Before reading the article, please click "Follow" to watch the article published every day, and discuss and analyze it with you in time. Thank you very much for your attention! The articles are all real cases, the title is the opinion of the referee, and you can search on my homepage on demand when you encounter legal problems. Legal issues do not ask for help, welcome to pay attention to standby. If you need a case number, please comment and leave a message under the specific article after paying attention, and then send a private message.
Huang and Qi were originally in a buying and selling relationship, with Huang as the seller and Qi as the buyer. Huang Moumou claimed that Qi Moumou had defaulted on the payment of Huang Moumou in the previous transaction process, and Huang Moumou submitted a copy of the "IOU" issued by Qi Moumou on September 22, 2010, which stated that "the payment owed to Huang Moumou today is RMB 70,000 yuan, which is scheduled to be repaid before October 20, 2010, and the failure to repay it as scheduled shall be resolved in accordance with legal procedures (the unpaid amount before November 16, 2010 will be deducted from Dia Tianjin's account)", and the IOU has Qi's signature and ID number. Huang Moumou said that because Qi Moumou failed to fulfill his payment obligations, he failed to ask for it and sued the court.
Qi XX filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that: 1. Qi XX pay Huang XX 70,000 yuan for the goods, and 814 yuan for the transportation and accommodation expenses;
The court of first instance held that the lawful civil rights and interests of the parties were protected by law. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Huang's claim for the purchase price of RMB 70,000 should be supported. The statute of limitations refers to the legal system in which the right holder fails to exercise its rights within the statutory period and loses its request to the people's court to protect its rights in accordance with law, and the limitation period is calculated from the date on which the right holder knows or should know that the rights have been damaged and the obligor. The payment for the goods in this case occurred no later than September 22, 2010, and the IOU was involved It is clearly stated that it will be repaid before October 20, 2010, so Huang Moumou has known that his rights have been damaged since October 20, 2010, and he should claim his rights in a timely manner within the 2-year statute of limitations thereafter, but Huang Moumou did not file a lawsuit for the first time on the payment until 2023, and failed to provide evidence to prove that there was a reason for the interruption or suspension of the statute of limitations. The court of first instance adopted the issue of the statute of limitations for Qi XX's defense, and did not support Huang's claim that Qi XX should repay the purchase price of RMB 70,000. With regard to the 814 yuan of expenses incurred in recovering debts such as fares and accommodation expenses claimed by Huang, sufficient evidence was not provided and there was no legal basis, so it was not supported. Qi XX's failure to appear in court to participate in the litigation is to be deemed to have waived his procedural rights such as presenting and cross-examining evidence, and a judgment is made in absentia in accordance with law.
First-instance judgment: All of plaintiff Huang's claims were rejected.
After the first-instance judgment, plaintiff Huang Moumou was dissatisfied and appealed.
After the trial of the second instance, it was ascertained that Qi XX was lawfully summoned by the court of first instance and did not appear in court to participate in the litigation, and he submitted a written opinion to the court after the trial of the first instance that Huang XX's claim had exceeded the statute of limitations.
The second-instance trial held that the focus of the dispute in this case was: whether Huang's claim in this case exceeded the statute of limitations.
According to Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, which was in effect at that time, the statute of limitations for filing a request to the people's court for protection of civil rights was two years, unless otherwise provided by law. In this case, Huang Moumou provided an IOU to prove that Qi Moumou owed him RMB 75,000 for the goods, and the IOU stated that it should be repaid before October 20, 2010, so the statute of limitations should be calculated from this time. According to the evidence provided by Huang, even if he could prove that he had demanded payment for the goods in 2010, 2011, and 2023, he failed to prove that he had claimed rights against Qi XX during the limitation period after 2011, so the limitation period had expired, and Huang should bear adverse legal consequences. Although Qi XX raised a defense against the statute of limitations by issuing a written opinion after the first-instance trial, it was still in the first-instance trial procedure, and the first-instance court's adoption of his opinion was in accordance with the law.
Second-instance judgment: The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.