Court Orders Repayment of CNY 50,000 Loan Plus Interest

Mr. Lin, a resident of Eastern China City, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Wang for the return of a 50,000 yuan loan with 2% monthly interest. The loan was made on November 17, 2010, and Mr. Wang allegedly paid interest only until October 6, 2011, after which he stopped. Mr. Lin sought repayment of the principal plus interest from October 7, 2011, until the judgment date, totaling about 5,000 yuan in interest. The court heard the case in March 2012 and ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Lin.

According to the facts of the case, Mr. Lin claimed that Mr. Wang borrowed 50,000 yuan due to financial difficulties, signing a promissory note that stated a monthly interest rate of 2%. Mr. Lin transferred the loan amount to Mr. Wang’s bank account on the same day. Mr. Wang argued that he had already repaid the full principal and interest by making four bank transfers totaling 55,000 yuan between March and July 2011. He further claimed that the parties had agreed to settle the debt for that amount by October 7, 2011. Mr. Lin, however, maintained that those payments were for other outstanding debts and not for the 50,000 yuan loan in dispute.

During the hearing, both parties submitted evidence. Mr. Lin presented the original promissory note, a bank transfer receipt, and additional documents showing other loans between them. Mr. Wang provided four bank transfer records to support his repayment claim. The court examined the note and confirmed it was signed and fingerprinted by Mr. Wang. Mr. Wang objected to the 2% interest rate notation, claiming it was added later, but offered no evidence. The court also noted that the repayment date on the note had been blacked out. Mr. Wang’s four transfer records showed payments to Mr. Lin, but did not specify they were for the 50,000 yuan loan. Mr. Lin disputed the relevance, stating these were interest payments on other loans.

The court found that the loan contract between Mr. Lin and Mr. Wang was valid and had taken effect upon the transfer of funds. Since Mr. Lin held the original promissory note, the court presumed the loan had not been repaid. The evidence submitted by Mr. Wang did not directly prove that the four transfers were for the principal and interest of this specific loan. Furthermore, Mr. Wang’s claim of a settlement agreement lacked supporting documentation. The court also determined that even though the repayment date had been altered, the original three-month term had expired, so the blackout did not prevent Mr. Lin from seeking repayment.

Applying the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, the court held that Mr. Wang was obligated to return the borrowed principal and pay the agreed interest. The court accepted Mr. Lin’s claim that interest at 2% per month had been paid until October