Lawyer Xu Bin: Our views are consistent

Before National Day, Lawyer Cui had a court session clash, and arranged for me to attend a court session in Zhengzhou. I didn't want to go.

This is not my first time in Zhengzhou this year. To be honest, I have some psychological shadows about Zhengzhou, which has something to do with my trip to Zhengzhou at the beginning of the year.

I met three groups of people.

The first group were owners of unfinished buildings who wanted to get their money back.

The second group were owners of Rongchuang City, a young couple, who wanted to get their money back.

The third group were owners of another unfinished building, who still wanted to get their money back.

The first two groups were at least wavering between taking possession and getting a refund. They would take possession if they could, and get a refund if they couldn't. The third group was very straightforward in wanting a refund. Not only did they want a refund, they were also action-oriented, having been in court for several years.

Indeed, they have been in court for several years, consecutively for 3 years since 2022.

One group after another, they fought on.

In 2022, they sued for a refund, but the court disagreed. The owners asked why they could get a refund in 2021 but not in 2022. The court said that this was to ensure the completion of the buildings and refunds were not allowed.

Besides Zhengzhou, there are unfinished buildings across the country for which refunds are not allowed due to the

After the adjournment, no one got up to leave.

The judge suddenly asked the audience, the owners of the auto trade city who came to observe the case, what is the current situation of this project?

One of the owners, a honest and straightforward middle-aged man, stood up and took out his mobile phone. On the phone were pictures of the house he bought. He had seen too many of these unfinished buildings over the years.

The judge asked when the house would be completed. The owners told the judge what they had seen and heard over the past two years, and the judge asked for the contact information of the special team leader.

I signed the transcript with the defendant's lawyer, and the judge called me out and asked for my opinion.

I said these people are too pitiful. Originally, they wanted to return the houses and terminate the loan contracts, but the timing was bad and it coincided with the "ensure delivery" policy, and for some reason, they were included. The civil procedure has now ended the first and second trials and is proceeding to retrial. There is no way out in the civil case, so they can only try their luck in the administrative case.

The defendant manages the bank and see if the loan can be suspended for these poor owners. The bank allowed them to suspend for a year last year, but now they are no longer offering the policy and insist on continued repayment. Recently, the state has also introduced a policy, and we will see if the interest rates can be lowered according to the policy to give the people some relief.

The judge meant the same thing. He found the defendant's lawyer and expressed this attitude.

The defendant did not rush to leave. The owners surrounded them, but there was no argument. These owners asked the defendant's lawyer how this matter should proceed.

The defendant's lawyer was also very cautious. He said, "In my personal opinion, you should terminate the contract, because this is not a residential property and should not be included in the 'ensure delivery' policy."

In a courtroom, the judge, plaintiffs, defendants, audience, and clerk all had the same opinion. However, why couldn't this group of people do the right thing?

Because the people who can do the right thing are not in this room.

Leaving the court, while waiting for the car, I looked back at the courthouse building and saw a slogan hanging there. The slogan read:

Let the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.

I seemed to feel fairness and justice, and yet I didn't.