Client Conceals Truth, Faces Danger; Lawyer Stays Calm, Wins Case
In mid-2013, Chen agreed with Li to borrow 600,000 yuan, using one of Chen's properties as collateral. However, Li never actually provided the loan but attempted to exercise the mortgage rights, which hindered the sale of Chen's property and caused Chen financial losses. Consequently, Chen retained the Zhiming lawyer team from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm to sue Li, with team lawyer Zhang Yong specifically handling the case.
Previously, Chen had only provided the "Mortgage Loan Contract" signed by both parties as evidence. However, during the evidence exchange, Zhou's attorney argued that Chen had borrowed 600,000 yuan from Li and mortgaged his property because his friend Zhang was unable to repay a 600,000 yuan debt to Huang. But since Huang also owed Li 600,000 yuan, Li and Zhang agreed that the 600,000 yuan originally intended to be lent to Chen would be directly offset against Huang's debt to Li, and presented a "Statement" signed by Zhang to substantiate this claim.
Faced with the sudden insider information, Chen had no choice but to privately express his apologies to Attorney Zhang Yong. However, after analysis by Attorney Zhang Yong and the Zhiming law firm, they believed that the "Statement" bearing Zhang's signature still had numerous issues. First, although Li claimed that she had already repaid the 600,000 debt Zhang owed to Huang on his behalf, Li had no evidence to prove that she had delivered or offset that amount to Huang, nor even to show that Huang had owed Li an equivalent loan. Second, the "Mortgage Loan Contract" signed by Chen and Li made no mention of Zhang's debt at all, only stipulating that Li would deliver the loan to Chen. Therefore, Attorney Zhang Yong held that the evidence submitted by Li was insufficient to prove that she had delivered the 600,000 loan to the plaintiff, and the fact that Zhou Ning failed to disburse the loan on time, which violated the contract terms, had already rendered the purpose of the contract unattainable. Consequently, Attorney Zhang Yong adhered to the original evidence and reasoning, continuing to request the judge to lift the mortgage.
Despite the intense courtroom proceedings, Attorney Zhang Yong closely adhered to the performance of the Mortgage Loan Contract itself, repeatedly scrutinizing and reasoning through the various insider details and evidence presented by Li, pointing out the parts lacking probative value, and compelling the judge to set aside distractions and focus on the Mortgage Loan Contract between Chen and Li itself. In the end, the presiding judge, based on the contract's own performance, ruled in favor of Chen, requiring Li to cooperate in completing the mortgage release procedures within a specified timeframe. Thus, this mortgage loan contract concluded with a narrow victory for Chen. (The surnames above are randomly selected.)
