Cao Moumou (the respondent in the retrial) v. Yang Moumou (the applicant in the retrial) – Dispute over Private Lending
2025-12-25
Cao Moumou (the respondent in the retrial) v. Yang Moumou (the applicant in the retrial) – Dispute over a Private Loan
[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) 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 on March 28, 2011, used as collateral for a loan his son, He Moumou, had obtained from the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent allegedly altered the dates on these documents.
In both the first and second instances, the court upheld the respondent’s claim and ordered the applicant to assume the obligation to repay the debt. Subsequently, the applicant 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 upheld the applicant’s request for retrial and dismissed the respondent’s claim.
【Reasoning of the Ruling】 In hearing cases involving private lending, the facts of the loan should be thoroughly examined and verified by comprehensively considering factors such as 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 was the applicant’s son; the applicant himself was neither the actual borrower nor the actual user of the funds. Therefore, no lending relationship existed between the applicant and the respondent. Moreover, the facts alleged by the respondent 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 is a malicious lawsuit initiated by the respondent, who deliberately altered 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 filed this malicious lawsuit with the intent 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 passed through 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