đá bóng trực tiếpCassation judgment No. 05/2008/DS-GDT dated April 3, 2008 regarding dispute over borrowing contract

đá bóng trực tiếp SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION JUDGMENT NO. 05/2008/DS-GDT DATED APRIL 3, 2008 REGARDING DISPUTE OVER BORROWING CONTRACT

On April 3, 2008, đá bóng trực tiếp cassation trial was conducted at đá bóng trực tiếp office of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to hear đá bóng trực tiếp civil case of dispute over borrowing contract between:

Plaintiff:

Mr. Nguyen Quang Thuat, born in 1964, residing at 217 Le Duan, Hanoi city.

Defendant:

1. Mr. Soudent Thavixay, born in 1947, nationality: Thailand and Laos;

2. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Hoa - Mr. Soudent Thavixay’s wife), born in 1976;

Both residing at 12-22-34 Lot I, Cong Vi ward (now is 16, alley 71, Linh Lang neighborhood, Cong Vi ward, Ba Dinh district, Hanoi city; represented by Mr. Vu Quang Huy (Letter of Authorization dated December 22, 2004).

DEEMING THAT

Representation of Mr. Nguyen Quang Thuat in đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit petition dated November 1, 2004 and during đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit settlement:

In 1990, he and Mr. Soudent Thavixay (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Soudent) have known each other through business, since then đá bóng trực tiếp relationship between them became closer as brothers. Since 1995, Mr. Soudent was in desperate need of capital for real estate business and investment in a number of big projects (such as: đá bóng trực tiếp joint venture to manufacture automobile and motorbike parts in Van Lam - Hung Yen, đá bóng trực tiếp Ha Long Dream hotel joint venture in Quang Ninh) so he persuaded Mr. Thuat to invest, but Mr. Thuat did not agree. He raised capital and lent money to Mr. Soudent several times but cash receipt was not always made every time đá bóng trực tiếp money was lent. On August 18, 2000, at đá bóng trực tiếp private house of Mr. Soudent, to confirm and aggregate loans that had been granted, he and Mr. Soudent made a “Debt Acknowledgment Letter” specifying that: Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa borrowed him VND 19.200.000.000 and USD 550.000 and committed to repay them before October 30, 2000; Mr. Soudent, on behalf of Mr. Hoa, sign đá bóng trực tiếp Letter in front of him; Mr. Soudent and Mr. Soudent’s wife and he unanimously cancel all debt acknowledgment letters made previously and consider this “Debt Acknowledgment Letter” as đá bóng trực tiếp only letter which is valid for payment purpose.

When đá bóng trực tiếp payment was due, he requested many times but Mr. Soudent did not repay and gave đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De, Hanoi as payment of đá bóng trực tiếp debt and promised to complete paperwork to transfer đá bóng trực tiếp house to him. After that, he repaired đá bóng trực tiếp house and moved here. Mr. Soudent, however, did not complete paperwork to transfer đá bóng trực tiếp house to him and denied that he gave đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De as payment of đá bóng trực tiếp debt. On August 1, 2003, Soudent filed a lawsuit reclaiming đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De, stating that Mr. Thuat was staying in đá bóng trực tiếp house of Mr. Soudent as a free-rent shelter.  During đá bóng trực tiếp time đá bóng trực tiếp court resolved đá bóng trực tiếp case of đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De, he often went on business, so it was not possible to present đá bóng trực tiếp issues related to đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De given as payment of đá bóng trực tiếp debt as well as đá bóng trực tiếp debt of VND 19,200,000,000 and USD 550,000 that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa owed him.

đá bóng trực tiếp date of “Debt Acknowledgment Letter” is đá bóng trực tiếp date after Mr. Soudent returned to Vietnam from aboard; đá bóng trực tiếp two parties agreed to take đá bóng trực tiếp due date of previous Debt Acknowledgment Letter which is August 18, 2000 (đá bóng trực tiếp previous Debt Acknowledgment Letter date is from June 18, 2000 to August 18, 2000) for continuation of đá bóng trực tiếp repayment schedule as đá bóng trực tiếp basis for due date October 30, 2000. He did not notice đá bóng trực tiếp date of debt acknowledgment letter is August 18, 2000, but only paid attention to đá bóng trực tiếp repayment of Mr. Soudent.

On November 18, 2000 (đá bóng trực tiếp date on which đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter was actually made), Mr. Soudent also signed a “Commitment to Repay Letter", specifying that Mr. Soudent confirmed đá bóng trực tiếp above Debt Acknowledgment Letter and committed to repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt as soon as possible; and in order to prove đá bóng trực tiếp commitment, Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa agreed to give đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De to him as payment of đá bóng trực tiếp debt and would complete paperwork to transfer đá bóng trực tiếp house to him if Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa default on đá bóng trực tiếp debt.

Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa's long-term debt (from 1995 to 2000) was indicated in "Debt Acknowledgment Letter" and "Commitment to Repay Letter," but they have not paid đá bóng trực tiếp debt yet.  So, he asked đá bóng trực tiếp court to force Mr. Soudent to pay him đá bóng trực tiếp principal and interest in accordance with đá bóng trực tiếp law; furthermore, to distil and distribute some of Soudent's existing assets such as distrain and liquidate a number of existing property of Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa such as:  đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De, Hanoi; đá bóng trực tiếp house I12, I22, I34, Cong Vi ward, Ba Dinh district, Hanoi city to ensure đá bóng trực tiếp trial and judgment enforcement.

Representation of đá bóng trực tiếp defendants Mr. Soudent Thavixay and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Tuyet Hoa (represented by Mr. Vu Quang Huy): đá bóng trực tiếp date of “Debt Acknowledgment Letter” is August 18, 2000, however, he was not present in Vietnam on that day. Mr. Thuat claims that Mr. Soudent used đá bóng trực tiếp seal of đá bóng trực tiếp BKS company, but he did not know this company. While working as a Director of Ha Long Dream Hotel Joint Venture Company, due to frequent travel missions, he bore his signature in some papers (without content therein) for staff to use them in đá bóng trực tiếp work.  Mr. Thuat is an employee of đá bóng trực tiếp company. He used some of papers which were already signed by him and then filled out đá bóng trực tiếp untrue content that Mr. Soudent had borrowed money from Mr. Thuat.

Using đá bóng trực tiếp same trick, Mr. Thuat forged "Commitment to Pay Letter" dated November 18, 2000 to take possession of his house 68 Mai Hac De. It is clear to say that Mr. Thuat forged such a commitment letter: đá bóng trực tiếp Commitment to Repay Letter was made on November 18, 2000, but Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa did not receive a certificate of ownership of đá bóng trực tiếp house until November 15, 2001, so they cannot bring đá bóng trực tiếp property not under their ownership as payment of đá bóng trực tiếp debt.

Mr. Thuat was an employee of Ha Long Dream Hotel Joint Venture Company. Due to closer relationship, he helped Mr. Thuat in his need and employed him to đá bóng trực tiếp company. At đá bóng trực tiếp time, Mr. Thuat had no house; before 2000, Mr. Thuat cannot have such a large amount of money to lend him. Mr. Thuat lost đá bóng trực tiếp case in đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit reclaiming đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De, so, he tried to forge documents to seize đá bóng trực tiếp house from him and his wife, his act shows signs of a criminal offence. Mr. Soudent asked to determine đá bóng trực tiếp origin of money that Mr. Thuat lent him, verify đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter and Commitment to Repay Letter, verify if BKS company exists. Furthermore, he and his wife denied all of requests of Mr. Thuat.

In đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Civil Judgment No. 54/DS-ST dated August 5, 2005, đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Hanoi City judged:

- Accepting Mr. Thuat's request reclaiming đá bóng trực tiếp debt from Mr. Soudent and Ms. Hoa; compelling Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa to pay đá bóng trực tiếp amount of VND 19.200.000.000 and USD 550.000 equivalent to VND 8.706.500.000.  And đá bóng trực tiếp interest: 19.200.000.000 VND x 56 months x 0,3% = 3.335.600.000 VND.  đá bóng trực tiếp total amount of Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa had to pay Mr. Thuat is VND 31.132.100.000.

- Since đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance trial date August 5, 2005, Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa may not sell đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De to ensure đá bóng trực tiếp judgment enforcement.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp judgment also determined đá bóng trực tiếp court fees and đá bóng trực tiếp right to appeal.

On August 8, 2005, Mr. Soudent appealed đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment on đá bóng trực tiếp ground that đá bóng trực tiếp court ordered him to repay debt under a fake Debt Acknowledgment Letter.

On August 15, 2005, Mr. Thuat filed an appeal, requesting đá bóng trực tiếp application of blockade of 12-22-334 Lot I, Co Vi, Ba Dinh, Hanoi of Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa to ensure fulfillment of obligations.

In đá bóng trực tiếp appellate civil judgment No.86/2006DSPTdated April 20, 2006, đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi judged:

- Accept đá bóng trực tiếp Mr. Thuat’s request for reclaiming debt against Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa represented by Mr. Quang Huy.

- Compelling Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa (represented by Mr. Huy) to repay Mr. Thuat đá bóng trực tiếp debt of amounting to VND 19.200.000.000 and USD 550.000 equivalent to VND 8.706.500.000 and interest equal VND 19.200.000.000 x 56 months x 0.3% = VND 3.225.600.000.  đá bóng trực tiếp total amount of Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa had to pay Mr. Thuat is VND 31.132.100.000.

- Since đá bóng trực tiếp date of đá bóng trực tiếp first instance trial (August 5, 2005), Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa have not been allowed to transfer đá bóng trực tiếp house ​​68 Mai Hac De, Hanoi and since đá bóng trực tiếp date of đá bóng trực tiếp appellate trial (April 20, 2006), Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa are not allowed to transfer đá bóng trực tiếp house ​​12,22,34, lot I, Cong Vi ward, Ba Dinh, Hanoi to ensure đá bóng trực tiếp judgment enforcement.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp judgment also determined đá bóng trực tiếp court fee.

After đá bóng trực tiếp appellate trial, Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa filed several claims requesting a review of đá bóng trực tiếp appellate judgment on đá bóng trực tiếp grounds that đá bóng trực tiếp court was incorrect when forcing him and his wife to repay Mr. Thuat while đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter and Commitment to Repay Letter are fake documents; he asked for his signature in đá bóng trực tiếp Commitment to Repay Letter to be verified but it had not been assessed; he also asked đá bóng trực tiếp origin of money that Mr. Thuat lent him; and what company that đá bóng trực tiếp BKS's seal belongs to?  He denied his signature in đá bóng trực tiếp Money Transfer Order dated August 21, 2000. đá bóng trực tiếp court was wrong when taking marital property between him and his wife for judgment enforcement while Mrs. Hoa was unrelated to đá bóng trực tiếp borrowing.

In đá bóng trực tiếp Appeal No. 236/2007/KN-DS dated December 28, 2007, đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Justice of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court appealed đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Judgment No. 86/2006/DSPT dated April 20, 2006 of đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Court of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi city and requested đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court in charge of cassation trial to quash đá bóng trực tiếp above Appellate Judgment and đá bóng trực tiếp First Instance Judgment No.37/2005/DSSTdated August 5, 2005 of People’s Court of Hanoi city, refer đá bóng trực tiếp case to People’s Court of Hanoi city for re-conduct đá bóng trực tiếp first instance trial as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.

At đá bóng trực tiếp cassation court hearing, representative of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Procuracy requests đá bóng trực tiếp Council of Judges of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court to accept đá bóng trực tiếp Appeal No. 236/2007/KN-DS dated December 28, 2007 of đá bóng trực tiếp Chief Justice of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court.

CONSIDERING THAT

Mr. Nguyen Quang Thuat declared that he and Mr. Soudent have had business relationship since 1990, from 1995 to 2000, Mr. Thuat lent money to Mr. Soudent for business purpose. Mr. Thuat presented a document with đá bóng trực tiếp title “Debt Acknowledgment Letter” dated August 18, 2000 with đá bóng trực tiếp signature of Mr. Soudent (bearing đá bóng trực tiếp seal of B.K.S International Co., Ltd., Bangkok Thailand), indicating that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa borrowed Mr. Thuat a sum of VND 19.200.000.000 and USD 550.000, due date: October 30, 2000. Furthermore, Mr. Thuat presented a document with đá bóng trực tiếp title “Commitment to Repay Letter” dated November 18, 2000 with đá bóng trực tiếp signature of Mr. Soudent, indicating that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa certified đá bóng trực tiếp borrowing and committed to repay đá bóng trực tiếp debt as soon as possible, and handed over đá bóng trực tiếp house as a security and complete đá bóng trực tiếp paperwork soon. Mr. Soudent claimed that he bore his signatures in a number of papers (without content) in order for staff to use in đá bóng trực tiếp work, Mr. Thuat, who was used to his employee, used these papers which were already signed by him and filled out untrue content that he had borrowed money from Mr. Thuat like Debt Acknowledgment Letter and Commitment to Repay Letter.

Both Debt Acknowledgment Letter dated August 18, 2000 and Commitment to Repay Letter dated November 18, 2000 are not document forms, only bear signature of Mr. Soudent, without a witness, and đá bóng trực tiếp seal affixed on đá bóng trực tiếp signature belongs to an unidentifiable company. đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter dated August 18, 2000 states that “…I hereby make and, on behalf of my wife, sign this document at our house, in a state of complete consciousness, without any force to certify đá bóng trực tiếp borrowing sum and due date as mentioned above..."; however, on this date, Mr. Soudent was not present in Vietnam (pursuant to đá bóng trực tiếp Official Dispatch No. 80/P2 dated March 11, 2005, Immigration Department affiliated to đá bóng trực tiếp Ministry of Public Security certifies that Mr. Soudent left Vietnam on August 15, 2000 and entered Vietnam on August 27, 2000). Mr. Thuat claimed that Mr. Soudent signed đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter after he returned to Vietnam, and đá bóng trực tiếp date August 18, 2000 stated in đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter was written for đá bóng trực tiếp continuity of time (rounding đá bóng trực tiếp debt period); however, Mr. Thuat did not produce evidence to prove that this explanation is grounded. On đá bóng trực tiếp other hand, đá bóng trực tiếp Commitment to Repay Letter dated November 18, 2000 states that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa handed over đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De to Mr. That as a security and would complete đá bóng trực tiếp transfer paperwork if Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa default on đá bóng trực tiếp debt; however, while đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Hanoi City and Appellate Court of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi city were hearing đá bóng trực tiếp case reclaiming đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De between Mr. Soudent, Mrs. Hoa and Mr. Thuat (in 2003 and 2004), Mr. Thuat did not present đá bóng trực tiếp Commitment to Repay Letter to request đá bóng trực tiếp court to compel đá bóng trực tiếp handover of đá bóng trực tiếp house as committed but still claimed that they gave đá bóng trực tiếp house 68 Mai Hac De to Mr. Thuat. đá bóng trực tiếp Commitment to Repay Letter was only be presented when Mr. Soudent protested that: on August 18, 2000, Mr. Soudent was not presented in Vietnam and Immigration Department affiliated to đá bóng trực tiếp Ministry of Public Security certified that Mr. Soudent left Vietnam on August 15, 2000 and entered Vietnam on August 27, 2000 in đá bóng trực tiếp Official Dispatch No. 80/P2 dated March 11, 2005. During đá bóng trực tiếp lawsuit settlement, Mr. Soudent asked for his signature United Nations đá bóng trực tiếp Money Transfer Order dated August 21, 2000 at đá bóng trực tiếp ANZ bank to be verified (Mr. Thuat presented this paper to prove that Mr. Soudent was presented in Vietnam on August 21, 2000), and verify what company that đá bóng trực tiếp seal in đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter belongs to; however, đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court and đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court failed to do so. Accordingly, it was ungrounded to prove that Mr. Thuat lent Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa VND 19.200.000.000 and USD 550.000 solely based on đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter dated August 18, 2000 and Commitment to Repay Letter dated November 18, 2000, and đá bóng trực tiếp signature of Mr. Soudent in đá bóng trực tiếp Money Transfer Order dated August 21, 2000.

With regard to đá bóng trực tiếp origin of money Mr. Thuat lent Mr. Soudent, he stated that a part of that sum of money was saved by him and his wife, a part was raised from his relatives (in which, his mother gave him more than 300 taels of gold and more than VND 100.000.000, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Chau and Mr. Nguyen Huu Ngoc, who have lived abroad, transferred him USD 500.000 and VND 5.000.000.000), and đá bóng trực tiếp remaining sum of money was borrowed from Mrs. Huong (VND 3.700.000.000, USD 25.000 and gold). Borrowing money and transferring foreign currency from abroad in such large amount, but he could not produce evidence documents; meanwhile, during đá bóng trực tiếp legal proceedings, Mr. Soudent requested verification of đá bóng trực tiếp origin of đá bóng trực tiếp money, but đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court and đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court failed to clarify them.

In addition, đá bóng trực tiếp Debt Acknowledgment Letter stated that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa used đá bóng trực tiếp borrowing sum of money to buy đá bóng trực tiếp house and deposited it to Vietcombank to wait for investment projects, but Mrs. Hoa did not sign đá bóng trực tiếp document; furthermore, there is no document showing that Mr. Soudent and Mrs. Hoa borrowed money for use in đá bóng trực tiếp general purpose of đá bóng trực tiếp family, but đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court and đá bóng trực tiếp appellate court compelling Mrs. Hoa to take joint debt liability with Mr. Soudent is incorrect.

From đá bóng trực tiếp above analysis, it is necessary to overrule đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment and đá bóng trực tiếp appellate judgment for first instance re-trial, in đá bóng trực tiếp direction of collecting more evidence to clarify đá bóng trực tiếp above contents, If Mr. Thuat cannot give extra proof of his petition, his request must be rejected.

After đá bóng trực tiếp appellate trial, on May 25, 2006 and January 5, 2007, đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi city has partially enforced đá bóng trực tiếp above-mentioned Appellate Judgment (đá bóng trực tiếp Civil Judgment Enforcement of Hanoi city has forcibly collected Soudent USD 8.906,82 at Bangkok Bank and sold đá bóng trực tiếp house at No. 68 Mai Hac De, Bui Thi Xuan Ward, Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi for 7.362.000.000 at auction); therefore, in đá bóng trực tiếp first instance re-trial, đá bóng trực tiếp first instance court should take đá bóng trực tiếp person who purchased đá bóng trực tiếp auction house 68 Mai Hac De to participate in proceedings as đá bóng trực tiếp person with related interests.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 2 Article 299 ofCode No. 92/2015/QH13 dated November 25th;

HEREBY DECIDES

1. Overrule đá bóng trực tiếp Appellate Civil Judgment No. 86/2006/DSPT dated April 20, 2006 of Appellate Court of đá bóng trực tiếp Supreme People’s Court of Hanoi city and First Instance Civil Judgment No. 37/2005/DSST dated August 5, 2005 of đá bóng trực tiếp People’s Court of Hanoi City regarding đá bóng trực tiếp dispute over borrowing contract between plaintiff-Mr. Nguyen Quang Thuat and defendant-Mr. Soudent Thavixay and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hoa.

2. Refer đá bóng trực tiếp case file to People’s Court of Hanoi City for re-conducting đá bóng trực tiếp first-instance trial as per đá bóng trực tiếp law.

Grounds for quashing đá bóng trực tiếp first instance judgment and appellate judgment:

There are insufficient grounds to conclude that whether a borrowing agreement between đá bóng trực tiếp defendant and đá bóng trực tiếp plaintiff exists as determined by đá bóng trực tiếp courts.