Defendant (defendant in this case 1): Ling, female, Han nationality, born on 25th of X, 198X, farmer.

Authorized Agent: Huang, lawyer of Guangdong Jinzhuoyue Law Firm.

The Respondent made the following reply on the case of the plaintiff Yongding County Rural Credit Cooperative Union v. the Respondent and other financial loan contract disputes:

1. The respondent is not the borrower or guarantor involved in this loan, and the respondent is not a qualified defendant in this case.

2. The facts stated by the plaintiff in the facts and reasons part of the complaint are not objective, such as:

2. 1 It claims that the respondent and late borrower Yan Mou was born on July 20 14. 12.65438 and borrowed 200,000 yuan from its subordinate Longtan Credit Cooperative, which is seriously contrary to the facts: the respondent did not sign the borrower's name on the secured loan contract, and was not the subject and counterpart of the loan contract at all.

2.2 The plaintiff's statement in the complaint deliberately concealed the fact that the loan involved had been insured.

In fact, this case involves a loan, that is, the borrower bought the Pacific Insurance Company bound by the plaintiff Longtan Credit Cooperative when applying for a loan in the later period? Accidental injury insurance (section b)? The insured amount is 200,000 yuan.

Therefore, the repayment of the loan involved should give priority to the insurer.

Thirdly, when the legal relationship of insurance contract and loan guarantee contract overlap, the plaintiff should give priority to the legal relationship of insurance contract based on the principle of good faith, and advocate that the insurer should fulfill the insurance responsibility, so as to meet the original intention of the insured (borrower) to buy loan insurance, truly embody the principle of fairness and reflect the role of insurance in resolving risks.

4. Although the respondent signed the column of the borrower's spouse in the letter of commitment, it was not the true intention of the respondent.

The letter of commitment is a print format clause unilaterally formulated by the lender, which belongs to the overlord clause and is intended to increase the borrower's responsibility burden and prevent and reduce the lender's risk.

The respondent thinks that the letter of commitment is illegal and cannot be used as effective evidence for the plaintiff to claim that the respondent is jointly and severally liable for the loan involved.

From the analysis of common sense and common sense, after the lender requires the borrower to buy its compulsory tying Pacific insurance, its repayment risk of 200 thousand yuan has been fully guaranteed; Requiring the borrower and his spouse to sign a letter of commitment is a serious violation of the principles of voluntariness and fairness that should be followed in civil activities.

But the reality is so unfair. For borrowers who need loans, there is no way to defend the mandatory additional conditions for lenders to issue loans. As borrowers and their spouses, they can only sign according to their requirements and bear unlimited risks.

The defendant requested the court, according to jurisprudence, civil law, contract law and other relevant provisions. In accordance with the law, the letter of commitment is deemed to be invalid and will not be accepted.

Verb (abbreviation of verb) The plaintiff's claim that the loan interest from 2065438+February 30, 2005 to the repayment date is unfounded and unjustified.

The borrower died on 2015.11.13. Legally speaking, it is unfounded and unreasonable for his civil rights and obligations to terminate according to law and then continue to calculate the loan interest.

Respondent (Ling's entrusted agent):

Statement of defense for disputes over financial loan contracts (II)

A: Liao Moumou, male, born on 19XX, 1 1, Han nationality, lives in XX, the sixth district of Hezhou New City.

A: Li Moumou, female, 19XX born in June, Han nationality, lives in XX County, Guangxi Province. Six districts of Hezhou New City XX.

Respondent: Li Moumou, male, 19XX born on August 8th, Han nationality, from XX City, Guangxi Province, living at No.50, XX Road, XX City.

Defendants Liao Moumou and Li Moumou defended the case of Li Moumou v. Liao Moumou and Li Moumou's loan contract dispute as follows:

The respondent is only a resident of the respondent's home in XX Road, Hezhou City, and the respondent and the respondent do not know each other. The respondent rented a single room on the fifth floor of the house at XX Road, Hezhou City through the respondent's friend He XX (evidence 1).

During the period when the respondent lived on the fifth floor of House XX, XX Road, Hezhou City, the respondent was busy with the work of cosmetics store in XX County.

The "IOU" provided by the respondent to the court in this case should have started from the theft of the respondent's home (reported to the Jianzhong police station and filed by the public security organ).

At the beginning of August, 2009, He XX, who rented the 6th floor of XX Road, Hezhou City, reported to the respondent that his house key was lost.

After the respondent rushed back to Hezhou from XX County, he found that the house was turned upside down, and all the relevant documents of the respondent, including the property ownership certificate, land use right certificate, personal photos, personal loan contract, and the mortgage information of the property borrowed by the respondent from Li Antang Credit Cooperative in June 2007, were stolen.

The Defendant's Power of Attorney for Accidental Injury Insurance of Andaibao (Evidence 6) confirmed the fact that Li Antang Credit Cooperative used real estate as mortgage loan.

The respondent signed the Personal Loan Contract and the Letter of Commitment on Loan Mortgage (Pledge) of Guangxi Rural Credit Cooperatives (stolen) with the house on XX Road in Hezhou City as the mortgage.

The respondent's report has been put on file by the public security organ for investigation, and the public security organ listed the respondent Li as the key object and decided to take compulsory measures against him.

At the same time, the respondent went to Hezhou Real Estate Management Bureau to inquire and found that the respondent's property located in XX Road, Hezhou City was mortgaged again.

In this regard, the respondent filed an administrative lawsuit (2009) Heba Chu Hang Zi No.47 with the People's Court of Babu District, Hezhou City, requesting to cancel the mortgage registration of the real estate. After the trial of the first and second instance, the court cancelled the mortgage registration of No.1 property. XX Road, Hezhou City (Evidence 2).

In administrative proceedings, the third party provided relevant evidential materials.

These materials include: the house mortgage agreement (Evidence 3), the property certificate of Liao's loan of 380,000 yuan in cash provided by the respondent to the public security organ, the explanation of the land certificate (hereinafter referred to as the explanation and Evidence 5), and the IOUs appearing in this case.

All these evidences are directly related to this case, but they are all false and inconsistent with the basic facts everywhere? Hard wound? .

Mainly includes:

1. The house mortgage agreement was signed on May 23rd, 2009, and the name of the mortgage borrower is? Employees of Hezhou Xingguang Silicon Industry Co., Ltd.? .

At this time, the respondent Liao Moumou ran his own cosmetics store as early as 2006. He was neither an employee of Hezhou Xingguang Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. nor an employee of Linjiang Real Estate Company (the statement mentioned that the respondent Liao Moumou was the real estate director of Linjiang Real Estate Company).

The ID number of the mortgage borrower (Party B) at the beginning of the House Mortgage Agreement is actually different from the ID number of Party B in the signature.

First of all, if the respondent Liao Moumou really borrowed 380,000 yuan from the respondent, the respondent wouldn't even care if the ID number was inconsistent, and even such basic mistakes were allowed.

Secondly, the respondent Liao Moumou obtained the second-generation resident ID card (Evidence 4) on April 4, 2008, with the ID number of 45010419xxxxxxxx0334. The defendant is not stupid enough not to check the original.

3. Forged "IOUs".

The main vulnerabilities are:

① The IOU shows that the loan is as high as 380,000 yuan, but the IOU doesn't show the word 100. The most important repayment date is printed incorrectly, and then rewritten by hand, which obviously lacks rigor.

If it is really a loan, will the lender agree?

(2) Judging from the color depth and font size of the handwriting displayed in the existing copy of the IOU, a) the writing depth of the IOU is obviously different from that of the promisor; B. The font size of the IOU is different from that of the promisor, but in the IOU? According to this? Below the position? Commitment (official seal) and commitment legal representative (signature)? The content shows that the line spacing of these two paragraphs is different. If it is really computer typesetting, this typesetting is very difficult.

For the respondents, this typesetting method is also unnecessary.

So, in general, this "IOU" is not printed by the computer at one time.

(3) Usually, for private loans, the borrower must sign the IOU, and it only appears on the IOU? Commitment (official seal) and commitment legal representative (signature)? This statement is also unimaginable.

And the defendant happened to have evidence to infer how the defendant pieced together the fake loan slip.

In June, 2007, the respondent made a loan to Hezhou Li Antang Credit Cooperative by way of real estate mortgage, and issued the Letter of Commitment on Loan Mortgage (Pledge) of Guangxi Rural Credit Cooperative to Li Antang Credit Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the Letter of Commitment), which was stolen and provided a blank Letter of Commitment on Loan Mortgage (Pledge) of Guangxi Rural Credit Cooperative (Evidence 7), which was signed by the respondent and his wife.

The promissory note provided by the respondent made use of the letter of commitment signed by the respondent and his wife. The respondent either directly printed the contents of the loan on the blank of the old undertaking by computer, or copied the text of the loan together with the signature on the undertaking to spell out a fake loan.

There are also contradictions in the description of the situation.

On page 2, the fact sheet in line 10 says:? Don't tell his wife (Li Moumou) and others about the mortgage? , but in the "IOU" is expressed as? After the mortgaged property borrows money from Li Moumou, the loan is signed by Li Moumou.

This is another ridiculous lie.

To sum up, we can confirm that the iou provided by the respondent is completely forged.

Therefore, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent from infringement, the respondent requested the court to dismiss the respondent's claim.

I am here to convey

Hezhou Babu District People's Court

Respondents:

Year, month and day