[Case Summary]This case is a retrial and appeal case of a civil loan dispute. In 2014, Shang * , Sui * , and Li * jointly borrowed 650,000 yuan from Zhao *. After Zhao * died, his son, Zhao *1, sued them and the court ruled that the three of them should repay the loan together. Sui * claimed that he was not the actual borrower, that he was under the influence of drugs when signing the loan agreement, and that he only actually borrowed 200,000 yuan. His only house was seized. Sui * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Wang FangliThe lawyer initiated a retrial and an appeal. The retrial failed to change the verdict due to insufficient evidence, so the lawyer continued to apply for an appeal. During the appeal stage, a settlement was reached: Sui * and others jointly repaid 750,000 yuan (first paid in full by Sui *), and the seizure, freezing, and high-consumption restriction measures against Sui *'s property were lifted. The core disputes were: whether the signature was a true expression of intent; procedural violations; and the path of appeal and settlement. The applicable legal provisions are the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on retrial and appeal. Sui * retained his only housing.

I. Review of the case facts

In 2014, due to a lack of operating funds, Shang * , Sui * , and Li * jointly borrowed 650,000 yuan from Zhao * . After Zhao * passed away, his son, Zhao * 1, sued the three of them in court, and the court ruled that they should jointly repay the 650,000 yuan. After the judgment took effect, Shang * and Li * had no executable assets, and although Sui * 's property was sealed up, it was only a pending seizure and could not be compensated. Sui * claimed that he was not the actual borrower and only helped borrow the money. At the time of signing the contract, he was mentally unclear due to drug use, and the actual amount of the loan was only 200,000 yuan (with high interest). To protect his only house, Sui * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Wang FangliThe lawyer initiated a retrial and an appeal. The lawyer reviewed the case files, visited the parties involved, and raised defenses such as the fact that Sui *'s signature did not reflect his true intent. However, the retrial failed to overturn the original verdict due to insufficient evidence.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the signature represents the signatory's true intention.Sui * claimed that he signed the contract under the influence of drugs and was not the actual borrower, but he lacked sufficient evidence, and his claim was not supported in the retrial.
  • Focus II: Whether the procedure is illegal.During his compulsory drug rehabilitation, Sui * was in a state of isolation and did not receive any court notifications, nor was he able to participate in the litigation. The first-instance proceedings of the case are questionable.
  • Focus 3: How to reach a settlement during the appeal stage.Through the joint efforts of the procuratorate and the court's executive bureau, both parties reached mutual understanding and compromise, and the enforcement measures were lifted.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The client (Sui * ) claimed that:Sui * requested to overturn the original judgment, confirm that he/she is not the actual borrower, protect his/her only housing, and lift the enforcement measures such as restricting high consumption and seizure.

The position of the other party (Zhao *1):Zhao *1 requested the three people to jointly repay 650,000 yuan in accordance with the effective judgment and applied for compulsory enforcement.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Wang FangliThe lawyer fully understood that overturning a final judgment requires sufficient evidence and rigorous arguments. He spent a lot of time reviewing the case files, conducting investigations, and collecting evidence. During the retrial, he raised defenses such as Sui *'s signature not reflecting his true intention. After the retrial failed, he continued to apply for a protest to the procuratorate on behalf of Sui *, thoroughly exploring the details and emphasizing that Sui * did not receive any notice during the compulsory drug rehabilitation isolation period and was unable to participate in the litigation. The first-instance court had many problems in factual determination, legal application, and procedures. Under the joint efforts of the Daxing District Procuratorate and the Daxing District Court's Enforcement Bureau, the lawyer patiently explained Sui *'s plight and sought the other party's understanding and concessions, ultimately facilitating a settlement between the two parties.

IV. Outcome of the case

In the appeal stage of this case, a settlement was reached: Sui * and Shang * and Li * jointly repaid 750,000 yuan to Zhao * 1. Shang * and Li * confirmed that the above-mentioned funds would be paid in full by Sui * first, and then they would discuss the repayment with Sui *. The agreement stipulated that all enforcement measures such as the seizure and freezing of Sui *'s property would be lifted, and the enforcement measures restricting Sui *'s high-consumption activities would also be lifted. This decade-long civil loan dispute finally came to an end. Sui * avoided the risk of having his house being executed and obtained a relatively reasonable repayment plan.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmWang FangliThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201911086939, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Private lending often occurs among acquaintances, with insufficient evidence preservation, unclear agreements, and difficulties in proving cash transactions, which easily lead to dilemmas. Before borrowing, one should carefully review the contract, clarify the interest rate, term, and guarantee method, preserve the evidence, and promptly collect the debt; after being sued, one should timely exercise remedies such as requesting a retrial or appealing the verdict, and, if necessary, resolve the dispute through enforcement and settlement.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Appealing Civil Loan Cases in Retrial

  1. Q: Can a judgment on a valid loan be overturned in court?
    A:Yes. If the circumstances meet the legal requirements, the party concerned may apply for a retrial or file an appeal with the procuratorate in turn. In this case, the reconciliation was achieved through the joint efforts of the procuratorate and the court during the appeal stage.
  2. Q: Will the only housing that has been sealed up be subject to enforcement?
    A:The only housing is not absolutely unenforceable, but the necessary living conditions will be preserved during the enforcement; the attachment can be lifted through reconciliation and performance of the plan, and in this case, the housing property was preserved.
  3. Q: What should I do if I haven't received a subpoena but have been sentenced anyway?
    A:It can be claimed that the procedures were illegal and that one failed to participate in the litigation. This can be used as one of the grounds for requesting a retrial or appealing against the verdict, and the aim is to rectify the situation or reach a settlement to resolve the dispute.
  4. Q: Is it okay to borrow money without a contract, just with transfer records?
    A:The transfer record can prove the delivery of the funds, but it's better to have a promissory note or chat records to support the loan agreement. Otherwise, disputes are likely to arise. It is recommended to sign a standard contract when borrowing money.
  5. Q: How can the restrictions on high-consumption and seizure orders be lifted?
    A:After completing the performance or reaching an enforcement settlement with the applicant and having it confirmed by the court, one may apply for the lifting of the seizure, freezing, and restriction of high-consumption measures.