The word

The presiding judge, judge:

   Hebei Liu Yongli law firm accepts the accused commissioned, and appointed me as his litigation representative, attended the trial activities according to law. On the basis of the facts found published the following agents, please the court consider.

   One, the two sides signed the "vehicle leasing agreement" as if the lease contract is invalid.

   From the point of view of the trial to find out the facts, as the subject matter of the contract is the purchase of the car as early as in 2011 January, and registered in 2011 April, the ownership of human. The original defendant in not on the vehicle sale case, the plaintiff will originally belonging to the accused all vehicles in turn leased to the defendant to use, and accordingly to collect the rent is obviously unreasonable. From another perspective, the lessor must have ownership or disposition of the leased goods, otherwise it will for rental of goods without disposition contract is invalid due to the (in accordance with the requirements of "contract law" and "the general principles of the civil law"), therefore, the agreement of the parties if identified as lease contract, the contract is invalid.

   Operating vehicle to vehicle belongs to the agreement between the taxi properties of motor vehicles, according to the provisions of China's existing scrapped, the car's mandatory retirement age of 8 years -- since the vehicle initial registration date, the car in April 6, 2019 will be forced to scrap, and then use is not allowed. From the point of view of the two sides signed the "vehicle leasing agreement" is invalid.

   Two, the two sides signed the "vehicle leasing agreement" is actually a loan contract.

   From the agreement content -- will originally belonging to a defendant to the car rental use, "lease" after the expiration of the residual value of vehicles, including vehicle repair belong to the defendant, all with the vehicle related matters by the handle and burden, so the vehicle ownership and use rights did not produce any change, but the agreement is the plaintiff to the defendant to pay cash 430000 yuan so that both the relationship of rights and obligations, this is obviously the lending relationship, and vehicle leasing so-called was just a blind, both sides agreed that the vehicle is very likely the two sides of the borrowing behavior of a mortgage.

   In need of special note here is, if it is really the lease relationship, after the expiration of the vehicle (residual) must belong to the lessor at all, and in accordance with the mandatory provisions of contract law, the lease item shall be liable for repair the lessor in the rental period.

   According to "the Supreme People's Court about the name of economic contract and the content inconsistent replied" how to determine the jurisdiction of the provisions of Article 1 of the regulations and the national court, "intellectual property adjudication meeting minutes" on Several Issues concerning the trial of cases of disputes over technology contracts of thirty-third, when the contract with the names of the contractual rights and obligations when inconsistent, shall determine the types and the contract in accordance with the contents of the rights and obligations of the contract, and apply the corresponding laws and regulations. Therefore, the case should be according to the loan dispute proceedings.

   Three, the defendant to the plaintiff the amount of the loan shall be determined as 330000 yuan.

   According to plaintiffs statement, she to the actual delivery is 330000 yuan, not 430000 yuan as agreed in the contract, this can be understood as the advance in the delivery shall be deducted from the principal high interest rates. According to the "contract law" provisions of article 200th, is considered the actual amount of the loan is 330000 yuan, not 430000 yuan contract.

   Four, can consider to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff according to bank deposit or loan interest rates.

   Because both sides is on behalf of the lease agreement signed the loan contract, so the parties in the contract did not interest make agreement or the agreement is not clear, according to the "contract law" article 211st, as do not pay interest, but considering the actual situation, in this case in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the court recommended according to the bank deposit or loan interest standard to allow the defendant to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff's interest.

   In summary, the plaintiff's claim no factual and legal basis, the claims shall not supported by law.

                                             Agent: Hebei Liu Yongli law firm

                                                         Lawyer: Liu Yongli

   Note: the court finally adopted the views of Lawyer Liu, will cause the lease contract dispute to loan contract disputes, and in accordance with the loan contract for the verdict.