Default Judgment Orders Repayment of CNY 150,000 Loan
A court in Eastern China City has entered a default judgment against Mr. Wang, ordering him to repay CNY 150,000 to Mr. Li under a private loan agreement. The defendant failed to appear in court or submit any defense, leading the court to rule in favor of the plaintiff. The case highlights the enforceability of written loan documents even when the borrower does not participate in litigation.
On August 12, 2009, Mr. Wang borrowed CNY 150,000 from Mr. Li and issued a signed promissory note as proof of the debt. Despite repeated demands for repayment, Mr. Wang did not return any part of the loan. Mr. Li then filed a lawsuit asking the court to order full repayment and to require the defendant to bear the court filing fees. The defendant did not file a written answer and made no appearance during the proceedings.
The court accepted the case in February 2012 and held a public hearing in March 2012. Mr. Li appeared through his legal representative, Mr. Chen. The defendant was properly served with summons but failed to attend without any valid excuse. The plaintiff submitted three pieces of evidence: his identity card, the defendant’s household registration information, and the original promissory note. The court reviewed these documents and admitted them as credible evidence, noting that the defendant’s absence meant he waived his right to challenge the evidence.
The court found that the loan of CNY 150,000 was clearly established by the promissory note and consistent testimony. It held that the parties had formed a valid private lending relationship, which is protected under Chinese law. The court determined that Mr. Li’s claim for repayment was legally justified and should be granted. Accordingly, it ordered Mr. Wang to repay the full principal amount within ten days after the judgment took legal effect, with additional interest for any delay.
In its legal reasoning, the court applied Article 206 of the Contract Law of China. That provision requires a borrower to repay a loan on the agreed term or, when no term is fixed, upon the lender’s demand. Since the loan had no specified repayment date, Mr. Li was entitled to demand immediate repayment. The court also cited Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law, which allows a default judgment when a defendant fails to appear after proper notice. Additionally, Article 229 mandates that a debtor who delays payment must pay double the interest on the overdue amount.
This case serves as a practical reminder that written loan documentation, such as a promissory note, can secure a judgment even if the borrower ignores the lawsuit. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the reduced court costs of CNY 1,650. Debtors should be aware that failing to respond to legal proceedings may result in a default judgment that includes additional penalty interest. Lenders, in turn, should keep clear records of all loan transactions to support potential claims.
Disclaimer: This article