Major appellate victory: recovered 1.5 million in infringement claims; Zhiming lawyers successfully resolved the case

[2] I. Basic Case Facts

In April 2005, for business development purposes, the defendant, a communication technology company in Shanghai, borrowed 1.5 million yuan from the plaintiff, a communication technology company in Shenzhen. To this end, both parties signed a loan agreement. Upon the one-year maturity, the borrower failed to repay in a timely manner. In November 2013, the two parties settled the outstanding balances from their ongoing project transactions. Prior to the settlement, specifically before April 2013, Shu held the position of general manager at the plaintiff's company. On January 26, 2014, the defendant's general manager, Chen, notified the financial officer, Li, via text message, instructing him to hand over the defendant's complete set of seals and corporate licenses as required by the plaintiff's chairman and general manager. On the same day, Wang issued a receipt. On February 27, 2014, the Shanghai communication technology company repaid the loan to the Shenzhen communication technology company via bank transfer, with the transfer note indicating "loan repayment." What should have been a simple loan and repayment matter became complicated when the defendant selectively presented a "Confirmation Letter Regarding the Purpose of the 1.5 Million Yuan Fund Transfer," dated May 30, 2012, claiming that the 1.5 million yuan in question had already been offset through project transactions between the parties, and that the plaintiff's act of suing for the repayment of the loan constituted an infringement. Faced with the defendant's selective presentation of facts and with no one to turn to, Wang sought out Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm and entrusted the Zhiming legal team to represent the case. Under the arrangement and guidance of Zhiming lawyers, Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan handled the case. The court of first instance refused to investigate and determine the matter on the grounds that the loan relationship belonged to a separate legal relationship, erroneously dismissed the plaintiff's counterclaim, ruled that the plaintiff should repay the defendant 1.5 million yuan, and bear the case acceptance fee of 19,199 yuan. The client was deeply disappointed by the erroneous judgment of the first instance. The Zhiming lawyers, in coordination with the handling attorneys, adjusted their litigation strategy in response to the first-instance error, prepared diligently, and resolutely filed an appeal.

[4] II. Disputed Focus

[5] The focus of the dispute between the parties in this case is:

(1) Whether the official seal and related materials of the defendant taken by the plaintiff Wang should be returned;

(2) Whether the 1.5 million yuan of loan recovered by the plaintiff constitutes infringement and should be returned.

 

III. Judgment Situation

(1) The judgment upheld the first-instance ruling that the plaintiff shall return the official seal and related materials to the defendant;

(2) The judgment revoked the first-instance plaintiff's return of 1.5 million yuan to the defendant.

(3) The defendant shall bear the first-instance and second-instance case acceptance fees and preservation fees totaling 35,756 yuan, and the plaintiff shall bear 200 yuan.

 

IV. Case Analysis

Although the defendant selectively provided evidence and took quotes out of context in an attempt to confuse the judge, the representation strategy of lawyers Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan was concise and clear, pointing out:

(1) The outstanding balance of the project transactions between the defendant, a certain Shanghai communications technology company, and the plaintiff, a certain Shenzhen communications technology company, had never been settled, and settlement was only conducted in November 2013. However, the Confirmation Letter Regarding the Purpose of the Allocation of 1.5 Million Yuan in Funds provided by the defendant bears an issuance date of May 30, 2012, which suggests that the two parties had already offset the 1.5 million yuan at issue through their project transactions as of that date. It is evident that the court of first instance failed to identify the contradiction between this date and the actual settlement date.

(2) The plaintiff and the defendant are affiliated companies that share a brand and a joint laboratory. The report stated that the loan relationship with the plaintiff had already been offset and written off through bilateral project transactions, so no loan relationship existed between the parties. In reality, it was the defendant's shareholder, Shu, who took advantage of his position at the plaintiff company at the time to issue the relevant certificate, the contents of which were false. The court of first instance made a subjective judgment and overlooked the fact that Shu and the person in nominal control of a certain Shanghai communications technology company are biological brothers, and that Shu is also a shareholder of that company.

(3) For transfers between enterprises, one party creates the transaction order and transfers the funds, while the payee can only confirm receipt. Regarding the email records submitted by both parties concerning the transfer, the court of first instance found that the plaintiff, Su, after obtaining the defendant company's official seal and relevant materials, privately transferred 1.5 million yuan from the account of a certain Shanghai communications technology company to the account of a certain Shenzhen communications technology company. This constitutes a clear error in fact-finding and application of law. It is strongly requested that the court of second instance revoke the erroneous judgment of the first instance.

At the same time, the lawyers actively guided the judge's reasoning to clarify the facts and simplify the complexities. Ultimately, after thorough investigation and evidence collection and case analysis, the court fully adopted the specific representation opinions of lawyers Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan, safeguarding the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

5. Summary of Insights

The lesson from this case is that a certain Shanghai communication technology company selectively provided evidence, took quotes out of context, and violated corporate ethics. This serves as a reminder that enterprises should manage their operations properly, understand basic legal knowledge in business, appropriately protect their own interests, and prevent those with ill intentions from taking advantage. As practicing lawyers, one must dare to exploit the oversight of judges or courts, actively guide their thinking, boldly engage in correction, reverse erroneous decisions, and skillfully apply litigation techniques to ultimately achieve a fair and ideal outcome.