Original link: https://www.williamlong.info/archives/7129.html
Six years ago, there was a piece of news that caused a sensation on the Internet—41 days after the flash marriage, because his wife Zhai Xinxin demanded tens of millions of property, the IT husband Su Xiangmao was forced to leave a public suicide note on the Internet and committed suicide by jumping off the building.
In 2018, Su Xiangmao’s family took Zhai Xinxin to court, asking the court to revoke Su Xiangmao’s gift worth nearly 10 million yuan, and demanded that the other party return nearly 1 million yuan in cash.
On April 5, 2023, the reporter learned that the case was pronounced in the People’s Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing on March 31. The first-instance judgment ruled that Zhai Xinxin should return Su Xiangmao’s family in cash and cars totaling nearly 10 million yuan, and revoke Zhai Xinxin’s two properties in Hainan and Beijing. personal ownership.
Six years after the incident, the verdict of the first instance was pronounced: Zhai Xinxin refunded the money, returned the car and checked out
The incident time of this case, that is, the time of Su Xiangmao’s death, was September 7, 2017, less than 6 months after the two met.
The reporter learned that in this case, judgments were made on the gift contract dispute between Su and Zhai and the property dispute after divorce.
The judgment of the case of gift contract disputes shows that according to the facts found in the trial, Zhai Xinxin and Su Xiangmao only met for more than 110 days until they agreed to divorce. feature.
Zhai Xinxin coerced Su Xiangmao in order to obtain high compensation in the divorce. He did not take into account Su Xiangmao’s original intention of donating property to him, wishing to live with him, and maintaining the relationship, as well as Su Xiangmao’s subjective feelings and objective economic conditions under duress. important factor in suicide. Zhai Xinxin and Su Xiangmao’s marriage and love, and the large amount of pre-marital and post-marital property received as gifts for the purpose of increasing their own property are all within the scope of revocation.
According to this judgment, Zhai Xinxin needs to return a Tesla car worth about 1.08 million yuan to Su Xiangmao’s family; return Cartier’s diamond ring and necklace worth more than 300,000 yuan; and refund a total of more than 1.86 million yuan in transfers.
According to the judgment of the post-divorce property dispute case, Zhai Xinxin used coercive means during the divorce process to make Su Xiangmao fall into fear and make an involuntary expression of will, which conforms to the legal characteristics of revocable behavior.
Therefore, the two agreements in the “Divorce Agreement” signed by Su Xiangmao and Zhai Xinxin on July 18, 2017 are revoked, that is, “after the divorce, the man unconditionally cooperates with the woman to go to the relevant department in Sanya, Hainan to sign and handle the transfer procedures of the house ownership to the woman. If the man does not cooperate, he will compensate the woman 3 million in liquidated damages” and “The man voluntarily compensates the woman 10 million yuan in cash in one lump sum. The man voluntarily compensates the woman 10 million yuan in cash in one lump sum. The man made an initial payment of 6.6 million yuan, which has been paid. The remaining amount shall be issued by the man to the woman face-to-face with an arrears certificate of 3.4 million yuan, and shall be paid in one lump sum within 120 days after receiving the divorce certificate. If the man refuses to pay or delays payment after the signing of this agreement, the woman shall be compensated 10 yuan for each day of delayed payment. liquidated damages of RMB 10,000.”
Accordingly, Zhai Xinxin had to return 6.6 million yuan to Su Xiangmao’s family.
In addition, the court ruled that Zhai Xinxin’s personal ownership of the two houses in Hainan and Beijing should be revoked.
The reporter contacted Zhai Xinxin’s previous lawyer, Yi Shenghua, who said that he had terminated the agency relationship with Zhai Xinxin in 2018. The reporter then contacted both parties in the case. As of press time, neither Zhai Xinxin nor Su Xiangmao’s family had responded.
Retrospect of the case: 41 days after the flash marriage, the IT software founder committed suicide
Zhai Xinxin accepted an exclusive interview with reporters on July 13, 2018. In this interview, Zhai Xinxin presented for the first time the whole story of the 160 days from acquaintance to divorce to Su Xiangmao’s choice of suicide.
In the early hours of September 7, 2017, Su Xiangmao, the founder of the mobile app wephone, jumped to his death and left a suicide note stating that the suicide was related to his ex-wife Zhai Xinxin.
According to his suicide note, on March 30, 2017, the two met through an online marriage website, received a certificate on June 7, divorced on July 16, and went through divorce procedures on the 18th. Su Xiangmao once mentioned in his suicide note that “the capital chain is broken, and I am desperate.” Therefore, Zhai Xinxin demanded 10 million as divorce compensation, which led to the break of Su Xiangmao’s capital chain, which is generally believed to be one of the reasons for “driving” Su Xiangmao to death.
In this regard, Zhai Xinxin said in an interview with reporters five years ago: “After the divorce, Su Xiangmao actively implemented the divorce agreement, did notarization, and asked me to provide credit information and other complaints submitted by the plaintiff. Su’s sister was born on August 17, 2017 He learned about Su’s divorce on 20 August 2017 and came to Beijing with Su’s brother around August 20, 2017. According to media interviews, (Su’s brother and sister) terminated Su Xiangmao’s loan plan after arriving in Beijing. “
Based on this, Zhai Xinxin believes that the claim made by Su Xiangmao’s family that “Zhai Xinxin made Su Xiangmao live in fear by threatening the gray area of the wephone software, thus causing Su Xiangmao to commit suicide” is not valid.
Source: Red Star News
This article is transferred from: https://www.williamlong.info/archives/7129.html
This site is only for collection, and the copyright belongs to the original author.