Appellant (defendant in the original trial): * * *, male, born on January 24th, 1963, Han nationality, zhuanghe city, Liaoning Province, now living in Yingjie Village, Xiaochangshan Township, Liaoning Province.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): * * *, male, born on January 31, 1949, Han nationality, born in * * * Liaoning Province, living in Shajian Village, Guanglu Township, Liaoning Province.

The appellant refused to accept the civil judgment (2xx) Chang Min Chu ZiNo. * * * made by the People's Court of Liaoning Province for the case of private loan dispute with the appellee, and now appeals according to law.

Litigation request: request to cancel the civil judgment of (2xx) Chang Min Chu ZiNo. * * made by the People's Court of Liaoning Province, and revise the judgment according to law; First, the second instance litigation costs shall be borne by the appellee.

Facts and reasons:

1. The judgment of the original trial seriously violated legal procedures.

1. The plaintiff's son * * * used to be the director of the Executive Board of the People's Court of * * *, and now he is the department head of the Dalian Intermediate People's Court, and also the actual controller of this case (the debit note dated June 8, 2xx was also written by * * *), and he was a colleague with the original judge, thus affecting the fair trial of this case. The judge of the original trial should have recused himself according to law, but he still did not recuse himself despite the defendant's application and made a wrong judgment. According to Item 4 of Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Law and Item 2 of Article 325 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. The original judgment is a serious violation of legal procedures. The appellant now applies to Dalian Intermediate People's Court again to recuse himself from this appeal case and transfer the case to an intermediate people's court outside Dalian for trial or to a higher people's court in Liaoning Province for trial.

2. The facts of this case are unclear, the relationship between rights and obligations is unclear, and even the relationship between subjects is unclear, which is also controversial. Therefore, the sole trial should not be applied. According to the Working Rules for Single Judges, the sole trial system is not applicable to this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the original trial seriously violated the legal procedures, and the appellant's procedural rights and substantive rights were unfairly infringed.

second, the basic facts identified in the original judgment were wrong.

1. The original judgment found that "on June 8th, 2xx, the defendant * * * reached a loan agreement with the plaintiff * *, and the defendant issued an iou for the plaintiff". The appellant * * * did not need funds because of the capital turnover, but because on February 9th, 2xx, the appellant and the appellee's son * * * (the loan agreement was * *. Therefore, the IOU dated June 8, 2xx was not signed by the Appellant and the Appellee, nor was it issued by the Appellant due to the need of capital turnover.

2. "After that, the defendant repaid the loan of 1.4 million yuan to the plaintiff in four times by bank transfer", and the appellant * * * repaid the loan of 1.5 million yuan to * * * in five times.

3. The original judgment left out the important fact of the case, that is, the appellant actually received a loan of 1.8 million yuan. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the appellee had paid the appellant money, the court of first instance ruled that the appellant had borrowed 2.7 million yuan from the appellee, which obviously violated the rules of evidence and the provisions of the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation on private lending.

Therefore, the basic facts ascertained in the judgment of the original trial were wrong, and the contents of its determination were wrong.

Third, the judgment of the original trial was wrong in applying the law

1. According to the principle of privity of contract in Article 2 of the Contract Law, the main system of this case occurred between the appellant and the outsider, and had no legal relationship with the appellee, but the court of the original trial mistakenly determined that there was a loan relationship between the appellant and the appellee, which was unfounded in the law.

2. According to Article 21 to the Contract Law, a loan contract between natural persons becomes effective when the lender provides the loan. According to Article 2 of the Contract Law. Refer to Article 27 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases. The determination of the principal should be based on the money actually received by the borrower. In this case, the appellant actually received only 1.8 million yuan.

3. According to Article 5 of the Rules of Civil Evidence and the national civil trial work conference held in the Supreme People's Court in 2xx, the requirements for evidence identification of private lending dispute cases were put forward. For "IOUs" with defects in form, the lender should bear the burden of proof for the money to the borrower. Refer to Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases

. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the appellee paid money to the appellant, it is obviously against the law to let the appellant bear the responsibility of borrowing 2.7 million yuan from the appellee.

To sum up, the original judgment found that the basic facts were wrong, the original judgment procedure was illegal, and the original judgment applied the wrong law. Therefore, the original judgment seriously violated the appellant's legitimate rights and interests. Please ask the court of second instance to fully ascertain the facts, uphold justice according to law and support the appellant's appeal.

to

*** Appellant of the Intermediate People's Court

:

year, month and day.