近日，李某花70万元从张某处购得一幅署名史国良的画作《金秋》，后经史国良本人鉴定为仿制品。李某多次与卖主张某协商退款未果，故诉至法院，要求返还购画款并承担相应利息。原告李某诉称，他在任某介绍下认识了张某，并于2014年7月3日在北京购买了这幅画。在购买前，他详细询问了画的来源，但张 Certain assured him that the painting came from history country Liang, and he signed his name on the back of the painting to guarantee its authenticity. After taking possession of the painting, Li took it to a friend who sent photos to history country Liang for authentication, only to receive a response that it was fake.

However, Li failed to negotiate with Zhang for a refund. It wasn't until February 11 this year that he found History Country Liang and asked him to authenticate the painting again. This time, History Country Liang wrote in his opinion: "This forged work is a fake version of my own work." The plaintiff argued that Zhang had sold him a fake painting nearly three years ago and had been dodging and stalling ever since.

The defendant's lawyer countered by saying that the plaintiff had voluntarily purchased the picture from Zhang without any promise or guarantee of authenticity. He also pointed out that as an art dealer, plaintiff should have known there was a risk of buying counterfeit goods.

In court, both sides presented their arguments and evidence. The plaintiff produced photos of the disputed artwork along with History Country Liang's authentication opinion while defense counsel submitted printed copies of History Country Liang's official website showing high prices for his genuine works at auction.

History Country Liang testified in person stating that he recognized one copy owned by Wang but described as "very rough" noting it could be bought for around $300-$500 in markets like Panjiayuan street market now-a-days many people cannot distinguish between real or fake paintings due to many fakes existing on market place., adding "I did paint one called Gold Autumn," but concluded: "the original piece is now held by a collector in Shandong."

The judge ultimately ruled in favor of Lee (Lee), ordering Zhan (Zhang) return Lee’s purchase price plus interest totaling 81.86 million yuan; ruling against Zhan’s request for costs incurred during trial proceedings; ruling against Zhan’s motion seeking legal fees based upon purported “unjust enrichment” theory; granting Lee damages equaling what he spent acquiring said artwork; denying Zhan’s request requesting compensation over alleged emotional distress suffered during litigation process itself while allowing parties some opportunity later seek further relief within specified timeframe if needed accordingly after final judgment entered into record books officially so all parties must abide accordingly following these rules set forth here today!