In a civil loan dispute case, the original court of first instance ruled against the defendant, the court of second instance remanded to the court of first instance for retrial, the court of retrial based on the conversation before the trial, a new defendant is added to bear the responsibility of joint repayment.

Near the trial, the defendant commissioned the King&Capital Law Firm partner Xu Wei and trainee lawyer Wang Siyu, lawyers accept the commission, the use of criminal thinking, another way to find a new angle of defense, after the trial, the plaintiff to the judge took the initiative to apply for the withdrawal of the lawsuit, the party successfully avoided economic losses.

First, the "civet for the prince", the defendant failed miserably in the first trial

According to the original first instance judgment, the main focus of the dispute is the existence of lending relationship. The plaintiff in order to confirm the objective existence of the loan relationship, to the court submitted the "repayment agreement", transfer vouchers, bank transaction details. The original court of first instance that the above evidence has been able to form a chain of evidence, sufficient to prove the existence of the borrowing relationship, and thus ruled that the defendant not only to pay the principal, but also to pay 5 years of 24% annualized interest on the loan.

The defendant told the lawyer, the transfer voucher and bank transaction details is another borrowing relationship materials, these materials were maliciously used by the plaintiff, and the case of the "repayment agreement" cobbled together into a new borrowing relationship. The "repayment agreement" agreed payment, the plaintiff did not actually pay.

Second, with good criminal thinking, revitalization, to deal with the retrial of the first instance hearing

Retrial is about to start, the two sides did not submit substantial new evidence, the defendant's defense also has no new changes, on this basis, how to break this bureau?

The lawyer applied to the court to retrieve all the materials of the original first trial, which includes a large number of conversation records, by combing through the conversation records and the original first trial plaintiff's evidence materials, the lawyer believes that the plaintiff may be a professional lender. At the same time, the lawyer also found the relevant judgment, the content of the judgment shows that the plaintiff has to the bank and microfinance company for high interest borrowing, combined with the high interest rate in this case, the person is suspected of "high-interest transfer crime".

According to the above material, the lawyer re-organized the defense structure: first, the plaintiff's evidence system questioned, refute the other side of the litigation claim; Second, guide the panel in this case to pay attention to the fact of high interest, and ultimately put forward the plaintiff is suspected of high-interest lending crime of questioning.

Third, the trial to give full play to the situation of losing the turnaround

The day of the trial was raining heavily, the plaintiff asked the two defendants to assume the joint responsibility for repayment, the lawyer was in accordance with the established structure of the defense, the new judge did not realize the fact that the new judge, with the lawyer's patience in the explanation, and the evidence in the show of doubt, the judge gradually realized that the case may be a problem.

Proof phase, the lawyer pointed out a number of doubtful points, such as "repayment agreement" in the agreement is a cash payment, but the plaintiff is to provide transfer vouchers, the two sides agreed to repayment time and the bank water reflects the time there is a large interval.

In the face of challenges, the plaintiff said: "the agreed repayment time and the actual repayment time there is a large interval because the defendant is my friend, after the expiration of the time I gave him more time". The lawyer countered: "If you are a friend, why would you lend money to a friend and agree on an annualized interest rate of 60% with your friend?" Such seeming irrationalities abounded in the case, and the attorney showed them to the judge one by one.

Argument stage, the lawyer made a comprehensive review of the case, and "this is a very interesting case" as the beginning of the debate, to the judge why there are many unreasonable, the plaintiff can not provide a more comprehensive evidence materials, because this case is a case of cats and cats, and the plaintiff's motives for doing so, may be hoping to obtain additional benefits, and the plaintiff's motives, may be to obtain additional benefits, and the plaintiff's motives. may have been to obtain additional benefits that could be used to pay off other unsuccessful usury lending cases. Finally, the attorney explained to the judge the circumstances of the plaintiff's failed loan-sharking case. At this point, the attorney completed the pre-planned defense structure in a relatively complete manner. At the end of the argument, the judge asked the plaintiff to voluntarily submit the transfer of water to explain to the court the source of the borrowed funds.

Shortly after the hearing, the plaintiff chose to voluntarily withdraw the case.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)