Li Mou collection and Lei Mou build department staff to concern, some builds thunder to belong to husband and wife to concern formerly with Lei Mou flourish, both sides is registered at handling a divorce on August 29, 2017.
On January 31, 2012, because capital have enough to meet need needs to record loan 40 000 to Li Mou,Lei Mou is built yuan. On March 1, 2013, because capital have enough to meet need needs to record loan 60 000 to Li Mou again,Lei Mou is built yuan, agree accrual presses monthly interest 1.5% computation, every 6 months pay interest, if Lei Mou is built,do not remand on schedule loan and accrual, part of exceed the time limit is daily by 3% computation accrual pays plaintiff.
After loan, lei Mou is built by monthly interest 1.5% pay accrual to come to Li Mou collection September 2016 portion, october 2016 portion up to now, although record dun for many times via Li Mou, some builds Dan Lei to all did not remand loan principal and accrual. For this, li Mou collection appeals to to the court.
Judge view
The court thinks via cognizance, debt ought to repay, legitimate leasehold concern gets legal protection. Some builds thunder of the accused in this case to accuser loan, concern of creditor's rights liability was formed between both sides, accuser ties loan, the accused fastens debtor. According to legal provision, creditor has Wu of repay a debt of countervail of agreement of basis of power demand debtor. The accused Lei Mou builds Xiang Yuan twice to solicit borrow or lend money, loan principal amount can be maintained it is 100 thousand yuan. Loan interest is monthly interest according to bilateral agreement 1.5% , some builds the accused thunder ought to pay accuser loan interest 23 thousand yuan, afore-mentioned loan all are some builds the accused thunder to do it with individual name, during be not its and marriage of flourish of the accused Lei Mou to put add, daily life place needs the family, accuser also fails to prove this debt happens during marriage of two the accused puts add, and use at husband and wife of two the accused lives jointly or be being produced jointly to manage, the common meaning that cannot prove the happening of this debt fastens two the accused more expresses. Accordingly, some flourish need not assume the accused thunder to repay jointly responsibility. The court adjudicates by the accused Lei Mou builds countervail to return accuser plum lawfully then profit of principal of some collection loan, loan is total 123 thousand yuan.
Judge view, basis " top people court involves case of dispute over obligation of husband and wife about cognizance the explanation of applicable law concerned problem " the 3rd regulation: "One party of husband and wife is put in marital relation the family is exceeded with individual name during add the debt that daily life needs to lose, creditor the right holds in order to belong to husband and wife for joint liability, people court does not grant to support, but creditor can prove this debt is used at husband and wife to collective life, joint production is managed or be based on both sides of husband and wife common meaning is denotive except. " in this case, the accused Lei Mou builds Xiang Yuan twice to solicit borrow or lend money, all build in accuser and the accused Lei Mou between undertake, both neither of flourish of the accused Lei Mou is attendant, also not know the inside story. Lei Mou of avowed the accused builds accuser loan uses trade of management pesticide chemical fertilizer, know perfectly well exceeded a family daily life need, and accuser proves without evidence this debt is used at two the accused joint production is managed, the common meaning that cannot prove the happening of this debt fastens two the accused more expresses, the liability that this case place involves incident should hold the individual debt that builds for Lei Mou, flourish of its ex-wife Lei Mou need not assume responsibility of implicative pay off.
