A set of pledged furniture sold

49-year-old Chen in Xiuyu District, Putian City work. One day in November 2013, a business friend to find Chen, said the cash flow difficulties, would like to borrow money. Chen said he had no money on hand, but promised to help a friend to raise. Chen to find friends Ma, November 15, 2013 to Ma named borrowing 4 million yuan, agreed monthly interest rate of 2%, the loan period of 1 year. January 17, 2014, Chen and Ma from the loan 3 million yuan, monthly interest rate of 2%, did not agree on the loan period.3 months later, Chen and Ma signed a mortgage receipt of both sides, Chen set of 5 sets of mahogany furniture to provide a pledge. The two sides agreed that if Chen can not pay off more than the mortgage period, Ma has the right to deal with all the collateral, sales or auction, the proceeds to repay the principal and interest arrears. If insufficient to repay the arrears, Chen still need to repay the borrowing balance, if more than the amount of debt, Ma returned by the amount of money. At the same time, also agreed repayment period is July 27, 2015 only.However, the repayment period to, Chen did not return the debt owed in accordance with the contract in a timely manner. August 28, 2015, Ma will pledge the mahogany to 310 million price sold to the outsider Hwang. Chen know, the feeling of furniture was cheap, refused to pay the remaining loans. Ma to discuss the remaining 4.3798 million yuan, in the same year on September 15 to the court proceedings."Although the IOU is to write 700 million, but I only received cash and transfer 6.42 million yuan, should be based on the actual loan amount to determine the amount of repayment." In the trial, Chen strongly stressed. The two sides in addition to the amount of borrowing differences, the biggest contradiction lies in the value of mahogany furniture in the end geometry. Chen believes that the value of their mahogany 5 sets of far more than 3.1 million yuan, and provide a form of asset evaluation to prove that the actual value of mahogany furniture involved 629.63 yuan. Chen Ma that the market price much lower than the price of the collateral to sell to others, and did not provide the sale of the contract, there is suspicion of malicious collusion, and presumably own mahogany furniture has not been really sold.After the trial evidence cross-examination, the court accepted the two sides borrowed the amount of borrowing that is 700 million. Ma also argued in the trial, pointed out that the contents of the mahogany furniture to provide the replacement value, not the market value, and the Department of Chen unilateral commission, the program is not legitimate. And proposed that if the behavior of their own sale of Chen disagree, it should be filed separate proceedings. After the trial, the court found that Ma only requested the return of part of the arrears of Chen, is entitled to dispose of their rights and interests, shelved controversy legitimate and reasonable, may be sighted. Mahogany furniture pledge for the issue, the court held that Ma asked not to deal with, and the case is not the same legal relationship, not the case and processing, Chen can claim another. Accordingly, the court ruled that the need to return a loan of 4.3798 million yuan Ma, and the annual interest rate of 24% calculated interest during the occupation of funds. Chen refused to accept, to the Putian City Intermediate People 's Court of Appeal, due to the failure to pay the legal costs, according to withdraw the lawsuit.