[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a debt transfer contract. Zheng * borrowed 11 million yuan through financial services. After the extension of the loan and the transfer of the creditor's rights among three parties, Shi * transferred his 11.68 million yuan creditor's rights against Jin * to Zheng *. Zheng * entrusted the professional lawyer team of Beijing Henglu Law Firm to act as his agent and claimed that Jin * should pay the outstanding debt of 11.68 million yuan and interest, and that Shi *, Lin * and the investment management company should bear joint and several liability for guarantee. The court ruled that Jin * should pay 11.68 million yuan and interest, and that Shi * and Lin * should bear joint and several liability. Applicable laws: the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case

"Can I recover the 1.168 million yuan creditor's rights transfer?", "How to litigate a debt transfer contract dispute?", and "Does the guarantor need to bear joint and several liability?" are common challenges in dealing with large-scale creditor's rights. On November 7, 2013, Zheng * signed a "Financial Management Service Agreement" with Beijing XX Investment Management Co., Ltd. Employee Shi * borrowed 11 million yuan on behalf of Zheng * with a term of 12 months and an annual interest rate of 19.68%. The investment management company assumed general guarantee liability. Zheng * transferred the funds to Shi *'s account as agreed. However, after the agreement expired, Shi * and the company failed to fulfill their obligations.

On June 9, 2015, the two parties signed a "Deferred Wealth Management Agreement" extending the term to May 27, 2016, with an annual interest rate of 18%. However, the debt was still not repaid after the expiration date. On November 12, 2016, Zheng * signed a creditor-debtor transfer agreement with Jin * and Shi *. Shi * transferred the creditor's rights of 1.168 million yuan that he had lent to Jin * in his name to Zheng *. All three parties failed to fulfill their repayment obligations. Zheng * entrusted the professional lawyer team of Henglue Law Firm to sue Jin * in court, demanding that Jin * pay 1.168 million yuan and interest (calculated at an annualized rate of 18.25% from November 13, 2016), and that the investment management company, Shi *, and Lin * bear joint and several guarantee liability.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The effectiveness of the tripartite "Agreement".This is a legally valid debt transfer, which represents the true intention of all parties involved.
  • Focus II: Is the amount of the debt of 1.168 million yuan reasonable?There is a creditor's transfer agreement and supporting evidence of its implementation.
  • Focus 3: How are the repayment responsibilities of the various parties divided?Jin * is the main debtor, and Shi * and Lin * shall bear joint and several liability for repayment.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The creditor (the plaintiff) alleges that:Zheng * claimed that Jin * should pay the outstanding debt of 1.168 million yuan and interest, and that the investment management company, Shi * and Lin * should bear joint and several guarantee liability.

Defendant's position:Shi * did not provide a defense opinion; the other three defendants all disagreed with the plaintiff's litigation request.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:The lawyer argued that the "Financial Management Service Agreement" and the "Deferred Financial Management Agreement" should be considered valid as they did not violate mandatory provisions. Due to the investment management company's failure to return the funds upon expiration, Zheng * and Shi * and Jin * reached a tripartite agreement on debt assumption, and the case should be classified as a dispute over the transfer of debt contracts. The lawyer defended the validity of the agreements, the reasonableness of the debt amount, and the repayment responsibilities of all parties one by one.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court rejected the defendant's defense and, in accordance with the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guaranty Law of the People's Republic of China, etc., ruled as follows: 1. Jin * shall, within ten days from the effective date of the judgment, pay the principal amount of the debt of 1.168 million yuan and the interest losses on overdue payments (calculated based on the principal amount and at an annual interest rate of 3.85% from October 15, 2020 to the date of full payment); 2. Shi * and Lin * shall bear joint and several liability for the above-mentioned debt; 3. The plaintiff's other claims are dismissed. In the event of late performance, the defendant shall pay double interest on the overdue payments in accordance with Article 260 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is being handled by the professional lawyer team of Beijing Henglu Law Firm. All lawyers in the team hold valid and legal practicing certificates (the practicing certificate number shall be based on the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). For large-scale wealth management and creditor's rights transfer, it is necessary to review the validity of the agreement and the guarantee method. The creditor-debtor team of Beijing Henglu Law Firm is skilled at locking in the repayment responsibilities of all parties through the transfer of debt legal relations and safeguarding the rights and interests of creditors.

VI. Common Questions about Debt Transfer Disputes - FAQ

  1. Q: Can the 11.68 million yuan debt transfer be reclaimed?
    A:If the creditor assignment agreement is legal and valid, the creditor may demand that the debtor perform the repayment obligation directly to the assignee.
  2. Q: How to handle disputes over debt transfer contracts?
    A:The focus of the review is on the effectiveness of the tripartite agreement, the amount of the debt, and the guarantor's responsibilities, with the aim of clarifying the case basis and the main parties involved.
  3. Q: Does the guarantor need to bear joint and several liability?
    A:Where the parties have agreed to joint and several guarantees, the creditor may require the guarantor to assume joint and several liability for repayment within the scope of his guarantee.
  4. Q: What should I do if a financial management company refuses to cash out my investment?
    A:According to the agreement, we will demand repayment of the principal and interest, and if necessary, we will lock in the debt through debt transfer and other means, and initiate legal proceedings.
  5. Q: What should I do if the interest rate exceeds the cap?
    A:If the agreed interest rate exceeds the judicial protection cap, the court will not support the excess part and will calculate it according to the statutory standard.