Qingdao rewarded 12.57 million to find a woman: a dispute over borrowing from the people, and the actual control company was revoked three years ago

Jimu Journalist Zhang Wanjun

On August 5th, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court issued a notice of reward, with a maximum reward of 12.57 million. The clue of the executed person Gao Ling who refused to perform the payment obligations, and the high bounty attracted social attention.

The interview with Jimu Journalists confirmed that the performers involved in the executed person Gao Ling were as high as 125 million. It was a shareholder or actual controller of the three companies, but these three companies were in the state of cancellation or revoking.

Women were rewarded up to 12.57 million

Screenshot of WeChat public account

On August 5, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court issued the "Qingdao Central Court Review Notice: The highest award of 12.57 million yuan" through its WeChat public account. The notice showed that Gao Ling, the executed person, was born in 1978. He lived in Haidian District, Beijing, and his failure amount was 125702064.80 yuan. 10%of the execution funds pay the bounty. The reason for the reward was the legal effect of the Weihai Arbitration Commission (2019) Wei Zhongzi No. 0470. Executive clues.

The Sky Eye Inspection System shows that the executed person Gao Ling is the largest shareholder and actual controller of Longyuan Zhongrong (Beijing) Investment Co., Ltd., holding a shareholding of 36%. Established in 2009, the company is a company that is mainly engaged in the business service industry with a registered capital of 30 million yuan. The Tianyan check system also shows that the company involves multiple legal lawsuits and was revoked on November 12, 2019. In addition, Gao Ling was a shareholder of two other companies, but both companies have been canceled.

Unpleasant payment obligations of 120 million were forced to execute

Screenshot of the referee document network

Jimu Journalists inquired about China Judgment Document Network and found that (2019) Weizhong Zi No. 0470 Ruling involves Jinan Gaoyong Industrial Co., Ltd. and Gao Ling, Wang Mou, Xie Mou, Longyuan Zhongrong (Beijing) Investment Co., Ltd. Civil lending dispute. The Weihai Arbitration Commission made a decision on the case on October 28, 2021: (1) Gao Ling paid Jinan Gaoyong Industrial Co., Ltd. to the borrowing principal 12791032.41 yuan and as of January 29, 2021 within 10 days from the date of effectiveness of this ruling. Interest 8942297.49 yuan ... (6) Gao Ling, Wang, Xie Mou, Longyuan Zhongrong (Beijing) Investment Co., Ltd.'s decision (1) (2) (3) (4) payment obligations determined by items Responsible liability for liability ...

Since then, Gao Ling and others applied to the Weihai Intermediate People's Court to revoke the arbitration. The Weihai Intermediate People's Court finally ruled: (2019) Weizhongzi No. 0470 ruling there is no situation that should be revoked, and the applicant Gao Ling, Longyuanzhong Rong Investment Co., Ltd., and Wang Mou have rejected the application.

Jimu Journalists noticed that Jinan Gaoyong Industrial Co., Ltd. applied for the enforcement of the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court due to the obligation determined by the executive of the above -mentioned ruling. On November 10, 2021, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court was executed in case of the case, and the implementation target was 125702064.8 yuan. During the implementation of this case, Qingdao Intermediate People's Court issued an enforcement notice and property report to the executed person in accordance with the law, ordered it to fulfill its obligations within a time limit and report the current property situation of the current one year before receiving the notice. However, the executed person did not report according to law according to law. Its property status. Qingdao Central Court allocated a total of 19,2241.48 yuan in account deposits under the name of the executed person Wang and Gao Ling's name, and the execution fee was 192241.48 yuan.

The Qingdao Central Court has been executed by the judicial investigation and control system twice. The person who is executed has no other property available for execution, and the application executive cannot provide other property clues for execution. The court included the above -mentioned executors into a high -consumption list in accordance with the law, and made an final interview with the application executive, and the application executive agreed to end the execution process. After the execution procedure ended, those who applied for the executor found that if the executed person has available property, he can apply for execution again.

- END -