Capital Increase Dispute 

· Source： Cases from the Supreme People’s Court Gazettes 

· Instrument Type： Judgment

· Source：SPC Gazette,Issue 8,2017

· Procedural status： Other

· Judgment date：12-19-2016

· Type of Dispute： Company, Securities, Insurance, Bills, etc. 

Sun Baorong v. Yang Huanxiang and Langfang Yujing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd.(capital increase dispute)
[Judgment Abstract]
As the documentary evidence and direct evidence of payment of money between parties involved, a receipt serves, to a certain extent, to prove the fact of payment of money between parties involved. But if the content indicated on the receipt differs from the actual time and amount of payment, making it impossible to sufficiently prove the money actually paid and received only with the receipt, the people's court shall, in combination with the money order, documents and other settlement vouchers, comprehensively determine whether or not the amount as stated in the receipt is actually paid and received.
Equity transfer is the derivative acquisition of equity and capital increase for equity is the original acquisition of equity. After parties involved agree to change the way of acquiring the equity from equity transfer to capital increase, the original equity transfer contract is superseded by the subsequent contract of capital increase for equity and terminates. According to the dependent feature of the deposit contract, the deposit contract shall also be extinguished as the collateral contract of the original equity transfer contract, and punitive rules for deposits shall no longer apply.
Full-text Omitted.