Court Orders Repayment of CNY 4100 in Loan Dispute
In this case, a dispute over an unpaid personal loan was brought before the court by Mr. Qiu against Mr. Liu. Mr. Qiu claimed that Mr. Liu had borrowed a total of 7100 yuan between 2008 and 2009 for building a house. He sought repayment of the principal, together with interest calculated from May 2010. The court ultimately ruled that only 4100 yuan of the claimed amount was proven and ordered Mr. Liu to repay that sum, but rejected the request for interest and other expenses.
The case arose from informal lending between two acquaintances. According to Mr. Qiu, Mr. Liu approached him for money on multiple occasions during 2008 and 2009, citing his need to finance construction of a house. No written loan agreement was signed, and the parties did not discuss interest or a specific repayment schedule. Mr. Qiu transferred the funds through bank deposits into Mr. Liu’s account. In May 2010, Mr. Qiu asked for the money back, but Mr. Liu failed to repay. Mr. Qiu then filed a lawsuit demanding 7100 yuan in principal, 852 yuan in interest, and 868.5 yuan in travel expenses, totaling 8820.5 yuan, plus court fees.
During the hearing, Mr. Qiu appeared in person and submitted three pieces of evidence: his identification documents, three bank deposit slips showing transfers to Mr. Liu, and copies of eleven train tickets. Mr. Liu did not attend the hearing despite being properly notified by the court, and he submitted no defense or evidence. The court reviewed the evidence and found the identification documents and bank deposit slips to be lawful, truthful, and relevant to the claims. The train tickets were also examined but were not linked to any debt collection activity. Because Mr. Liu raised no objections, the court accepted the bank records as proof of the transfers.
The court found that the evidence demonstrated Mr. Qiu had transferred a total of 4100 yuan to Mr. Liu by bank deposit. Although Mr. Qiu asserted that the parties had a loan relationship for this amount, the court noted that no written agreement existed. However, given the bank records and Mr. Liu’s failure to appear or contest the claim, the court concluded that a loan of 4100 yuan had been made and remained unpaid. As for the remaining 3000 yuan, the court found insufficient evidence to support that amount, because Mr. Qiu’s claim of 7100 yuan was not backed by any documentary proof beyond the 4100 yuan in deposits.
According to relevant law, specifically Article 210 of the Chinese Contract Law, where no interest is agreed upon in a loan contract between individuals, the loan is deemed interest-free. The court held that since Mr. Qiu and Mr. Liu never discussed or agreed on interest, Mr. Qiu could not recover any interest on the principal. The court also rejected the claim for travel expenses, because the train tickets did not establish that they were incurred in connection with demanding repayment. Mr. Liu’s absence from the hearing was treated as a waiver of his procedural rights and did not prevent the court from ruling.
The court ordered Mr. Liu to pay 4100 yuan in principal to Mr. Qiu immediately upon the judgment taking effect. If Mr. Liu delayed payment, he would be liable for double the interest during the delay period under applicable civil procedure rules. The court also ordered Mr. Liu to bear the litigation costs of 25 yuan. This case highlights the importance of having written documentation or clear evidence of loan amounts when lending money to individuals. Without a written agreement, a lender may struggle to recover the full amount claimed. It also underscores that interest is not recoverable unless specifically agreed by both parties.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.