Second-Instance Victory: 1.5 Million Recovered in Infringement Claim, Zhiming Lawyers Secure Success

[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 had served as the general manager of the plaintiff. On January 26, 2014, Chen, the general manager of the defendant company, texted the financial officer Li, 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 provided a "Confirmation Letter on the Purpose of the 1.5 Million Yuan Fund Transfer," dated May 30, 2012, claiming that the parties had already offset the 1.5 million yuan in question through their project transactions, and that the plaintiff's act of suing the defendant for repaying the loan constituted an infringement. Faced with the defendant's selective quoting and feeling helpless, 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, attorneys Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan handled the case. The court of first instance refused to investigate and determine the facts on the grounds that the loan relationship constituted 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 response strategy in light of the first-instance error, actively prepared, and resolutely filed an appeal.

[1] II. Focus of Dispute

The focus of the dispute between the two 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 loan recovered by the plaintiff constitutes infringement and should be returned.

III. Judgment Situation

(1) The judgment upholds the first-instance ruling that the plaintiff 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 court acceptance fees and preservation fees for the first and second instance totaling 35,756 yuan, and the plaintiff shall bear 200 yuan.

IV. Case Analysis

Despite the defendant's selective presentation of evidence and taking statements out of context in an attempt to mislead the judge, the legal strategy employed by attorneys Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan was concise and to the point, highlighting that:

(1) The outstanding balance between the defendant, a communications technology company in Shanghai, and the plaintiff, a communications technology company in Shenzhen, had not been settled until November 2013. However, the "Confirmation Letter Regarding the Purpose of the 1.5 Million Yuan Fund Transfer" provided by the defendant bears a date of May 30, 2012, suggesting that the 1.5 million yuan in question had already been offset through mutual project transactions between the parties. Clearly, the first instance failed to address the contradiction between this date and the actual settlement date.

(2) The plaintiff and defendant are affiliated companies sharing a common brand and a shared laboratory. The report claims that the loan relationship with the plaintiff was offset through bilateral project transactions, thus eliminating the loan relationship between the two parties. In reality, the relevant certification was issued by Shu, a shareholder of the defendant, who exploited his position at the plaintiff's company at the time, and its contents are false. The first-instance court made a subjective judgment and overlooked the fact that Shu and the nominal controller of a Shanghai telecommunications technology company are biological brothers, and that Shu is also a shareholder of that company.

(3) For transfers between enterprises, when one party creates the order and transfers funds out, the receiving party can only confirm, and email records are sent to both parties involved in the transfer. The court of first instance held that the plaintiff, Su Mou, after obtaining the defendant company's official seal and related materials, privately transferred 1.5 million yuan from the account of a certain Shanghai communication technology company to the account of a certain Shenzhen communication technology company. This constitutes an obvious error in fact-finding and application of law, and it is strongly requested that the court of second instance revoke the erroneous judgment of the first instance.

At the same time, they actively guided the judges' reasoning, clarified the facts, and simplified complex issues. Ultimately, the court, after thoroughly investigating and analyzing the case, fully adopted the specific advocacy opinions of the handling lawyers Cao Guanghui and Guo Yixuan, thereby safeguarding the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests.

5. Summary of Insights

The lesson from this case is that a certain communications technology company in Shanghai selectively provided evidence and took statements out of context, which violated corporate ethics. This serves as a reminder that businesses should manage their operations properly, understand basic legal knowledge relevant to their activities, appropriately protect their own interests, and guard against those with ill intentions seeking to exploit opportunities for personal gain. As practicing lawyers, one should dare to leverage oversights by judges or the court, actively guide their thinking, engage boldly in advocacy, correct errors, and skillfully apply the art of litigation to ultimately achieve a fair and ideal outcome!