•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What began as a small credit-card loan of just over 11 million đồng grew over time into a nearly 188 million đồng obligation, after the borrower stopped repaying and interest and fees continued to accrue.
In 2008, Mr. T. signed a credit-card agreement with a commercial joint-stock bank. The card had a limit of 15 million đồng and was issued on an unsecured basis based on income. The interest rate applied followed the bank’s credit-card rate at the time.
After receiving the card, Mr. T. used it for expenditures and partially repaid. The total principal repaid amounted to more than 3.8 million đồng. However, from around 2010, due to business losses, he was unable to continue paying.
By the end of 2014, the bank transferred the outstanding balance to overdue debt. Thereafter, interest and fees continued to accumulate. As of the time of the first-instance trial (July 2022), the total amount Mr. T. had to repay to the bank approached 188 million đồng.
According to the case record, the components of the debt included:
The bank said it had notified Mr. T. several times to pay the credit-card debt, but he did not comply.
In the first-instance judgment, the People’s Court of District P accepted all of the bank’s requests. It ordered Mr. T. to pay the full amount of nearly 188 million đồng at once, while continuing to accrue interest until fully paid. Mr. T. disagreed and appealed the entire first-instance judgment.
At the appellate hearing, Mr. T.’s representative argued that the first-instance court violated serious procedural delivery requirements, including checks on service of delivery, access to case materials, public disclosure of evidence, mediation, and the conduct of the trial.
The representative stated that Mr. T. and his representative did not receive procedural documents served by the District Court of P and did not know how to exercise their rights. Only after the case reached the appellate court did the defendant gain access to the file and learn that the service and posting procedures did not comply with regulations.
The Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Ho Chi Minh City also noted that the first instance violated service-of-process rules under the Civil Procedure Code, seriously affecting the defendant’s rights.
The appellate panel concluded that the service records in the file did not meet legal requirements. In cases where the recipient is absent, delivery must be confirmed by a relative or local authorities or must be posted openly according to proper procedures; these steps were not properly carried out.
The appellate court determined the error was serious and irreparable at the appellate level. It accepted Mr. T.’s appeal, overturned the first-instance verdict in full, and returned the case to the District Court of P for retrial.
The court also noted that Mr. T. bore partial fault for changing residence without informing the court, which complicated service of process.
Because the first-instance verdict was overturned, Mr. T. was not required to pay appellate court fees. He was refunded 300,000 đồng of the appellate filing fee already paid.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
