Recently, we have just concluded a private lending case, and our side finally lost the case after the first and second trials. While preparing the retrial materials, I questioned the choices of jurisprudence and reasonableness in the event of a conflict of values.
The facts of this case are very simple, the plaintiff took an IOU to ask us to repay 80,000 yuan, the IOU did not agree on the repayment period, I, as the defendant's lawyer, believed that the IOU had passed the statute of limitations, the plaintiff lost the right to win, and the defendant did not need to repay the loan of 80,000 yuan. According to the investigation, the plaintiff claimed the 80,000 yuan loan in a trial transcript in March 2017, and then did not have any proof of claim for the loan until March 2021, when the other party sued. According to Article 188 of the Civil Code, the limitation period for requesting the protection of civil rights to the people's court is three years. The limitation period is calculated from the date on which the obligee knows or should have known that the right has been infringed and that the obligor has been injured. Where the law provides otherwise, follow those provisions. Therefore, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the statute of limitations has passed. In the first instance, the other party did not submit any evidence to prove that it had claimed the arrears after March 2017, and the trial transcript produced by our side could prove that the other party had claimed the loan in March 2017, so the plaintiff's known rights were damaged on that day, and the litigation time effect was calculated from the same day, and by the time the case was filed, the plaintiff had exceeded the three-year limitation period. The indictment ended with the withdrawal of the other party.
The other party filed another lawsuit a month after the withdrawal of the lawsuit (April 2021), and in the second trial of the lawsuit, the other party applied for a witness to appear in court to prove that in October 2019, the witness had driven with the plaintiff to the defendant's company to claim the arrears and met the defendant himself. During the cross-examination session, I asked the witness three questions, do you have a family relationship or work relationship with the plaintiff? What is the color of the defendant's walls or are there any landmarks near the defendant's company? Are there any toll booths near the defendant's company? The other party claimed that it was the driver who drove the car for the plaintiff, that the wall color of the defendant company was forgotten, that there were no landmark buildings, and that there were no toll booths nearby. In fact, one kilometer near the defendant company is a toll station in Zhengzhou, as a driver who drives to ask for money, he should be very sensitive to the toll station, and even such a question is answered incorrectly, which is enough to prove that the other party is panicked. Therefore, we argue that the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be used as a basis for determining the facts of the case alone, so the plaintiff's litigation claim should be dismissed. Unfortunately, however, the court finally determined the probative force of the witness's testimony and found that the statute of limitations was interrupted and recalculated from October 2019. After our side appealed the judgment, the second instance also upheld the original judgment.
In fact, the judge's value decision behind the judgment I also understand that as a defendant, we have always recognized the authenticity, legality and relevance of the original IOU in the trial, and also admitted that we have indeed borrowed money and have not repaid it, but the law does not protect people who sleep on their rights, and the statute of limitations for loans exceeds three years to lose the right to win, if any case can find a stakeholder to testify, prove that the statute of limitations is interrupted, and then recalculate the statute of limitations, then the law's system on the statute of limitations is completely empty." Article 188 of the Civil Code and its related judicial interpretations will become meaningless. The purpose of the judge's judgment is to safeguard the plaintiff's substantive rights and interests, after all, the money is really lent out for you to spend, and if the judgment rejects the claim, the plaintiff's loss is too large, and it is equivalent to a disguised encouragement of the act of not repaying the money owed. However, the statute of limitations system also has its own legal and social value. In the face of jurisprudence and reasonableness, which is more important than the other, and how to balance interests? As a lawyer, I believe that this case may be a better choice if it can be concluded through mediation.
Cheng Junwen's legal team with professional legal knowledge, serious work attitude, high-quality legal services to help you achieve the purpose of litigation, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the client is our unshirkable responsibility, I hope the above sharing can bring you help.
END
Cheng Fayun talked
The author of this article: Lawyer Liu Dexiang, member of the Communist Party of China, bachelor's degree in law, core member of the legal team. Adhering to the spirit of dedicated research, down-to-earth study and work, we have provided legal services for Bank of China Hebi Branch and Bank of China Pingdingshan Branch for many years. He has represented in many cases of various types of criminal defense, civil disputes, and criminal and civil intersections. It has been well received by the parties! No effort will be spared for the development of the team.
Practice philosophy: professional people do professional things!
Phone (WeChat): 17729791900
Identify the QR code to pay attention to "Cheng Fayun Talk"
Cheng Junwen lawyer team contact information:
Address: Zhengzhou City Jinshui District Jinshui East Road Zhongxing Intersection Kailin IFC Block A Room 1116
Phone: 17337101099 18790571562
WeChat: c1014677352 or yiruosky
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]