Shanghai Law: legal adviceKing lawyer mobile phone: 13681960118

PlaintiffAThe company claimed: according to2010Years11Month30On the original, the defendant signed the "loan contract", the plaintiff to the defendant to provide RMB100Million yuan, as a corporate liquidity. The defendant should be timely repayment of loans100Million, so a decree: confirm the original, the defendant in2010Years11Month30Signed the "loan contract" null and void; the defendant to repay the loan100Million and bear the litigation fee.
DefendantBThe company argued that: for the plaintiffs, the defendant signed the original loan contract and the defendant has received loan100Million facts have no objection, but the two sides is investment.
Find out the trial, the plaintiff and the third people2010Years9Month30Signed "an electronic commerce project agreement", agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant jointly set up third. The contract stipulated in the article fourth, the registered capital of the company is1500Million yuan, registered capital, the plaintiff1492.5Million yuan, accounting for the total registered capital99.5%Third, investment7.5Million yuan, accounting for the registered capital0.5%The defendant, and the registration of the company, through the equity transfer, the plaintiff defendant51%Equity, third people hold the defendant49%Equity etc.. The contract clause eleventh, the defendant was established, the plaintiff will provide500Million in interest bearing loans, loan interest rates no higher than the corresponding interest rates on bank loans, loans for a period of time (specific matters by the defendant and the plaintiff to be signed in the "loan contract" agreed).
　　2010Years11Month30Day, the original, the defendant signed a loan contract "agreed", according to the2010Years9Month30On "electronic commerce project agreement" eleventh, the defendant to the plaintiff to borrow100Million yuan enterprises liquidity loans. According to the contract agreement, the contract the amount of borrowing for100Million yuan, for the company, the loan is not regular and long-term loans, but the defendant may return at any time according to the actual operating situation, and the way of specific interest received. The contract also agreed in the contract, the plaintiff in the2010Years11Month29The loan to bank debit form remitted to the designated account. The original, the defendant were sealed in the contract,E,DAs the plaintiff, the defendant signed on behalf of sign on the contract department.2010Years11Month29Day, the plaintiff by telegraphic transfer to100The specified account million yuan to the contract, payment information and use for"The accounts".

The opinion of this court, the defendant's legal representativeEAs the plaintiff to the defendant by office staff, in the original, the defendant disputes on the occasion, on behalf of the plaintiff will have possibility, maintain the interests of the plaintiffs, but the other shareholders of the Institute has an additional third people according to the law that a defendant in the case, which can form the necessary confrontation, to prevent the company from improper damage. Therefore, although third people for the procedure in question, that the defendant to the identity of the person in question, easy to form the shareholders"You tell yourself"Legal representation, and hope that the court asked the accused to separately determine the litigation representative, but the hospital for the third views are not good practice, the procedure is not wrong.
This house believes that, the focus of controversy in this case is provided by the plaintiff to the defendant100Nature million, is the loan or investment funds. From the use of content and telegraphic transfer voucher loan contract to see, can not reflect100Million of investment funds, it is in the loan contract100Million is expressed as borrowing. From the testimony, the original, the defendant, for the100Nature million loan department have no objection to the authenticity, third loan contract and telegraphic transfer voucher is not the objection. Although, third people emphasize the100Million actual the plaintiff defendant company should invest nearly2000Part of a million yuan of investment funds, and provides a number of e-mail is used to explain the plaintiff and defendant third people set up a process of consultation, the actual establishment of the registered capital of the company is only3Million and the reasons100Million yuan investment fund, however, the set of evidence and can not reflect the100Million yuan investment funds, and even e-mail true, as the plaintiff in the "electronic commerce project agreement" to provide the defendant100Million yuan, the plaintiff and the third person whether to continue to fulfill the "electronic commerce project agreement", whether to increase the registered capital, the change and the case has nothing to do.
To sum up, third people did not fully prove that the plaintiff to the defendant to provide100Million investment; and the original, the defendant borrowing, in violation of the relevant provisions of enterprises shall not lend to each other, so the borrowing behavior is invalid. According to the principle of treatment about void contract law of our country, the defendant should immediately be borrowing100Million yuan returned to the plaintiff. Therefore, in accordance with the "Contract law of the people's Republic of China"ArticleArticle fifty-twoArticle (five) Xiang JidiArticle fifty-eightRegulations, the decision as follows:
One, the plaintiffACompany and the defendantBThe company in2010Years11Month30Signed the "loan contract" null and void;
Two, the defendantBTen days to return the plaintiff company come into effect from the date of judgementACorporate borrowing100Million yuan.