CNY 600,000 Loan Dispute Appeal Heard in Central China City
The Central China City appellate court recently upheld a lower court decision in a civil loan dispute involving CNY 600,000. The case arose after Mr. Zhang, the borrower, appealed a judgment that required him and his wife, Ms. Li, to repay the principal and interest to Mr. Wang, the lender. Mr. Zhang argued that the trial court had miscalculated the loan amount and claimed he had already repaid over CNY 569,000. The court rejected his appeal and affirmed the original ruling, ordering the couple to pay the full amount with interest at an annual rate of 24 percent.
The dispute began in March 2012 when Mr. Zhang borrowed money from Mr. Wang for his company. On March 7, 2012, Mr. Wang transferred CNY 497,500 to Mr. Zhang’s bank account. Over the next two years, Mr. Zhang made several payments through various companies to Mr. Wang’s father, Mr. Zhao, with notations indicating repayment of principal and interest. In April 2015, the parties settled their accounts and Mr. Zhang issued a new written promissory note for CNY 600,000, reflecting the original loan plus accrued interest at a monthly rate of 2.5 percent. Ms. Li later signed an agreement with Mr. Wang to offset the debt with a property, but the deal was never completed.
During the appellate hearing, the court reviewed evidence submitted by both sides. Mr. Zhang presented new documents including expense vouchers, receipts, and a payment summary, claiming that the total loan was only CNY 547,500 and that he had repaid CNY 569,291. Mr. Wang challenged the authenticity of some documents and argued that the payments were for a separate loan of CNY 150,000. The court conducted two rounds of evidence examination. It accepted receipts and four payment records that Mr. Wang acknowledged, but rejected two expense vouchers as irrelevant to the case. Mr. Wang did not present any new evidence on appeal.
The court found that a valid loan relationship existed between Mr. Zhang and Mr. Wang. The initial transfer of CNY 497,500 was undisputed. The court analyzed the repayment history and concluded that payments made in April 2013 totaling CNY 196,791 were used to settle a separate CNY 150,000 debt, not the principal loan. The promissory note for CNY 600,000, issued after the parties recalculated principal and interest, was deemed valid because the original interest rate did not exceed 24 percent per year. The court also held that Ms. Li, as Mr. Zhang’s spouse, was jointly liable under applicable marital property rules.
Under relevant law, a lender may claim interest on a recalculated loan if the original rate was within the legal limit of 24 percent annually. The court noted that Mr. Zhang bore the burden of proving his repayment claims, but his evidence failed to show that the CNY 600,000 note included improper interest. The court also applied the legal principle that a borrower cannot unilaterally redirect payments to a different debt without the lender’s consent. Since Mr. Wang confirmed that the earlier repayments were for a separate loan, the court upheld the trial court’s calculation of the outstanding balance and interest.
This case underscores the importance of clear documentation in civil loan transactions. When parties recalculate outstanding amounts and issue new promissory notes, courts will generally respect the new agreement if the underlying interest rate complies with legal thresholds. Borrowers who claim partial repayment must provide reliable evidence linking each payment to the specific loan. The decision reinforces that oral or ambiguous payment designations may not satisfy the burden of proof. For lenders, maintaining detailed records of transfers and repayment agreements can help avoid litigation over the scope of the debt.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.