Core Viewpoint - The Hubei Provincial High Court ruled that there is no legal relationship of private lending between the lender and the platform Jiufu Puhui, and thus the platform is not liable for repayment [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Relationship - The court determined that the relationship between the lender and Jiufu Puhui is a brokerage service contract rather than a private lending relationship [3][4]. - The agreement signed between the lender and Jiufu Puhui clearly states that Jiufu Puhui acts solely as an information intermediary and is not a borrower or guarantor [4][5]. Group 2: Evidence and Claims - The lender's claims regarding the funds not entering a bank custody account were found to lack factual basis and were not accepted by the court [4]. - Jiufu Puhui argued that the repayment guarantee measures were provided by third-party institutions, not by the platform itself, which aligns with regulatory definitions of information intermediaries [2][5]. Group 3: Implications for Lenders - In the context of P2P lending, the determination of whether the platform is a debtor directly affects the lender's ability to recover funds [6]. - Lenders facing repayment difficulties should clarify the true debtor-creditor relationship and pursue claims against the actual borrower, rather than the platform [6].

在P2P网贷纠纷中，平台是否属于债务人、与出借人之间是否存在债权债务关系，这个问题直接决定了 网贷出借人应当起诉谁。对于合规经营的P2P平台而言，其法律定位一般为信息中介，与出借人之间形 成的是中介合同关系，而非民间借贷关系。因此，在此类情况下，出借人向平台主张还款责任往往缺乏 事实与法律依据。近日，湖北省某中级人民法院在审理一起出借人起诉玖富普惠平台的案件时，也明确 认定双方不构成民间借贷关系，玖富平台不承担还款责任，并据此驳回了出借人的再审申请。 关于争议焦点二，湖北省中院认为，现有证据表明案涉借款合同中的还款保障措施均明确指向由第三方 保险公司或担保公司提供，玖富公司仅作为信息中介与相关方合作引入此类服务，其与出借人签订的协 议亦明确排除自身提供担保的承诺；依据《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规 定》第二十二条第一款，网络贷款平台仅提供媒介服务时，出借人请求其承担担保责任于法无据，故一 审判决认定玖富公司承担担保责任错误，应予纠正。最终湖北省中院裁定，玖富公司与熊某之间属于居 间服务合同关系关系，且不承担担保责任，驳回熊某的诉讼请求。 相关诉讼案由： 出借人熊某与玖富普惠平台民间合同 ...