As reported by Lao Dong, on September 30, the People's Court of Region 7 declared the credit contract between VPBank and the customer (Mr. Tran Hong Son and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xuan Dao) invalid. According to the records, Mr. Son and Ms. Dao borrowed 3.65 billion VND from VPBank to buy a villa at the NovaWorld Phan Thiet project (in the old Binh Thuan province, now Lam Dong province), then delayed the payment and were sued by VPBank, demanding a total payment of more than 5.32 billion VND including principal and interest of the loan.
At the trial, after declaring the credit contract invalid, the People's Court of Region 7 requested the seller, Novareal, to return VPBank the VND 3.65 billion it had received, and at the same time, the bank had to return to customers more than VND 900 million in interest.
The reason according to the court is that the agreement between Mr. Son and Novareal is invalid because this enterprise is only allowed to operate a brokerage, and does not have the right to receive deposits or pay on behalf of the investor. In addition, the court determined that the NovaWorld Phan Thiet project did not meet the legal requirements for transactions as well as bank mortgages.
Speaking about this incident, Vietnam Prosperity Joint Stock Commercial Bank (VPBank) said it had filed an appeal to the People's Court of Region 7 and the People's Procuracy of Region 7 (HCMC) against the entire First Instance Civil Judgment on September 30, 2025 on the credit dispute lawsuit between the plaintiff of Vietnam Prosperity Joint Stock Commercial Bank, defendant Mr. Tran Hong Son and Ms. Nguyen Thi Xuan Dao.
Accordingly, the reason for the appeal that VPBank filed is that the First instance Court has reviewed but not comprehensively and not objectively assessed the evidence and documents in the case file, as well as the opinions of the plaintiff's representative, applying the law incorrectly, leading to a verdict seriously affecting the legitimate rights and interests of VPBank.
VPBank believes that the Court's assessment of the settlement of the Agreement No. NWP.5.5-2.71/2020/VBTT/NVR-THS dated November 5, 2020 between Mr. Tran Hong Son and Novareal Joint Stock Company is a serious violation of the litigation because in the case of "credit contract dispute" accepted by the Court, VPBank's participation in litigation as a plaintiff is not a complaint about the legality of the Agreement (VBTT) between Novareal and Mr. Tran Hong Son, the defendant and related rights and obligations, there is no need to counter and request independence.
Therefore, the decision to consider the legality and contents of VBTT to resolve the case is beyond the requirements of the lawsuit to affect the legitimate rights and interests of VPBank according to the Civil Procedure Code.
According to VPBank, the Credit Contract (CLA) and the mortgage Contract (HQTC) are signed on a voluntary, legal basis, not bound by the validity of the Agreement (APA) between the Customer and Novareal according to the provisions of the 2015 Civil Code.
" declare the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors of the Bank to be invalid is against legal principles. VBTT signed between the Customer and Novareal, stipulating that being declared invalid does not mean that the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors are invalid. According to the Civil Code, only when the "main transaction" is invalid does the "sub-transaction" become invalid according to...
Regarding customers' payment obligations to VPBank according to the signed credit contract, customers have received loans from VPBank but violated their debt repayment obligations. VPBank's lawsuit to recover debt is in accordance with the provisions of Article 466 BLDS 2015. Therefore, not forcing customers to pay debts but declaring the Board of Directors and General Measures invalid causes very serious damage to VPBank, and this also seriously affects the debt collection of VPBank in particular and the banking system in general" - VPBank said.
In addition, according to VPBank, during the process of collecting documents and evidence, the Court has not verified the project's legality, claiming that the Investor and the Brokerage Company have signs of "fraudulent appropriation of property" and the Invalid Agreement is not supported by the provisions of Article 93 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.
From the above grounds, VPBank believes that the court has not collected sufficient evidence and proven and evaluated the case file, which is not in accordance with legal regulations, so the bank decided to appeal.
