On April 1, 2020, the court of first instance accepted the case of Huang Moumou v. Guo Moumou Private Lending Dispute, and rendered the (2020) Minchu No. 1752 Judgment on June 22, 2020, ruling that Guo Moumou should return the principal of Huang's loan of 1.3 million yuan within the scope of inheriting Ao's estate within ten days of the effective date of the judgment. Guo appealed against the judgment to the Intermediate People's Court, which rendered the (2020) Min Zhong No. 682 Civil Judgment on September 8, 2020, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment. In the course of Huang's application to the court of first instance for enforcement of the case, the court of first instance rejected Huang's application for enforcement on the grounds that the content of enforcement was unclear and it was difficult to make the content of enforcement clear in the enforcement procedure. Huang was not satisfied and applied to the Intermediate People's Court for reconsideration, which rejected the application for reconsideration and upheld the original ruling. Therefore, Huang filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, and applied to the court of first instance for property preservation, with a preservation fee of 5,000 yuan.
Guo Moumou and the decedent Ao were married in 1990, Guo Moumou is the wife of the heir Ao, the heir Ao died on August 10, 2017, and Guo is the first heir of Ao's estate. Guo Moumou and the decedent Ao had a son Ao Mou1 before his death, and Ao Mou1 voluntarily renounced the inheritance of all the inheritance of the decedent Ao and signed the Declaration of Renunciation of Inheritance Rights. The decedent Ao's father Ao 2 died in 1992, and his mother Zhang died in 2010. The decedent Ao had no will before his death, nor did he sign a bequest and maintenance agreement with others. The joint property of the husband and wife during the period of the relationship between Guo Moumou and the decedent Ao includes: a ××-room house located in ×× Village, ×× Road (the real estate title certificate number is Gan 20** Real Estate Property No. 0023963); Nine bank deposits totaling 33,139.39 yuan and 125,280 shares of rural commercial banks; located at No. ××, Diwang City Plaza, No. 169 Shengli North Road, Chengnan (real estate certificate number: S0332069); Located in house No. ××, No. ××, ×× Road (real estate certificate number: S0339090); A house located in ×× of a ×× unit ×× ×× Garden in ×× Town (real estate certificate number: 0024895); a Mercedes-Benz car and a JAC cargo car; Enjoy a claim of 7,710,000 yuan against Xiong Moumou, an outsider in the case.
During the period of the relationship between Guo and the decedent Ao, Guo Moumou, as the borrower, and the decedent Ao as the guarantor, borrowed from Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., resulting in multiple loans and repayment records; As a borrower, Guo borrowed money from Village Bank Co., Ltd., resulting in multiple loans and repayment records.
Huang Moumou filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance to request: 1. The judgment confirmed that Guo Moumou inherited one-half of the property rights share of the ×× house (real estate certificate number: Gan 20** Real Estate Property No. 0023963) in the ×× Village of ×× owned by the decedent Ao; 2. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one-half of the property rights share of the house located at No. ××, No. ×× ×× Road (real estate certificate number: S0339090); 3. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one-half of the property rights share owned by the decedent Ao located at No. ×× Diwang City Plaza, No. 169 Shengli North Road, south of the city (real estate certificate number: S0332069); 4. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one-half of the property rights share of the house (real estate certificate number: 00248953) owned by the decedent Ao located in the ×××× ×××× unit Garden in ×× Town; 5. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one-half of the ownership share of a Mercedes-Ben car and a JAC brand freight car owned by the decedent Ao; 6. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one half of the nine bank deposits totaling 33,139.39 yuan owned by the decedent Ao and 125,280 shares of the rural commercial bank; 7. The judgment confirmed that Guo inherited one-half of the 7,710,000 yuan claim of the decedent Ao against Xiong Moumou (joint citizenship number 36050219********); 8. The case acceptance fee, preservation fee and preservation insurance fee in this case shall be borne by Guo.
The court of first instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case was: 1. whether the case was a duplicate lawsuit; 2. whether Huang's claim had a factual and legal basis.
On whether the case is a duplicate proceeding. The first paragraph of Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a party sues again during the litigation process or after the judgment takes effect, and the following conditions are met, it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit: (1) the subsequent action is the same as the party to the previous action; (2) The subject matter of the subsequent litigation is the same as that of the previous action; (3) The claims of the later litigation are the same as those of the previous litigation, or the claims of the later litigation substantially negate the result of the judgment of the previous litigation. However, (2020) Min Chu No. 1752 case is a private lending dispute, and this case is a dispute over confirmation of rights, and this case is caused by the lack of a clear scope of inheritance in this private lending case, so this case is not a duplicate lawsuit.
Whether there is a factual and legal basis for Huang's lawsuit. The court of first instance held that this case was caused by Huang's rejection of Huang's enforcement application on the grounds that the content of enforcement was unclear and it was difficult to make the content of enforcement clear in the enforcement procedure, so this case should be to determine whether one-half of the property listed in Huang's claim belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao, and on the issue of whether Guo actually inherits or compensates, in the (2020) Minchu No. 1752 Civil Judgment, (2020) Min Zhong No. 682 Civil Judgment has been described in detail, and this case will not be repeated. According to Article 1062 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, "the following property acquired by husband and wife during the marriage relationship shall be the joint property of husband and wife and shall be jointly owned by husband and wife: (1) wages, bonuses, and remuneration for labor services; (2) income from production, operation and investment; (3) income from intellectual property rights; (4) property inherited or donated, except as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 1063 of this Law; (5) Other property that shall be jointly owned. "The property listed in Huang's application is the property acquired during the relationship between Guo and the decedent Ao, and according to the law, it is the joint property of the husband and wife, and Guo recognized it in court. Therefore, Huang's claim that one-half of the property listed in the application belonged to the estate of the decedent Ao was upheld by the court of first instance.
With regard to the preservation fee claimed by Huang Moumou, because the property preservation act in the litigation was to protect the rights of the property preservation applicant, that is, Huang Moumou, and to prevent the applicant's judgment interests from being unable to be realized or other losses arising from the respondent's behavior or other reasons, the court of first instance upheld Huang's claim that Guo bear the preservation fee. As for Huang's claim for preservation insurance premiums, because the parties did not agree and there was no basis in law, the court of first instance did not support it.
First-instance judgment: 1. It was confirmed that one-half of the property rights share of the ×× house (real estate certificate number: Gan 20** Real Estate No. 0023963) located in ×× Village of ×× Road belonged to the estate of the decedent Ao; 2. Confirm that one-half of the property rights share of the house located at No. ××, No. ×× ×× Road (real estate certificate number: S0339090) belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao; 3. It is confirmed that one-half of the property rights share of the house located at No. ×× Diwang City Square, No. 169 Shengli North Road, Chengnan (real estate title certificate number: S0332069) belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao; 4. Confirm that one-half of the property rights share of the house (real estate title certificate number: 0024895) located in the ×××× ×× unit ×× in the ×× Town belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao; 5. Confirm that one-half of the ownership share of a Mercedes-Benz small car and a Jianghuai brand freight car owned by the decedent Ao belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao; 6. It is confirmed that the nine bank deposits owned by the decedent Ao, totaling 33,139.39 yuan and the shares of the 125,280 shares of the rural commercial bank, each belong to the estate of the decedent Ao; 7. It is confirmed that one-half of the 7,710,000 yuan claim of the decedent Ao belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao. The case acceptance fee is 29,752.5 yuan (which has been halved and collected), and the preservation fee is 5,000 yuan, which is borne by Guo.
After the first-instance judgment, the plaintiff Huang appealed.
The second instance held that this case was a creditor subrogation dispute. According to the opinions of the two parties, the focus of the dispute in this case summarized in the second instance is: 1. Whether Huang Moumou as the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case is qualified, and if so, does it constitute a duplicate lawsuit? II. Are there any omissions or over-judgments in the first-instance judgment? Regarding the above-mentioned points of dispute, the second instance commented as follows:
1. Regarding whether Huang Moumou filed the lawsuit as the plaintiff, whether its subject is qualified and, if so, whether it constitutes a duplicate lawsuit
Huang Moumou applied to the court of first instance for enforcement of a private lending dispute case [(2020) Minchu No. 1752 Civil Judgment], the court of first instance rejected Huang's enforcement application on the grounds that the enforcement content was unclear and it was difficult to make the enforcement content clear in the enforcement procedure. Guo's suggestion that Huang's filing of a creditor subrogation lawsuit did not meet the statutory requirements, and that Huang did not have the qualifications to file a lawsuit in this case, was rejected in the second instance. Although this case is characterized as a creditor subrogation dispute, judging from the main content of Huang's claim in the first instance (the judgment confirms that one-half of the property listed in Huang's claim belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao), it is still a dispute over confirmation of rights in essence, while (2020) Minchu No. 1752 is a private lending dispute, and this case is caused by the lack of a clear scope of inheritance in this private lending case, so this case is not a duplicate litigation.
2. On the question of whether there are omissions or over-judgments in the first-instance judgment
In the case involving a private lending dispute [(2020) Min Chu No. 1752, (2020) Min Zhong No. 682], it has been confirmed that Guo Moumou is the first-order heir of the decedent Ao, and Guo Moumou is the only heir, in the case that Guo Moumou has not renounced the inheritance, it can be regarded as Guo Moumou inheriting all the estate of the decedent Ao, and there is no need to judge Guo Moumou in this case to inherit the estate of the decedent Ao, therefore, in this case, The court of first instance did not make a judgment on whether Guo inherited the estate of the decedent Ao, which is not a missing judgment. Therefore, the first-instance judgment proposed by Huang only confirmed the scope of the estate, but did not confirm that the inheritance had been inherited by Guo, and there was an omission opinion, which was rejected by the second instance. Huang's claim in the first instance was to confirm that Guo inherited the estate of the decedent Ao (the property listed in the claim), and the main text of the first instance judgment was to confirm that one-half of the share of the property listed in the appeal belonged to the estate of the decedent Ao, therefore, the first-instance judgment did not exceed the request of the judgment, so Guo's opinion that the first-instance judgment exceeded the request was rejected by the second instance.
As for Guo's claim that all the property left by the decedent Ao has been used to repay his personal debts, and Guo has not actually inherited any inheritance, the second instance held that, as mentioned above, this case is still a dispute over confirmation of rights, and whether Guo actually inherited the estate does not affect the judgment confirming that one-half of the property listed in Huang's claim belongs to the estate of the decedent Ao, and Guo can make this claim when the court enforces the estate of the decedent Ao, and his right will not be lost. Therefore, Guo's opinion was not accepted in the second instance.
Second-instance judgment: dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.