Court Orders Repayment of CNY 59,600 Loan Plus Interest
A civil dispute over an unpaid personal loan has resulted in a court judgment ordering the borrower to repay the principal amount of CNY 59,600 plus overdue interest. The plaintiff, Mr. Chen, brought the case against the defendant, Mr. Hu, after Mr. Hu failed to return the money despite repeated requests. The court, after examining the evidence and hearing the plaintiff’s arguments, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment also addresses the calculation of interest from the date the lawsuit was filed. The defendant did not appear in court or submit a defense.
The case concerns a loan made on July 6, 2009, when the defendant Mr. Hu told Mr. Chen that he needed money for business purposes. Mr. Chen lent him the amount of CNY 59,609, and Mr. Hu issued a handwritten promissory note acknowledging the debt. The note stated that the lender was a person named Chen Jinzhu, which the plaintiff later proved was the same person as himself. Mr. Hu made no repayments, and after multiple unsuccessful attempts to collect the debt, Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit on December 5, 2011. In his complaint, he initially asked for the full amount of CNY 59,609 plus interest at the benchmark lending rate from the filing date until full repayment. During the trial, he clarified that the actual loan amount was CNY 59,600 and amended his claim accordingly.
During the court hearing, Mr. Chen appeared in person and presented several pieces of evidence. These included his own identification document, a certified copy of the defendant’s household registration, and a certificate from the Village Committee of a local village in Eastern China City confirming that the plaintiff and the person named on the promissory note were the same individual. The most critical evidence was the original promissory note dated July 6, 2009, which showed a handwritten receipt stating that the borrower had received CNY 59,609 (written as 59,600 in Chinese characters). The defendant Mr. Hu was properly served with a summons but did not attend the hearing, and the court therefore proceeded with the trial in his absence, treating his non-appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence and cross-examine.
The court found that the evidence submitted by Mr. Chen was authentic and reliable. The identification documents were issued by the relevant authorities, and the village committee certificate was properly sourced and consistent. The promissory note itself was original and matched the plaintiff’s account. The court accepted Mr. Chen’s statement that the actual loan amount was CNY 59,600, as this figure aligned with the Chinese characters on the note. Based on this evidence, the court established that a legitimate borrowing relationship existed between the parties. The note did not specify a repayment date or an interest rate, so the court treated the loan as an interest-free loan without a fixed term.
The court held that the borrowing relationship was valid and protected by law. Because no interest or repayment period was stated, the loan was considered interest-free for the period before the lawsuit. However, once Mr. Chen demanded repayment, Mr. Hu was obligated to return the principal within a reasonable time. His continued failure to pay constituted a breach of contract. Under relevant provisions of the Contract Law and the Civil Procedure Law, the court ruled that Mr. Hu must pay overdue interest from the date the lawsuit was filed, calculated according to the benchmark lending rate published by the People’s Bank of China for the same period and tier. The court also noted that the defendant’s absence did not prevent the court from making a fair judgment based on the evidence.
The judgment orders Mr. Hu to repay the principal of CNY 59,600 and overdue interest calculated from December 5, 2011 until the date the payment is actually made, all within ten days of the judgment taking effect. If Mr. Hu fails to pay on time, he must pay double the interest for the period of delay. In addition, Mr. Hu is required to bear the court costs of CNY 1,650, which include the case acceptance fee and the announcement fee. This case illustrates how Chinese courts handle simple loan disputes when the borrower is absent and emphasizes the importance of keeping clear promissory notes and proof of identity. Borrowers should be aware that failing to respond to a lawsuit does not prevent a judgment from being entered against them.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.