Appeal template:

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): ***, male, born on January 24, 1963, Han nationality, from Zhuanghe City, Liaoning Province, currently living in Liaoning Yingjie Village, Xiaochangshan Township, *** Province.

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

Due to a private loan dispute with the appellee, the appellant was dissatisfied with the civil judgment (20xx) Chang Min Chu Zi No. *** issued by the *** People's Court of Liaoning Province and is now filing an appeal in accordance with the law.

Litigation request: Request to revoke the (20xx) Chang Min Chu Zi No. *** civil judgment issued by the *** People's Court of Liaoning Province and change the judgment in accordance with the law; the first and second instance litigation costs shall be borne by the appellee .

Facts and reasons:

1. The original judgment seriously violated legal procedures.

1. The plaintiff’s son *** was originally the director of the Enforcement Bureau of *** People’s Court and is now the department leader of Dalian Intermediate People’s Court. He is also the actual controller of this case (as of June 8, 20xx The IOU was also written by *** himself), and he and the original judge were colleagues, which affected the fair trial of this case. The original judge should have recused himself in accordance with the law, but he still did not recuse himself despite the defendant's request, and made a wrong judgment. According to the provisions of Article 170, Item 4 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 325, Item 2 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. The original judgment was a serious violation of legal procedures. Now the appellant once again applies to the Dalian Intermediate People's Court to withdraw from this appeal case and transfer the case to an intermediate people's court outside Dalian City for trial or to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court for trial.

2. The facts of the case are unclear, the relationship between rights and obligations is unclear, and even the relationship between the subjects is unclear. The dispute is also relatively large. The sole judge should not be applied. According to the "Working Rules for the Single Judge" , this case does not apply to the single trial system.

Therefore, the original judgment seriously violated legal procedures and unfairly violated the appellant’s procedural and substantive rights.

2. The basic factual errors found in the original judgment.

1. The original judgment found that "On June 8, 20xx, the defendant *** reached a loan agreement with the plaintiff *** due to capital turnover needs, and the defendant issued an IOU for the plaintiff." The appellant *** does not need funds for capital turnover, but because on February 9, 20xx, the appellant and the appellee’s son *** (signed by *** on the loan agreement) had a borrowing behavior. After that, ** * demanded the arrearage from the appellant. When the appellant was temporarily unable to repay, *** wrote a handwritten IOU and forced the appellant to sign. Therefore, the IOU dated June 8, 20xx was not signed between the appellant and the appellee, nor was it required for capital turnover, nor was it issued by the appellant.

2. "Thereafter, the defendant repaid the plaintiff a loan of 1.4 million yuan in four times through bank transfers" is wrong. The appellant *** repaid a loan of 1.5 million yuan to *** in five times.

3. The original judgment omitted important facts of the case, that is, the appellant actually only received a loan of 1.8 million yuan. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the appellee had delivered funds to the appellant, the original court went ahead and It was determined that the appellant borrowed 2.7 million yuan from the appellee, which clearly violated the rules of evidence and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on private lending.

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

3. Errors in the application of law in the original judgment

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 party outside the case *** There was no legal relationship with the appellee ***, but the court of first instance mistakenly determined that there was a loan relationship between the appellant and the appellee, which was without legal basis.

2. According to Article 210 of the "Contract Law": a loan contract between natural persons takes effect when the lender provides the loan. Also in accordance with Article 200 of the Contract Law. Refer to Article 27 of the "Regulations 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 calculated based on the amount actually received by the borrower. In this case, the appellant only actually received a loan of 1.8 million yuan.

3. According to Article 5 of the "Civil Evidence Rules" and at the National Civil Trial Work Conference held by the Supreme People's Court in 20xx, the requirements for the identification of evidence in private lending dispute cases were raised, and the form was flawed. As an "IOU", the lender shall bear the burden of proof that the money has been paid to the borrower. Also refer to the provisions of Article 16 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases"

In the absence of any evidence to prove that the appellee made any payment to the appellant, it is a clear violation of the law to make the appellant assume the liability of 2.7 million yuan in borrowing from the appellee.

In summary, the original judgment determined the basic facts incorrectly, the original judgment procedure was illegal, and the original judgment applied the law incorrectly. Therefore, the original judgment seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the appellant. The court of second instance is requested to fully ascertain the facts, administer justice in accordance with the law, and support the appellant’s appeal request.

Sincerely

***Intermediate People’s Court

Appellant:

Year Month Day