so it should be invalid according to law, and its terms are naturally invalid. Moreover, according to Hunan Province’s attorney fee standards, The maximum legal fee for the plaintiff's case should be around 21,500 yuan, and the plaintiff's legal fees exceeded the stipulated amount by about 8,500 yuan. In addition, this receipt occurred on November 25, 2015. The plaintiff originally sued three defendants. That case should have been dismissed as unreasonable. The plaintiff once again asked the defendants to bear the legal fees in this lawsuit, which is illegal. according to.

To sum up, the plaintiff’s lawsuit lacks sufficient evidence and requests the court to dismiss it in accordance with the law.

To support its claim, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to this court:

1. IOU and card transaction statement on April 10, 2014, intending to prove that on April 10, 2014 Riqin Qibao borrowed 620,000 yuan from the plaintiff in order to advance the performance bond, and the monthly interest is calculated as 2;

2. The supplementary agreement to the project construction contract intends to prove that AVIC Xin Engineering Company undertook the construction of "Baixing Home" of Baixing Real Estate Company. "Times Huating" project.

3. The receipt dated May 19, 2014 is intended to prove that on May 19, 2014, Tan Qibao paid a performance bond of RMB 580,000 to Baixing Real Estate Company on behalf of AVIC Xin Engineering Company.

4. The special payment notice and the power of attorney are intended to prove that because the project has not started for a long time, AVIC Xin Engineering Company entrusted the plaintiff to serve a special payment notice to Baixing Real Estate Company, requesting the return of the performance guarantee of 580,000 yuan. .

5. The IOU dated August 23, 2014 is intended to prove: 1. The plaintiff repeatedly requested Liu Xinrong to repay the money, and Liu Xinrong recognized the defendant as the actual user of all the money and issued it to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant company. 750,000 yuan in IOU; 2. The defendant promised to repay the amount before October 30, 2014. If it is overdue, it will pay overdue payment interest at four times the bank's loan interest rate for the same period, and bear all expenses incurred by the plaintiff in realizing its creditor's rights; 3. Loan disputes shall be handled by the Ningxiang County People’s Court.

6. The letter of commitment on August 3, 2015, and the letter of commitment on August 6, 2015 are intended to prove that the plaintiff repeatedly asked Liu Xinrong to return the deposit, and Liu Xinrong guaranteed it with the original agreement and contract of the project, and promised to After the project started, the company first paid 100,000 yuan to the plaintiff.

7. The registration information of Zhuhai Branch of AVIC Xin Engineering Company and the registration information of the defendant company are intended to prove that Liu Xinrong is the person in charge of Zhuhai Branch of AVIC Xin Engineering Company and a shareholder of the defendant.

8. The registration information of AVIC Xin Engineering Company is intended to prove the name change of AVIC Xin Engineering Company.

9. The transcripts of the Ningxiang County People’s Court are intended to prove: 1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court regarding this case, but later withdrew the lawsuit due to unclear legal relations; 2. Prove that the relevant trial circumstances were confirmed by the defendant The signature and seal on the IOU are authentic.

10. Lawyer's agency fee invoice, intended to prove that the plaintiff spent 30,000 yuan in legal fees to hire a lawyer to realize its creditor's rights.

11. The bank card transaction statement is intended to prove that Zhou Changning paid 300,000 yuan to the card of Liu Xinqi, the legal representative of Baixing Real Estate Company.

12. The witness statements of witnesses Qin Qibao and Zhou Changning appeared in court to prove the payment of 580,000 yuan and the negotiation process between Qin Qibao and Liu Xinrong.

The defendant issued the following cross-examination opinions on the plaintiff’s evidence: It has objections to the authenticity, legality and relevance of evidence 1. The defendant does not know Qin Qibao mentioned in the IOU at all. The authenticity of the IOU is Even if the IOU and bank statements are genuine, they are the economic relationship between Zhou Zeshi and Tan Qibao and have nothing to do with the defendant, and the amount is only 620,000 yuan, not the 750,000 yuan claimed by the plaintiff. The bill has no relevance to the plaintiff's claims in this case. Evidence 2: The contract and the supplementary contract are copies, not signed by the defendant. This is a construction contract relationship between two legal persons that have nothing to do with the plaintiff. It cannot prove that the plaintiff and the defendant have a private lending relationship. The fact to be proved with the plaintiff is the actual payment. The amount of 750,000 yuan given to the plaintiff has no relevance. Evidence 3: The receipt is an economic transaction between AVIC Xin Engineering Company and Baixing Real Estate Company. It is a construction contract relationship, not a private loan relationship, and has no relevance to the plaintiff's facts to be proved. We have no opinion on the authenticity and legality of Evidence 4, and we have objections to the relevance. These two pieces of evidence have nothing to do with the loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as stated by the plaintiff, and cannot prove that the defendant owes the plaintiff 750,000 yuan. In fact, the power of attorney is true, but has no relevance to this case. This is the relationship between AVIC Xin Engineering Company and the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi, and has nothing to do with the defendant. The words and seals on the IOU in Evidence 5 are true, but the content is untrue. , except for the IOU, the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that it paid 750,000 yuan to the defendant, and the defendant has not received it. The plaintiff has no proof of payment to the defendant. The IOU alone cannot determine the loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Evidence 6: Liu Xinrong is not the defendant’s legal representative, and without the defendant’s authorization and ratification, his promise has no legal effect. In addition, the commitment letter is a conditional commitment. The attached condition that if construction starts at the end of August 2015, Zhou Zeshi can pay 100,000 yuan is not established. The commitment is not equivalent to a loan from Keli Company. Therefore, the commitment letter is inconsistent with the plaintiff’s The facts to be proven are not relevant. Evidence 7 and 8 have nothing to do with the loan claimed by the plaintiff. Evidence 9: The defendant did not receive a penny from the plaintiff. The court record can only prove that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court, but based on the court record, it cannot prove the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff.

Evidence 10: The IOU proposed by the plaintiff was forced by the defendant and should be invalid. Its contents are also invalid. Moreover, according to the "Hunan Province Lawyer Fee Standards", the lawyer's fees are obviously too high. There is no legal basis for the other party to require us to bear the lawyer's fees. The plaintiff originally sued three defendants. In that case, the plaintiff believed that the lawsuit was unreasonable and had withdrawn the lawsuit. Today, he asked us to bear the agency fees for the case that he believed was unreasonable and withdrawn the case. There is no legal basis. There is no objection to the authenticity of Evidence 11. The payer and payee have no connection with this case and have nothing to do with the defendant's loans.

To support its defense claim, the defendant submitted the following evidence to this court:

1. Liu Xinrong’s statement intends to prove that Liu Xinrong was forced to write the IOU and that the defendant did not borrow money from Zhou Zeshi , and I don’t know Qin Qibao.

2. The complaint intends to prove that the plaintiff has made inconsistencies in the two prosecutions.

The plaintiff issued the following cross-examination opinions on the defendant’s evidence: There is no objection to the authenticity of the signature of evidence 1, but there is an objection to the content. If the IOU was forced, the case should be reported to the public security or the right of revocation should be exercised within one year. , Liu Xinrong is the general manager of the company and can sign documents on behalf of the company. He should bear corresponding responsibilities for the IOUs issued by him on behalf of the company. Is there any objection to the authenticity and legality of Evidence 2? I have no objection to the defendant’s purpose of proof. There is no discrepancy in the basic facts, only in the details. The first prosecution was complicated, but this time the legal relationship has been straightened out more clearly. .

This court comprehensively certified the evidence submitted by the parties as follows: Evidence 1 submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant has objections to all three of its properties, but this evidence can prove that it lent a loan of 620,000 yuan to Qin Qibao. Combined with this case In actual circumstances, this court accepts its authenticity. Evidence 2 submitted by the plaintiff is not relevant to this case and will not be accepted by this court. The authenticity of Evidence 3 and 4 submitted by the plaintiff was accepted by this court. Evidence 5 submitted by the plaintiff is an IOU in the amount of 750,000 yuan. The defendant claimed that it was issued because Liu Xinrong, a non-attendant in the case, was coerced. However, the defendant did not provide other evidence to prove his defense. This court confirmed that the IOU was issued by Liu Xinrong, and other evidence was not accepted. confirm. Evidence 6, 7, 8, and 9 provided by the plaintiff are not directly relevant to this case and will not be accepted by this court. The authenticity of the evidence 10 provided by the plaintiff was confirmed by this court. Evidences 11 and 12 submitted by the plaintiff are combined with evidence 1 submitted by the plaintiff, and this court confirms their authenticity. Evidence 1 submitted by the defendant, the issuer of the statement did not appear in court to testify, and there was no other evidence to support it, so this court will not accept it. The authenticity of Evidence 2 submitted by the defendant was confirmed by this court.

Based on the evidence admitted and the statements of the parties, this court determined the following facts of the case:

On April 10, 2014, the outsider Qin Qibao borrowed 620,000 yuan from the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi and issued an IOU. , the content of the IOU is as follows: "Today I borrowed RMB 120,000 (620,000.00) from Zhou Zeshi at a monthly interest rate of 2. The note from Qin Qibao was dated April 10, 2014." Tan Qibao, an outsider in the case, said that the loan was borrowed from the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi in the name of Payment by transfer.

Liu Xinrong, the outsider in the case, is the person in charge of the Zhuhai Branch of Hainan AVIC Xin Engineering Co., Ltd. The outsider Qin Qibao said that Liu Xinrong was going to contract the above-mentioned Baixingjia Shihuating project of Leiyang Baixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., the outsider in the name of Hainan AVIC Xin Engineering Co., Ltd., and because he needed to pay a deposit of 4 million yuan to the company, his funds were insufficient. , the outsider Qin Qibao took out 580,000 yuan from the above-mentioned loan to collect the above-mentioned 4 million yuan deposit (Qin Qibao said that he was prepared to contract labor services from the project). On May 19, 2014, Leiyang Baixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., a non-party outside the case, issued a receipt to Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. The content of the receipt is as follows: "I have received this receipt from Qin Qibao of AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Baixing Company developed the Baixingjia.Times Huating project with a performance bond of RMB 580,000 (lowercase RMB 580,000).

"

On August 8, 2014, Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. issued a "Special Payment Notice" to Leiyang Baixing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. The main content of the notice is as follows: "2014 On May 19, 2019, your company issued a receipt: 'We have received a deposit of five hundred and eighty thousand yuan (lowercase ￥580000.00) in gold coins from Qin Qibao of AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. to undertake the construction and performance of the Baixing Home Times Huating project developed by Baixing Company.' The receipt is stamped with your company's seal and the signature of your legal representative. Due to your company's fault, the Times Huating project has still not been able to start construction. Therefore, our company requires your company to immediately return the 5.8 million yuan deposit collected to Comrade Qin Qibao in full. Qin Qibao ID number: XXXX All financial responsibilities and legal consequences of your company's refund according to this notification letter shall be borne by our company. Please support us and hereby write to you. On the same day, Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. issued a power of attorney to the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi. The main content of the power of attorney is as follows: "Comrade Zhou Zeshi (ID number: XXXXX) is hereby authorized to handle the delivery of special payment notice letters and has the right to represent me Our company recognized all relevant documents and signatures on the agreement for the return of the 580,000 yuan performance deposit.”

On August 23, 2014, the defendant Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd. The plaintiff issued an IOU. The content of the IOU is as follows: "The borrower, Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd., is hereby borrowing (uppercase) seven hundred and fifty thousand yuan (lowercase: 750,000.00 yuan) from the lender Zhou Zeshi due to the need for operating capital turnover. ). This amount is scheduled to be repaid before October 30, 2014. If it is overdue, the overdue payment interest will be paid to the lender at four times the bank's similar loan interest rate for the same period. If this loan is involved in litigation, I agree that the dispute over this loan is caused by The Ningxiang County People's Court has jurisdiction over the matter and shall bear all expenses incurred by the lender in realizing this claim. At the same time, I have actually received the entire loan amount paid by the lender as agreed upon by both parties when I issued this IOU. I hereby issue this IOU for confirmation. Borrower: Xia Keli (the seal of Xia Keli and the special financial seal of Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd. are stamped here) ID number: XXX Contact number: XXX August 23, 2014. Liu Xinrong, the executive director of the day, signed on his behalf XXXX. "The financial seal of the defendant Keli Company, the seal of the legal representative Xia Keli and the signature of Xia Keli on the above-mentioned IOU were all signed by Liu Xinrong. The defendant Keli Company claimed that the above-mentioned IOU was signed by Liu Xinrong under duress from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not recognize it.

On November 23, 2015, the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi filed a lawsuit against Keli Garden Company, Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch, Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., and Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. The Zhuhai Branch of the company filed a lawsuit with this court on behalf of the defendant regarding the loan in this case. Later, on December 9, 2015, the company’s Zhuhai Branch filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Branch of Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd., Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., and Hainan AVIC Xin Construction The Zhuhai Branch of Engineering Co., Ltd. withdrew its prosecution against the above-mentioned parties in the case on the grounds that it had little relationship with the case. On March 17, 2016, it withdrew its prosecution against Keli Garden Company on the grounds of applicable legal relationship and missing parties. On May 31, 2016, the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi sued again with Keli Garden Company as the defendant, thus forming this lawsuit.

It was also found that the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi did not directly pay the loan amount of 750,000 yuan to the defendant Keli Garden Company or the person designated by the defendant Keli Garden Company.

This court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether there is a private lending relationship or debt-bearing relationship between the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi and the defendant Keli Company? According to Article 196 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, a loan contract is a contract in which the borrower borrows money from the lender and returns the loan and pays interest when due. The plaintiff in this case admitted that it did not pay the loan directly to the defendant Keli Garden Company or to the person designated by the defendant Keli Garden Company, so there was no direct private lending relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

According to Article 84 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if the debtor transfers all or part of its contractual obligations to a third party, it must obtain the consent of the creditor. Debt assumption is based on an agreement reached between the creditor, the debtor and a third party. The third party assumes part or all of the debt for the original debtor. The plaintiff in this case, Zhou Zeshi, paid the loan amount of 620,000 yuan to Qin Qibao, a person outside the case, and Qin Qibao An IOU was issued to him, and a private lending relationship was formed between him and Qin Qibao. Later, Qin Qibao claimed that he had invested RMB 580,000 in the Baixing Real Estate Company. The plaintiff and the defendant Keli Garden Company had no direct creditor or debt transactions, nor did Liu Xinrong, an outsider in the case, issue an IOU of RMB 750,000 to the plaintiff in the name of Keli Garden Company. The expression of intention involving debt assumption does not constitute the defendant Keli Garden Company's debt assumption for the debt of 620,000 yuan borrowed by Qin Qibao from the plaintiff. In summary, the plaintiff’s claim has no legal basis and this court will not support it. Accordingly, in accordance with Articles 84 and 196 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China In accordance with the provisions of Article 90, the judgment is as follows:

The plaintiff Zhou Zeshi’s claim is dismissed.

The case acceptance fee of 14,318 yuan was borne by the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you can submit an appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province.

Presiding Judge Li Yang

People's Assessor Jiang Huijun

People's Assessor Liu Huan

February 4, 2017

Secretary Yang Xiao, People’s Court of Ningxiang County, Hunan Province

Civil Ruling

(2015) Ning Minchu Zi No. 05469

Plaintiff Zhou Zeshi.

Specially authorized agent Wen Yizhi, a lawyer at Hunan Yanming Law Firm.

The entrusted agent is Hu Yuting, a lawyer at Hunan Yanming Law Firm.

The defendant Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Xia Keli is the chairman of the board.

Specially authorized agent Zhong Qiongwu, a lawyer at Hunan Qiongwu Law Firm.

The authorized agent is Liu Mi, a lawyer at Hunan Qiongwu Law Firm.

The defendant is the Beijing Branch of Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Sun Guibin.

The defendant Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Wu Xiangyang.

The defendant is Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Zhuhai Branch.

Legal representative Liu Xinrong.

After this court accepted the private loan dispute between the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi and the defendant Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi withdrew his lawsuit against the defendant Hunan Keli Classical Architecture and Garden Engineering Co., Ltd. on December 9, 2015. Engineering Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch, Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., and Hainan AVIC Xin Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. Zhuhai Branch applied to this court to withdraw the lawsuit on March 8, 2016.

This court believes that the plaintiff voluntarily applied to withdraw the lawsuit and its reasons are legal. In accordance with the provisions of Article 145, Paragraph 1, of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled as follows:

The plaintiff Zhou Zeshi is allowed to withdraw the lawsuit.

The case acceptance fee is 11,600 yuan, half of which is 5,800 yuan, which will be borne by the plaintiff Zhou Zeshi.

Presiding Judge Zhang Weituo

People's Assessor He Jinsong

People's Assessor Zeng Chaoyang

March 2016 Nine days

Secretary Chen Rong