Investment relationship nominally but borrowing and lending relationship in fact

基本案情：

     被告因資金周轉(zhuǎn)困難，向原告提出借款30萬(wàn)元，并許諾事成后高額回報(bào)，在原告對(duì)其轉(zhuǎn)賬20萬(wàn)時(shí)又要求原告?zhèn)渥ⅰ巴顿Y”，原告轉(zhuǎn)賬后，被告不肯出具借條，卻要求要與原告簽訂一份出資30萬(wàn)元的合伙投資協(xié)議，并告訴原告，這個(gè)比借條更有效果，原告沒(méi)有多想就簽了字，簽訂日期為2016年10月7日。不久原告又以現(xiàn)金借給被告10萬(wàn)元，被告在原告的堅(jiān)持下出具了10萬(wàn)元的借條。一年有，原告向被告催要包括20萬(wàn)元在內(nèi)的出借款項(xiàng)。被告20萬(wàn)元的投資期限三年，還有兩年就到期了，虧損不需要原告承擔(dān)，獲利會(huì)按比例分給原告，雙方于是就此訂立了第二份投資協(xié)議。到期后，被告只還了有借條的款項(xiàng)2萬(wàn)元，對(duì)20萬(wàn)投資款以虧損為由拒不返還。原告起訴到法院，要求被告歸還剩余款項(xiàng)28萬(wàn)元。

Basic case：

    The defendant borrowed 300 thousand yuan from the plaintiff in October 2016, he asked her to remarked investment when she remitted him through bank, after he received 200 thousand yuan, he wasn’t glad to write iou but persuaded her to sign a partnership investment agreement on October seventh 2016, therein she must invest 300 thousand yuan. Subsequently when she gave him 100 thousand yuan in cash, he still didn’t want to write iou and asserted that was included in the investment fund provided by her, finally he wrote the iou of 100 thousand yuan because of her insistence.

     A year later when she asked him to repay the 200 thousand yuan fund, he said the partnership investment agreement would be executed in two years and ensured that she didn’t assume any loss but could share the profit proportionally, she said let’s write the content into a new agreement, then they negotiated another partnership investment agreement. After the expiration of the agreement, he didn’t repay her any investment fund except 20 thousand yuan of iou. She brought a litigation against him for 280 thousand yuan in the basic court, after the court convicted him of repaying her 280 thousand yuan capital and relative interest, he appealed to the intermediate court, the appellate court affirmed the first trial verdict.

不利因素：

    1.原告與被告簽訂了投資協(xié)議，20萬(wàn)元很可能被認(rèn)定為投資款。

    2.原告轉(zhuǎn)賬20萬(wàn)元是備注為“投資”，該部分款項(xiàng)的法律關(guān)系更有可能被認(rèn)定為投資關(guān)系而不是借貸關(guān)系。

Unfavorable factors：

    1. After she lent him 200 thousand yuan, she negotiated a partnership agreement with him.

    2. When she remitted him 200 thousand yuan, she remarked investment in accordance with his suggestion.

抗辯思路：

     合伙合同是兩個(gè)以上合伙人為了共同的事業(yè)目的，訂立的共享利益、共擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的協(xié)議。合伙法律關(guān)系最為核心的法律特征即合伙人共享利益、共擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在本案中，雙方明確表示，被上訴人不參與經(jīng)營(yíng)，只參與利益分配，不承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，這已經(jīng)不符合合伙法律關(guān)系的特征，卻更符合民間借貸的特征。

Coping strategies：

    Because she wasn’t required to assume any risk according to the partnership investment agreement, the legal relationship between them wasn’t consistent with characteristic of the investment than borrowing and lending, there’s a borrowing and lending relationship between them in fact.

判決結(jié)果：

     20萬(wàn)的款項(xiàng)法院認(rèn)為是借款而不是投資款，故判決被告返還原告28萬(wàn)元借款和相應(yīng)的利息。

Judgement or consequence：

    The basic and intermediate courts all affirmed the 200 thousand yuan was loan rather than investment fund.