Foshan citizens travel by 400 thousand margin but after returning to claim back to no availwww.66bobo.com

Foshan citizens travel by 400 thousand margin but after returning to reclaim the fruit of Foshan daily news reporter Zhou Longfeng correspondent Chan Xuan reports: travel back 400 thousand yuan from abroad, but not to recover the deposit. Foshan Chen anger will receive its deposit Huang and other three defendants to court, asking for refund of 400 thousand yuan. Reporters learned yesterday, Chancheng court verdict Hwang returned 396460 yuan and interest. Last September 25th, bank executives Mr. Chen to find colleagues wife Huang signed up tours, and signed the group travel contract with a travel agency, Mr. Chen and his parents agreed in October 11, 2015 to 21 days ago to Germany, Austria, Switzerland travel 11 days, after the discount tourist fare plus the total premium of 47997 yuan (travel agency the original price of 51537 yuan fare), another charge of 400 thousand yuan deposit. Due to the trust of colleagues, Mr. Chen, according to Huang requirements, has four times to pay 340 thousand yuan deposit to the Yellow account. Since then, according to Huang, to colleagues of the accounts to pay membership fee and deposit 107997 yuan. After returning from the tour, Mr. Chen returned 400 thousand yuan deposit to Hwang, but Hwang made excuses for various reasons and delayed his return. After several times of fruitless recovery, Mr. Chen sued Huang, his colleagues and a travel agency to court and asked for a refund of the 400 thousand performance bond. The travel agency argued that the only charge Mr. Chen’s travel fare, according to Mr. Chen of the work units to provide security, the travel agency that doesn’t need to charge any deposit, so never issued any notice required to pay the deposit to Mr. Chen, have not received any travel or other expenses margin. But Huang said no objection to Mr. Chen of the prosecution, said he is a temporary staff travel agency, the margin charged things, travel agents and colleagues were not informed. And colleagues said, Hwang is indeed in the travel agency, also holds travel agency work certificate, but he is not clear whether the two sides signed labor contracts. Chancheng court after hearing that, Mr. Chen and travel agency signed the "contract" in the tour group, did not need to pay the deposit agreement, Huang travel agency is not stipulated in the contract signing of authorized representative, and there is no relationship between the labor contract and Hwang admitted its travel agency, the travel agency did not give yellow a charge power margin. Therefore, the court held that Huang to Chen to collect metal guarantee in personal behavior, should be borne by Hwang personal responsibility to return. After verification, Huang Chen to ensure the amount of money collected should be 396460 yuan, 51537 yuan for the rest of the membership fee and insurance. Accordingly, Chancheng court Hwang Mr. Chen to return the deposit and interest 396460 yuan, while the debt occurred in Huang and colleagues during the existence of the husband and wife, colleagues bear joint liability. Editor in chief: GDN002

佛山市民出境游被收40万保证金 回国后却索回无果   佛山日报讯 记者周龙凤通讯员禅法宣报道:国外旅游回来,40万元出境履约保证金却追讨不回。佛山陈先生怒将收取其保证金的黄某等三被告告上法庭,要求退还40万元。记者昨日获悉,禅城法院依法判决黄某返还396460元及利息。   去年9月25日,银行高管陈先生找同事老婆黄某报名旅行团,并与某旅行社签订出境旅游组团合同,约定陈先生及其父母在2015年10月11日至21日前往德国、奥利地、瑞士旅游11天,折后的旅游团费加保险费共计为47997元(旅行社原价团费为51537元),另收取履约保证金40万元。   出于对同事的信任,陈先生按黄某要求,先后分四次向黄某账户支付保证金34万元。此后,又按黄某要求,向同事的账户支付团费及保证金107997元。旅游回来后,陈先生找黄某退还40万元保证金,但黄某以各种理由推诿,迟迟不退还。   多次追讨无果后,陈先生将黄某、同事、某旅行社告上法庭,要求退还40万履约保证金。   该旅行社辩称,仅收取陈先生的旅游团费,根据陈先生所在工作单位提供的担保,旅行社认为不需要另外收取任何保证金,所以从未向陈先生发出任何需支付保证金的通知,也未收取任何旅游保证金或其他费用。   而黄某则表示对陈先生的起诉无异议,称自己是旅行社的临时员工,收取保证金的事情,旅行社及同事均不知情。而同事表示,黄某的确是在该旅行社工作,也持有旅行社工作证,但他不清楚双方是否签订劳动合同。   禅城法院经审理认为,陈先生与旅行社签订的《旅游组团合同》中,并未约定需缴纳保证金,黄某也不是旅行社在合同中所约定的授权签约代表人,且黄某承认其与旅行社之间不存在劳动合同关系,旅行社更未赋予黄某收取保证金的权力。因此,法院认定黄某向陈先生收取保证金属于个人行为,应由黄某个人承担返还责任。经核实,黄某向陈先生实际收取的保证金额应为396460元,其余的51537元实为团费和保险费。   据此,禅城法院判决黄某向陈先生返还保证金396460元及利息,而此项债务发生在黄某与同事夫妻存续期间,故同事承担连带清偿责任。 责任编辑: GDN002相关的主题文章: