Shenzhen Non-Litigation Lawyer – Civil Dispute Mediation and Settlement Cases
Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm,LawyersAnother great case from our team to share with everyone!! I. Basic Facts Ms. Yang and Ms. Zhou met in late 2008 and became very close, subsequently living together until Yang went abroad in June 2013. During that period, Yang purchased two properties in her own name. In August 2014, Zhou sued Yang to return the two properties and cash totaling 2.6 million yuan. Before the hearing, Zhou amended her claims three times, ultimately seeking the return of over 1 million yuan in cash and over 700,000 yuan in property appreciation gains. The first-instance judgment ordered defendant Yang to return 1 million yuan to plaintiff Zhou as unjust enrichment, and dismissed Zhou's other claims. The second-instance judgment upheld the original ruling (following Yang's appeal). Zhou has now applied to the enforcement bureau for execution, and in August 2015 filed another lawsuit with the people's court, with the grounds and evidence submitted being identical to those in the prior case. Zhou stated: In order to live with Yang long-term, in addition to purchasing two properties in Yang's name in November 2009, she also transferred money multiple times to bank accounts under Yang's name to support her living expenses and overseas studies. On April 30, 2012, May 14, 2012, July 25, 2013, September 19, 2013, and April 8, 2014, she remitted to Yang HKD 254,000 (equivalent to RMB 203,200), HKD 185,000 (equivalent to RMB 145,000), RMB 304,900, USD 32,580 (equivalent to RMB 202,610.96), USD 16,104 (equivalent to RMB 100,224), and USD 16,102 (equivalent to RMB 100,204). Later, as their feelings faded, both parties proposed to break up and no longer live together. The defendant's family, having heard of our reputation, sought us out.Lawyers.LawyersAppointed at a critical moment, lawyer Cao Guanghui was assigned as the representative for Yang. During the representation process,LawyersThe team, leveraging extensive case-handling experience and profound professional competence, conducted a thorough multi-faceted investigation into the case details, informed the defendant of the underlying interests involved, and alleviated various concerns of the defendant's family members. II. Points of Dispute The disputes in this case centered on the following: 1. Whether the payment of over 1.05 million RMB from Zhou to Yang constituted unjust enrichment. 2. Whether Zhou and Yang were in a same-sex cohabitation relationship. III. Judgment Outcome Upon trial by the Futian District People's Court, Yang obtained a favorable judgment as follows: 1. The plaintiff Zhou's claims were dismissed. 2. The case acceptance fee of RMB 14,332 and property preservation fee of RMB 5,000 were borne by the plaintiff Zhou. IV. Case Analysis In response to Zhou repeatedly filing lawsuits over the same matter, wasting judicial resources,LawyersThe team carefully analyzed the case and concluded that: 1. The disputed amount claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant had already been asserted in the previous lawsuit, and the plaintiff's withdrawal of part of the claims during the court hearing should be regarded as a waiver and disposition of substantive rights. 2. The existing evidence provided by the plaintiff proved that the plaintiff had paid the six disputed sums to the defendant. 3. The two parties were in a same-sex cohabitation relationship, and during their years of living together, their finances were commingled. The defendant's bank card was also used jointly by both parties, and both were aware of the PIN. Even if the six disputed payments did exist, they were used for their shared living expenses, travel, and other consumption. Ultimately, after thorough investigation and evidence collection, and upon analyzing the case, the collegiate bench fully adopted these considerations.LawyersIn the代理 opinion, the court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, thereby protecting the defendant's lawful rights and interests.
