In order to protect the privacy of the parties and avoid unnecessary disputes, the names of the parties in the following cases are pseudonyms, if there is any similarity, please contact us to revoke it.
(A mini program has been added here, please go to the Toutiao client to view)
The plaintiff alleged
Zhang Mouwen's appeal request: 1. Revoke the first-instance judgment and remand for a new trial or change the judgment in accordance with law to support my first-instance litigation request; 2. The case acceptance fee is to be borne by Wu Mouhan.
Facts and reasons: 1. The court of first instance should have ascertained the subject of the borrowed name to buy the house but failed to do so, resulting in the loss of my right to remedy. 2. The evidence I provided has formed a complete chain of evidence, which can prove that I am the subject of borrowing my name to buy a house, and I have a reason to buy a house in the name of Wu Mouhan. I am the actual investor, I hold the original documents related to the purchase of the house, I am the actual possession, use, beneficiary, the postscript of the ICBC online banking electronic receipt in 2013 intuitively proves that the actual purchaser of the house is me. 3. Wu Mouhan's assertion that Li Mouqiang was the subject of buying a house in his name lacks evidence to support it.
The defendant argued that:
Wu Mouhan argued that he agreed with the first-instance judgment and did not agree with Zhang Mouwen's appeal request.
The court ascertained
Zhang Mouwen filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance and requested: 1. Request to confirm the validity of the oral borrowing agreement reached by Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan in 2011 for the purchase of No. 1 house in Fengtai District, Beijing; 2. The case acceptance fee is borne by Wu Mouhan.
The court of first instance found the facts: Zhang Mouwen claimed that in 2011, he had reached an oral borrowing agreement with Wu Mouhan to buy a house in Fengtai District, Beijing, and that the house was purchased by Zhang Mouwen, and that Wu Mouhan's name was registered in Wu Mouhan's name, and Wu Mouhan denied that he had reached an oral borrowing with Zhang Mouwen to buy a house.
During the court trial, Zhang Mouwen provided the following evidence to the court: 1. The personal housing purchase loan and guarantee contract was used to prove the purchase of No. 1 house in Fengtai District, Beijing in the name of Wu Mouhan. 2. A bank's personal loan disbursement slip is used to confirm the fact that the bank issued a housing loan of 820,000 yuan. 3. Bank transfer records, which are used to confirm the fact that Zhang Mouwen transferred 990,000 yuan to Wu Mouhan's lover. 4. ICBC online banking electronic receipts, bank statements, and deposit vouchers are used to verify loan repayment and capital contribution. 5. The special receipts for non-tax income in Beijing, the deed tax payment certificate of the People's Republic of China, and the Beijing UnionPay business documents are used to confirm that the house ownership registration certificate has been obtained, and Zhang Mouwen has paid the deed tax and housing tax.
6. The "Housing Lease Contract" and the "Beijing Housing Lease Contract" are used to confirm that Zhang Mouwen is the actual housing lessor. 7. Payment notices and invoices are used to confirm the fact that Zhang Mouwen paid property fees and heating expenses. 8. Receipts, which are used to confirm the fact that Zhang Mouwen returned the tenant's deposit and rent. 9. A mortgage contract that substantiates the fact that the mortgage is on the house. 10. A bank's personal credit installment repayment schedule, which is used to confirm that Zhang Mouwen is the actual buyer. 11. The compensation agreement for construction disturbances is used to confirm that Zhang Mouwen is the actual buyer. 12. The receipt proves that there is a relationship between Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan to buy a house in their names. 13. Mortgage registration information, proving that Li Mouqiang is not the actual buyer. 14. The agreement on the release of the mortgage, the record of the inquiry about the housing registration, the application for cancellation of the registration of the house ownership, the ID card, and the photograph are used to confirm that Wu Mouhan impersonated another person's identity and released the mortgage registration. The evidence provided by Wu Mouhan: bank statements, which were used to confirm the fact that Zhang Mouwen borrowed money.
The court of first instance held that the parties had the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims. Although Zhang Mouwen provided relevant evidence, the evidence provided by him could not prove that all the purchase price was paid by him, and the house involved in the lawsuit had been in a state of his possession, use, and income, and Wu Mouhan also denied the existence of the fact that he and Zhang Mouwen had borrowed their names to buy the house, and based on the evidence of the case, it was difficult for the court to confirm the existence of the fact that Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan had borrowed their names to buy the house, so it requested Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan to confirm the validity of the oral borrowed name purchase agreement reached by Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan in 2011 on the purchase of No. 1 house in Fengtai District, Beijing. The court did not support it.
During the second-instance trial of this court, Zhang Mouwen submitted the following materials: 1. The transfer records between Zhang Mouwen and Li Mouqiang and Li Mouqiang's wife Xie Mouhua were used to prove that Li Mouqiang and Zhang Mouwen had frequent capital exchanges, and Xie Mouhua transferred money to Li Mouqiang, which had nothing to do with Wu Mouhan. 2. Two bank business vouchers from Zhang Mouwen's detention were used to prove that Zhang Mouwen's financial transactions with Li Mouqiang were complicated, and the probative effect of the first-instance testimony was low. 3. Zhang's notice of filing the case and receipt of acceptance of the case were used to prove that Li Mouqiang was suspected of fraud, and the public security organs filed the case. In response to the above materials, Wu Mouhan cross-examined that he did not know the authenticity of material 1, did not recognize the purpose of the proof, the matter between Zhang Mouwen and Li Mouqiang was not clear, and it had nothing to do with borrowing his name to buy a house, and he had no dealings with Zhang Mouwen, Zhang Mouwen borrowed 1 million yuan from him, and repaid 1,046,500 yuan as principal plus interest; It is not clear the authenticity of material 2 and does not recognize the purpose of proof; believes that material 3 has nothing to do with this case, and if Li Mouqiang is suspected of fraud, Zhang Mouwen can go to the police, which has nothing to do with Wu Mouhan. Wu Mouhan submitted screenshots of the text message records of Zhang Mouwen and Li Mouqiang to prove that Zhang Mouwen owed Li Mouqiang money, and Li Mouqiang kept asking Zhang Mouwen for money in the later period, and Zhang Mouwen reversed his word. Zhang Mouwen testified that he did not recognize the authenticity of the material, and the picture shown was not his mobile phone number.
In the second instance, Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan both admitted that since April 2014, Zhang Mouwen was no longer responsible for repaying the loan for the house involved in the lawsuit. However, the two parties disagreed on the reason for not repaying the loan, and Zhang Mouwen claimed that because of his shortage of funds, he negotiated with Wu Mouhan to let Wu Mouhan rent the house and repay the loan with rent. Wu Mouhan did not recognize this, claiming that because there were economic exchanges between Li Mouqiang and Zhang Mouwen, before May 2014, the money accounts between Li Mouqiang and Zhang Mouwen were liquidated, and then Li Mouqiang and his wife repaid the loan. For the loans before May 2014, Zhang Mouwen claimed that they were all repaid, but Wu Mouhan did not recognize this, claiming that the loan in 2011 was given to Wu by Li Mouqiang and his wife, and Wu Mouhan went to the bank to repay the loan.
Regarding other loan repayments, Wu Mouhan asserted that on June 16, 2016, Li Mouqiang transferred 752,000 to settle all the remaining loans, and after that, Wu Mouhan transferred the house to Li Mouqiang's father in accordance with Li Mouqiang's requirements.
Regarding the section on June 2, 2011 when Zhang Mouwen transferred 990,000 yuan to Wu Mouhan's husband, Zhang Mouwen claimed that it was the down payment of the purchase price and the benefit fee of borrowing his name to buy a house, but Wu Mouhan did not recognize this, and claimed that Zhang Mouwen had previously borrowed 1 million yuan from Wu Mouhan's family through Li Mouqiang, and later there were other repayments totaling 1,046,500 yuan in principal and interest, with a monthly interest rate of 4%, and a loan period of 1 month and 5 days, which had nothing to do with the housing involved in the lawsuit.
Regarding the relationship between the two parties, Wu Mouhan advocated that the actual borrower was Li Mouqiang, saying that Li Mouqiang and Wu Mouhan's husband were young, Li Mouqiang and Zhang Mouwen used to have a good relationship, and Wu Mouhan and Zhang Mouwen were just ordinary friends. Zhang Mouwen asserted that there were a large number of economic dealings between him and Li Mouqiang and his wife, and that Li Mouqiang and Wu Mouhan released the mortgage without their knowledge and transferred the ownership of the house involved in the lawsuit.
The other facts ascertained by this court after trial are consistent with the facts found by the court of first instance.
Adjudication Results
First-instance judgment: Zhang Mouwen's litigation claim was rejected.
Second-instance judgment: The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
Property Lawyer Reviews
The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or on which they refute the claims of the other party. Where there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual assertions of the parties, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. Zhang Mouwen asserted that there was an oral agreement between him and Wu Mouhan to buy a house in his name on the house involved in the lawsuit, while Wu Mouhan claimed that the actual buyer was Li Mouqiang, who was not involved in the case.
Although Zhang Mouwen submitted the tax bills and loan repayment transfer vouchers held by him, combined with the statements of both parties in court, only part of them could confirm that Zhang Mouwen actually repaid the loan, and Wu Mouhan claimed that Li Mouqiang repaid the loan after May 2014, and Zhang Mouwen also admitted that he did not directly repay the loan after May 2014, and he advocated that Wu Mouhan rent the house to repay the loan; As for the down payment, there is a big discrepancy between the amount of money transferred by Zhang Mouwen to Wu Mouhan's husband and the amount of the down payment, and Wu Mouhan, Li Mouqiang, and Zhang Mouwen all have other economic dealings with each other, so Zhang Mouwen did not submit sufficient evidence to prove the correlation between the money he claimed and the purchase price. In addition, Zhang Mouwen did not continue to occupy and use the house involved in the lawsuit. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it is not enough to prove that there is a relationship between Zhang Mouwen and Wu Mouhan to buy a house in a borrowed name, and Zhang Mouwen's request to confirm the validity of the oral agreement asserted by Zhang Mouwen is also insufficient.
Each case has particularity, the lawyer needs to conduct a detailed analysis of the case, in order to have a professional judgment, our team is good at dealing with all kinds of housing disputes, if you encounter similar cases, we sincerely hope that you can call to explain the situation in detail, we will try our best to answer for you!