Signing on the debit, did not say whether it was a guarantor or a witness, should you bear responsibility?

Legal knowledge points: In judicial practice, some parties bear the guarantee of guarantee for the borrowing contract of others, but only signed their own names on the borrowing vouchers of the borrowing parties, and did not indicate the identity of their guarantor. This fact is a large number in practice in practice. Exist that, without the identity, afterwards, he denies that he is the guarantor. Do you want to bear the guarantee responsibility under the condition?

In this regard, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Supreme People's Court on Article 21 of the Application of Laws on the Application of Cases of Folk Loan Cases ", other people signed or stamped on the creditor's rights vouchers or loan contracts such as debit, receipts, and lack of borrowings, but did not indicate that it did not indicate that it did not indicate The guarantor's identity or assurance responsibility, or if it cannot be pressed through other facts as a guarantor, if the lender requests him to bear the guarantee responsibility, the people's court will not support it.

It can be seen from the meaning of the provisions that if the guarantor bears the liability for the debt of the borrowing parties, the guarantor must have a clear guidelines. If there is no guarantee clause in the creditor's rights such as the debit or the loan contract, the guarantor will also be signed when signing the signature. Those who have not stated their responsibilities cannot be claimed that the guarantor should be responsible. Unless there is only the signature or seal of others, if the identity of the guarantor is not indicated, it may preserve it as the guarantor in conjunction with other evidence.

Therefore, if you ask others to guarantee, it is best to sign a guarantee contract or set the guarantee clause in the debit or borrowing contract, and make a clear agreement on the guarantee claims, scope, and responsibility. In the loan contract or debit loan certificate, a person indicates that someone voluntarily provides a guarantee on the borrowing, or the guarantor is requested to sign and sign the intention of providing a guarantee for the loan at the guarantor.

If you just want to show that he is a witness to the borrowing parties, it must be the word witness of the witness in the borrowing office, so that he only witnessed the fact that the borrowing parties signed a loan intention without any legal responsibility. If you only sign your own name, whether it is a borrower or a borrower, the space that can be exerted is large, and it is easy to cause unnecessary trouble. In the end, it may be prescribed as the guarantor, which will bear legal responsibility. In order to better explain the meaning of this legal provision, I will now share a related practice case for your reference.

Introduction to the case: The court of first instance believes that legitimate lending is protected by law. Liu Mouying delivered 450,000 yuan to the defendant Chen Mouli's account. Chen Mouli and Chen Moudong and Technology Company jointly signed a "Loan List" to Liu Mouying. British borrowing is 450,000 yuan for production and operation, and technology companies also signed and stamped at the borrower's settlement office. The relationship between the debt and debt between the two parties is sufficient to confirm.

Judgment view: The "Loan List" is clear that the money is used for the production and operation of the defendant technology company. As the legal representative, the defendant Chen Moudong has a close relationship with the company. The performance of debt bears the debt guarantee, and the relationship between the debt and debt between him and Liu Mouying is sufficient to determine.

Chen Mouli introduced Liu Mouying to the defendant's technology company and collected loan funds. At the same time, he signed the borrower of the "Borrowing List". He joined the debt to bear the meaning of guaranteeing debt performance. Its department is signed as a witness, but he did not mark the identity of the witness before his signature, and the defendant Chen Mouli as a full -time civilian ability person, he should have enough meaning and consequences of the signature of the borrower of the "loan list". Cognition, at the same time, Liu Mouying asked the defendant's technology company to issue a borrowing item based on the trust of the defendant Chen Mouli to ask the defendant Chen Mouli to join the debt to bear the performance of the debt.

In summary, the three defendants have the obligation to fulfill Liu Mouying's debt. The actual use of the money cannot change the debt and debt relationship between the three defendants and Liu Mouying. It does not affect the debt relationship between the three defendants and Liu Mouying. The third defendant did not repay Liu Mouying in time, and his behavior constituted a breach of contract, and he should bear the corresponding civil liability according to law. Liu Mouying confirmed that the defendant had repaid 57,000 yuan, which constituted himself, and the court of first instance accepted it.

As a result of the judgment: Chen Mouli, Chen Moudong, and Technology Company should bring Liu Mouying to Liu Mouying to pay the loan principal of 393,000 yuan and pay interest within ten days from the date of effectiveness.

After the judgment of the first instance, Chen Mouli refused to accept and appealed. Chen Mouli believed that he should not bear the responsibility for repayment, because he was the testimony of the witness.

The court of second instance tried that Liu Mouying provided the "Borrowing Filter" and the transfer voucher to prove the loan relationship in this case. The "Loan List" clearly stated that the borrower's art company is used to use the loan to purchase raw materials and ensure smooth production. Chen Mouli was not stated in the "Borrowing List" as a borrower. As for Chen Mouli, in the "Borrowing List", the company stamped the official seal with the name and ID number with Chen Moudong, Chen Mouli argued that the department as a commissioner witnessed the fact that the borrowing was involved in the case. The behavior of the signature on the entry does not produce the legal effect that it has made debt to join the intention. Chen Mouli's reasons for defense are in line with common sense, and this court will accept.

According to Article 21 of the "Supreme People's Court on the Application of Laws on the Application of Civil Loan Cases", "Others signed or stamped on the creditor's rights vouchers such as lending, receipt, arrears, etc., but did not indicate their guarantor identity identity Or bear the guarantee of responsibility, or if it cannot be presided over by other facts as a guarantor, if the lender requests him to bear the guarantee, the people's court will not support it. "Chen Mouli only signed the name in the" Borrowing Film "and did not indicate that it was the guarantor as the guarantor. The identity or clearly states that it assumes the responsibility, and there is no other discovery of the fact that it can be prevented by the fact that Chen Mouli provides guarantees for the loan involved in the case. According to the above provisions, Chen Mouli should not be determined to provide guarantees for the loan involved in the case. Evidence such as social security records submitted by Chen Mouli, the income certificate issued by technology companies, and Chen Mouli's personal business card, etc., is enough to prove that she is an employee of a technology company. Chen Mouli Company collected the loan involved in the case and the technology company issued the "Reception" confirmed that the receipt of the loan involved in the case could not only be based on the borrowing of Chen Mouli to collect the loan, and determined that he was the borrower and ordered him to bear the responsibility of repayment. Essence

Liu Mouying advocated that Chen Mouli was the actual borrower, but the claim contradicts the content recorded in the "Borrowing List". As an adult with a capable ability to do, Liu Mouying should know that the borrower should issue the correct way of exposing the loan voucher. The "Borrowing Writing" held by Liu Mouying has clearly stated that the borrower's technology company technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and borrowing are used for the company's production and operation. It should be determined that Liu Mouying knows that Chen Mouli is not a borrower. Therefore, Chen Mouli was neither a borrower or a guarantor who did not clearly make the intention of joining the debt. Liu Mouying asked him to bear the liability for liability for the debt involved in the case. The reason was not established, and the court did not support it. Because the defendant Chen Moudong did not file an appeal, it was deemed to be the recognition of the judgment of the first trial according to law. Chen Mouli had no right to appeal on behalf of Chen Moudong. In summary, Chen Mouli's reasons for appeal were established, and the court was adopted.

The results of the second instance judgment: the second item of the first instance of the first instance; the first item of changing the civil judgment is: the technology company and the original defendant Chen Moudong shall bring Liu Mouying to Liu Mouying to repay the principal of 393,000 yuan from the date of effectiveness of the judgment. Pay interest

Lawyer commented: In this case, Chen Mouli signed as a third party's debit on the borrowing parties, but he did not show his identity. As a result, Liu Mouying was sued by the lender Liu Mouying and asked to bear the liability for repayment. It is thrilling that the first instance judgment determined that Chen Mouli was a borrower and should bear the common repayment responsibility; after Chen Mouli appealed to the intermediate court, after the trial of the second instance, Chen Mouli was not a borrower and a guarantor. Facts are predered as a borrower, and Chen Mouli is judged according to law without being responsible for repayment. Therefore, for signing on the borrowing voucher of others, we must clearly indicate that their identity is a witness or a guarantor. It must be clear that disputes are prone to cause unnecessary trouble to themselves.

Use real cases to interpret the law, share practical legal knowledge, legal consultation, exchanges and cooperation, please follow us! Welcome to share with more friends!

- END -