Appeal in CNY 200,000 Loan Dispute Upheld

The court upheld a lower court ruling in a loan guarantee dispute involving CNY 200,000, rejecting the appeal of a surety who claimed he did not sign the renewed promissory note. The case centered on whether the appellant had validly guaranteed the debt.

In this case, the borrower, Mr. Yan, obtained a loan of CNY 200,000 from the lender, Mr. Yu, on April 22, 2010. The loan was arranged by Mr. Wang B, and the funds were transferred into the account of Mr. Wang A, then withdrawn by Mr. Yan. On the same day, Mr. Yan issued a promissory note, with Mr. Wang A and Mr. Wang B signing as sureties. Later, due to excessive interest, the parties replaced the note on August 22, 2010, reducing the monthly interest from three percent to two point five percent. The new note listed Mr. Yan as borrower and again named Mr. Wang A and Mr. Wang B as sureties. When Mr. Yan failed to repay, Mr. Yu sued for the principal and interest.

The court heard evidence that included the two promissory notes and bank records. Mr. Wang A argued he had not signed the August 22 note and requested a forensic handwriting and fingerprint examination. A forensic institute issued three opinions: the signature on the August note did not match a sample provided by Mr. Wang A, but it did match a sample from a May 22 note provided by Mr. Wang B; the fingerprint comparison was inconclusive. The lower court adopted the second opinion, finding Mr. Wang A had signed the August note, and ordered both sureties to bear joint liability. Mr. Wang A appealed, arguing procedural errors and that the court should have accepted the first opinion.

The appellate court held that Mr. Wang A had not challenged the authenticity of the May 22 note used as a comparison sample. The evidence showed the signature on the August note was consistent with that sample, which Mr. Wang A had given to Mr. Wang B. The court noted the writing speed in the sample provided by Mr. Wang A differed markedly from the comparison sample, undermining the reliability of the first opinion. Regarding procedural issues, the court found no violation in the trial timeline or in the admission of evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

According to relevant law, where a guarantee agreement does not specify the type of suretyship, the surety is jointly and severally liable with the borrower. The lower court correctly applied the Contract Law and the Guarantee Law. The interest was adjusted to four times the benchmark loan rate set by the central bank, which complies with legal limits. The court further ruled that the sureties may seek reimbursement from the borrower after paying.

This case illustrates how courts weigh conflicting forensic evidence and rely on consistent samples from related documents. It also confirms that sureties must carefully verify their signatures on loan documents. The judgment is final and binding on all parties.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.