they still break up due to various reasons. March 2009

旅客将达个

Fangchenggang engaged in self-employed Mr. Huang, after 2002 with his wife divorced in 2003 and Miss Lee engaged in apparel sales in Qinzhou met and love. Because there have been a failed marriage, Mr. Huang contrast their own much smaller Miss Lee love with Canada, almost responsive. From April 2005 to February 2008, Mr. Huang had six points through bank payments to Miss Lee, a total of 56,600 yuan. In addition, Ms. Li Xiang Huang total borrowings 71,400 yuan. In early 2009, they still break up due to various reasons. March 2009, Mr. Huang Qinnan district court to require the return of 128,000 yuan Miss Lee.
Living together non-borrowing
Qinnan District Court held that the plaintiff and the defendant during cohabitation,http://www.gakkai.ne.jp/jses/2013/06/27192656.php, the defendant paid the plaintiff the money, the plaintiff claims that the borrower, but the defendant to pay the plaintiff considered mutual life. From the evidence reflected by the plaintiff to the defendant bank transfer 56,http://hyougosoap.s102.xrea.com/cgi/j/j.cgi?mode=res&no=3549,600 yuan bank card,http://www.grunen.com,louboutin femme pas cher, the defendant can only confirm receipt of these funds the plaintiff, because the two sides of love and living together for many years, does not exclude the plaintiff to the defendant to pay living expenses, it can not confirm the borrower . November 9, 2007 and October 30, 2008 the defendant to the plaintiff borrow 20,000 yuan and 1400 yuan,moncler uomo, and issued a promissory note, a clear relationship between the borrower, the borrower should be recognized. Paid by May 21, 2007 $ 50,000, although the defendant wrote a promissory note, but IOU content which reflects There are two sides, which illustrates the plaintiff agreed to by both parties to use, given that the defendant was also in the process of living together actual expenditures, the hospital should consider appropriate deductions, with local living standards are reasonable deductions 25,parajumpers paris,000 yuan, 25,000 yuan remaining defendant, the plaintiff should be returned. In summary, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay 128,http://www.shhxrc.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=243515,000 yuan, 46,400 yuan to support the hospital,louboutin homme pas cher, and the remaining 81,600 yuan is not supported. Hospital verdict: defendant Miss Lee Wong plaintiff repay borrowings 46,400 yuan.
After the verdict, the plaintiff Huang refused to accept the Qinzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Appeal. They think that living in a different city,http://onigdesign.com/error.html, there is no common living expenses. And provide evidence of individual industrial and commercial households license and rental contracts, etc., to prove their residence in Fangchenggang.
Empty rumor, according to Li word
Qinzhou City Intermediate People's Court hearing that Miss Lee Wong and love that period, by the bank to pay 128,000 yuan Miss Lee. Which paid 56,http://www.365kl.net/home.php?mod=spacecp&ac=blog&blogid=,600 yuan to Miss Lee, Miss Lee did not stand to write IOUs, and Ms. Lee also denied that this section is borrowed, and argue that once a voluntary gift to her, had advocated a loan,http://pcbbbs.net/read.php?tid=468/read.php?tid=468, but failed to provide evidence to confirm , it will not be supported. Miss Lee wrote IOU confirm Mr. Xiang Huang Li borrowing a total of 71,400 yuan,doudoune moncler soldes, for this section, shall be returned to Miss Lee. Miss Lee Wong and live in different cities, they love only occasionally during cohabitation, foreign not live together as husband and wife, so there is no need to bear the expenses Huang two lives. Miss Lee Mr. Xiang Huang Li wrote IOU greater evidence of effectiveness, of First Instance found the two were living together and deductions are incorrect,http://dnsxp.net/biguo/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1607867, should be corrected. It is lawful judgment: Miss Lee Wong repay borrowings 71,400 yuan.
According to "Qinzhou Daily"