If the trustee fails to sue and return the money in violation of the rules, how will the court decide

Litigation Claim of First Instance A filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that the defendant B return 93,000 yuan, and that the defendant B male bear joint and several liability for the return and bear the litigation costs of the case. The facts were ascertained by the first review The defendants Otome and Otoman were originally husband and wife, and the two registered for divorce on August 22, 2017. Defendant Otome and Plaintiff A were introduced to each other by Defendant B's mother and Plaintiff A's sister because Defendant Otome had retired Plaintiff A and was able to receive a pension. On April 2, 2016, the defendant Otome obtained 25,000 yuan from the plaintiff A, claiming that it was the upfront expenses for retirement. For this reason, the defendant Otome wrote an IOU to the plaintiff and agreed to return it if the matter could not be completed. On July 12, 2016, the defendant Otome obtained another 68,000 yuan from the plaintiff, claiming that it was for the insurance premiums paid for retirement. The defendant, Otome, issued an IOU for the plaintiff. In September 2017, there was no news of what the defendant Otome had promised. The plaintiff went to the social security department to find out and was told that there was no such thing. The plaintiff went to the public security organ to report the case, and upon review, it was found that it did not constitute a criminal offense, and the case was not filed.

The court of first instance ruled that because another person has no legal basis for obtaining improper benefits, the person who has suffered losses has the right to request the return of the improper benefits. In this case, the defendant Otome demanded RMB 93,000 from the plaintiff twice on the grounds that the plaintiff A was retiring and receiving a pension, and issued an IOU for the plaintiff. Now Plaintiff A demands that the defendant Otome return this money, which is supported by the law. Although the defendant B was married to the defendant B during the period when she obtained this money, the defendant B did not participate in the matter and did not receive the plaintiff's money, so she was not jointly and severally obligated to return it. Where there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual assertions of the parties, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. Defendant Otome argued that she had given the money to an outsider after receiving the money, but she had not submitted evidence to prove her claim, and that the person who wrote the IOU for the plaintiff was the defendant Otome, so the defendant Otome's argument was not supported. In summary, in accordance with Article 122 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 1. The defendant Otome shall return RMB 93,000 to the plaintiff A within 10 days after this judgment takes effect. 2. Plaintiff A's other litigation claims are rejected.

The court of second instance ruled that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the appellant should return the appellee's sum of 93,000 yuan. The Appellant asserted that there was a trust relationship between it and the Appellee, that the Appellant was entrusted by the Appellee to deliver the money to an outsider, and that the Appellant had no obligation to repay the loan. In this case, the Appellant issued two IOUs of RMB 25,000 and RMB 68,000 respectively for the Appellee, and the Appellant recognized the payment and the fact of the issuance of the IOUs. The Appellant's assertion that the relationship with the Appellee is an entrustment relationship is not supported by evidence and has no factual basis. On the issue of the appellant's claim that this case involves a criminal case involving an outsider and should be handled by a criminal case. There is no evidence to prove that the Appellee was a victim of a criminal case involving an outsider and that the money involved in the case was found to be a fraudulent amount, so the Appellant's appeal request is not supported. In summary, Otome's appeal cannot be sustained and should be dismissed. The first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: the appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.

The facts and reasons for the retrial asserted that Otome applied for a retrial: 1. The original first- and second-instance judgments erroneously characterized this case. This case should be characterized as a dispute over an entrustment contract, rather than as a dispute over unjust enrichment, because the applicant was entrusted by the respondent to find someone else to handle retirement matters for him. This was clearly stated by the respondent in the complaint and at the trial, and can be confirmed through the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, this case fully complies with the legal characteristics of the entrustment contract. However, the unjust enrichment dispute refers to the acquisition of benefits without a lawful basis, and the applicant in this case only helped the respondent to find someone to do things and transferred the corresponding money, but did not obtain benefits as a result, so this case does not meet the legal characteristics of unjust enrichment. 2. The original judgment of the first and second instance was wrong for the applicant to return the expenses of the respondent for retirement. The applicant is a person who has asked someone else to handle retirement matters according to the instructions of the respondent, and has handed over the corresponding funds to the specific office, and the bank transaction details can prove that the applicant has handed over the expenses for handling retirement matters to others. Regardless of whether the entrusted matters are completed or not, the consequences shall be borne by the respondent. Even if the refund is made, it shall be refunded by a person not involved in the case, and shall not be refunded by the applicant. 3. The purpose and means of the respondent's retirement matters are illegal and should not be protected by law. When the respondent did not meet the conditions for retirement, the respondent entrusted the applicant to find someone to go through the retirement formalities through improper means, and the respondent's behavior violated the provisions of the relevant laws and policies of the mainland and harmed the public interest, so the purpose and means of its actions were illegal and should not be protected by law, and its litigation claim should be rejected in accordance with the law. To sum up, the applicant believes that the original judgments of the first and second instance of this case were wrong in determining the facts and applying the law, so he requests your court to initiate a retrial of this case and support the applicant's retrial litigation request in accordance with the law. A argued that the judgments of the first and second instance were correct, the facts of the investigation were clear, the evidence admissible was credible and sufficient, and the law was correctly applied, and requested that Otome's application for retrial be rejected.

According to Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the task of the Civil Procedure Law is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, educate citizens to consciously abide by the law, and maintain social and economic order. In this case, A did not meet the corresponding conditions and gave the trustee Otome property in order to handle the retirement, in an attempt to achieve his illegal purpose through improper means. This kind of behavior has contributed to unhealthy trends in society, created conditions for some people to take advantage of their positions to solicit property, and also undermined the state's basic old-age social security system and management system, and disrupted social order. Therefore, this kind of behavior violates the provisions of the relevant laws and policies of the mainland, harms the public interest, and the purpose and means of the act are illegal, and should not be protected by law, so the prosecution should be dismissed. In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 and Article 170, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows: 1. Revoke the civil judgments of the first and second instance. 2. The lawsuit filed by respondent A is dismissed. Article 122 of the Civil Code [Unjust Enrichment] Where others have obtained improper benefits without a legal basis, the person who has suffered losses has the right to request that they return the improper benefits. Case No.: (2020) Liao 07 Min Zai No. 41