The case handled by our firm (2019) Su 11 Minzhong No. 2195, the party experienced a successful trial from the first instance-the court initiated the trial supervision process, and the case was sent back to the retrial-the first trial was lost-the lawyer team of our firm was filed to appeal and After receiving the revised judgment result and the rights protection process that lasted for more than four years, I would like to express my gratitude to Jiangsu Zhongshan Mingjing (Zhenjiang) Law Firm, the attorney Zhang Li, the Zhenjiang Intermediate People's Court Civil Second Court, Zhenjiang Intermediate People's Court Dai Xiaodong The judge presented a pennant.

【Introduction】

From November 2013 to April 2014, H Group Company and Nanjing D Company signed four coal purchase and sales contracts respectively. The contract stipulated that H Group Company purchased coal from Company D and sold it to the Datang Project. After the above contract became effective, a total of 24035.03 coal was delivered. Tons, H Group Company paid a total of RMB 12,777,610,103 to Company D. The coal under the above contract was requested by Company X to request Gu and Liu to organize the supply of goods in Ningxia and handle rail transportation instead. After the H group company settled the payment with D company, except that 920,000 yuan was paid by company D to Liu Meilan, the rest of them paid the money to company X, and then company X made the total payment of 11.32 million yuan. Sui is a business manager of Company X, and is also a shareholder of Company X and Company D.

The court of first instance held that the two parties had not signed a written contract in this case, and Company X failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove that the existing evidence was insufficient to determine the amount of creditor's rights and debts between the two parties in this case, so the judgment rejected Company X's lawsuit. Company X refused to accept and appealed.

[Difficult case]

        One is about the scope of the cooperation project between the two parties; Company X and Gu Mou and Liu Mou did not sign a written sales contract, mainly based on oral agreement that the sales relationship occurred. Among the several projects involved, Gu Mou and Liu Mou recognized that one of the projects had a coal purchase and sale relationship. The lawyer calculated the transaction amount of each transaction and determined that the two parties had another project in addition to the above projects. According to the actual supply, the court found that the two parties had suffered coal supply and sales in relation to the two projects.

The second is about the quantity of coal supplied by Gu Mou and Liu Mou; Gu Mou and Liu Mou believed that the 3014 tons of them were related to the business of Company L and had nothing to do with Company X. We provided the purchase and sales contract signed by Company D and Company Z and witness testimony of Sun Mou to prove that Company X contacted Gu Mou and Liu Mou to supply coal through Sun Mou. Gu Mou and Liu Mou had received payment and supplied the goods. The court Finally recognized the above facts. The third is about the appellant ’s payment; the appellant paid the appellee through Sun. The appellee claimed that Sun ’s dealings with him were transactions between Company L and him. The appellant remitted to Sun ’s account 1.29 million through Sui from June 18, 2013 to July 16, 2013, and Sun paid the appellee and the carrier station for RMB 1,287,574,400. The court held that although the appellee did not recognize that the above-mentioned amount was related to the appellant, the appellee shipped the goods based on Sun ’s payment, and the money came from the appellant, and the payer, Sun, also agreed. Therefore, RMB 1,287,574,400 can be regarded as the money paid by the appellant to the appellee. From December 6, 2013 to May 5, 2014, the appellant paid the appellee a total of RMB 18,601,494,900. Both parties have no objections.

【process result】

       After the lawyer team collected and combed the evidence step by step, the court of second instance determined that the appellant ’s coal payment to the appellee was 16.58055 million yuan, the appellant had paid 18.610941494 yuan, deducted the appellant ’s voluntary payment of 1 million yuan, and the appellant overpaid 103.0094 Ten thousand yuan, the appellant requested to return the above money and its interest. Therefore, the court of second instance ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment, and Gu and Liu paid X company 10.39094 million and interest within ten days from the date when the judgment became effective. After continuously collecting and combing evidence, we actively communicated with the parties and the courts. After the court's judgment in the second instance, we saved RMB 2.03.094 million for the parties.