Cao Moumou v. Yang Moumou: Dispute over Private Lending
2025-12-25
[Title] Cao Moumou v. Yang Moumou: Dispute over Private Lending
[Keywords] Private lending, lending relationship, mortgage
【Key Points of Judgment】 First, whether the loan relationship has been established; second, whether the loan transaction has actually been performed.
[Basic Facts of the Case] The respondent in the retrial (the original plaintiff), Cao Moumou, claims that the applicant for retrial (the original defendant), Yang Moumou, borrowed 900,000 yuan from him on May 2, 2011, and signed a loan note, a receipt, and a repayment commitment. In contrast, the applicant for retrial contends that no loan transaction ever took place; rather, the documents he signed were blank standard forms provided by the respondent, Cao Moumou, on March 28, 2011, as collateral for a loan his son had taken from the respondent, Cao Moumou. Subsequently, the respondent, Cao Moumou, altered the dates on these documents.
In both the first and second trials, the court upheld the claim of the respondent, Cao Moumou, and ordered the applicant, Yang Moumou, to assume the obligation to repay the debt. Subsequently, the applicant, Yang Moumou, filed a request for retrial with the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court. Following a review of the retrial application, the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court instructed the Dalian Intermediate People's Court to retry the case.
【Judgment Result】The retrial judgment supports the applicant Yang Moumou’s request for retrial and dismisses the respondent Cao Moumou’s claim.
【Reasoning of the Ruling】 In hearing cases involving private lending, the facts of the loan should be thoroughly examined and verified by taking into account a comprehensive range of factors, including the loan amount, the manner in which the funds were delivered, the financial capabilities of the parties involved, and the customary practices between the parties. In this case, the actual borrower who had a lending relationship with the respondent Cao Moumou was the son of the applicant Yang Moumou; the applicant Yang Moumou himself was neither the actual borrower nor the actual user of the funds. Therefore, no lending relationship existed between the applicant Yang Moumou and the respondent Cao Moumou. Moreover, the facts alleged by the respondent Cao Moumou regarding the occurrence of the lending relationship are inconsistent with common sense, logic, and established transaction practices, and the evidence supporting the alleged lending relationship is insufficient. Hence, the claim is not supported.
【Legal Basis】Article 170 and Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law, and Article 35 of the Security Law.
[Lawyer’s Perspective] This case involves a malicious lawsuit initiated by the respondent, Cao Moumou, who falsified evidence and fabricated the facts of the loan. The respondent has been professionally engaged in “predatory lending” for many years and possesses extensive operational experience. Taking advantage of blank documents signed by the applicant, the respondent launched this malicious lawsuit with the sole purpose of unlawfully appropriating the applicant’s property. During the retrial proceedings, the agent thoroughly elaborated on the applicant’s claims by exploiting loopholes in the respondent’s statements made at previous court hearings, and by drawing upon the parties’ customary transaction practices, common social sense, and behavioral logic. Ultimately, the retrial court recognized these arguments, thereby safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the client. From the first-instance trial in 2014 to the conclusion of the retrial in December 2018, this case spanned four years and traversed three levels of courts—from the grassroots level to the High People’s Court—making it worthy of reference and study.
Recommended News
Copyright © 2025 Liaoning Tongfang Law Firm