In a recent case, the people's court of west lake district, nanchang city, jiangxi province, concluded a dispute over the right of recourse for money. One of the plaintiff's footwear companies exercised its right of recourse in accordance with the law against an engineering company of the bidder, a trading company of the paper debtor and required the two defendants to bear the costs of the preservation guarantee for the action. The court dismissed the claim by the plaintiff's shoe company on the grounds that the costs of preserving the security had been unlawfully set and were not reasonably necessary。
After trial, it was found that the plaintiff, a shoe company, had been given an electronic commercial bill of exchange by endorsement from an engineering company for business reasons, indicating that the invoice was for a trading company, the payee was for an engineering company, and that the bill of exchange was due on 22 august 2020. The present bill of exchange is requested to be accepted and paid unconditionally; and the present bill of exchange is due and payable unconditionally. Transferability: transferable. On 10 august 2020, the plaintiff advised the payer before the due date and on 27 august 2020 the payment was refused. The instrument is in the form of a reminder that payment has been refused (receivable recovery, recoverable owner). In order to obtain redress for the claim, the plaintiff, a shoe company, filed a claim in court against the two defendants for the sum of $100,000 and interest in combination. In addition, it was found that the plaintiff's shoe company had applied to the court for the preservation of the property in the suit, and had seized, in accordance with the law, 100,000 yuan in the bank deposits of the two defendants or seized and seized the property of their corresponding value, at a cost of 500 yuan for the security costs of applying for a guarantee letter from the guarantor company。
In the court's view, the controversy in the present case focused on how to cover the cost of the guarantee of $500 for an application for a guarantee letter from the sponsoring company. Since preservation of the proceedings is not necessary in every proceeding, preservation of the applicant may take the form of reliable security either in cash, immovable property, movable property or by third parties. As a result, the costs incurred by one of the plaintiff's shoe companies in financing security for the application for the preservation of the property were neither within the scope of the statutory costs of litigation, nor were they reasonably necessary, and the parties had not agreed on the costs, so the plaintiff's shoe company's claim was not supported by any factual or legal basis。
On this basis, the court handed down its judgement in accordance with the law. Following the entry into force of the judgement, the original accused pleaded guilty to the sentence。
