[Case Summary]This case involves a civil loan dispute. From March 2017 to December 2018, Liu * lent a total of 688,000 yuan to Shi * seven times, all without a promissory note. Only the last loan of 100,000 yuan was agreed to have a monthly interest rate of 1.5%. Shi * repaid a total of 805,500 yuan from August 2017 to February 2021. Liu * claimed that except for the 100,000 yuan, the monthly interest rate for the rest was 1.7%. Based on the "earnings of 15,000 yuan" in WeChat, he sued Shi * and his wife, Wei *, demanding that they jointly repay the principal of 158,000 yuan and the interest. Shi * entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer argued in court that there was no interest rate stipulation for the remaining funds, and that Wei * should not bear joint and several liability. The court accepted this argument, determining that the interest rate for the amount exceeding 100,000 yuan was unclear and thus deemed to be interest-free. Shi * had already repaid the full amount, and the court ruled to dismiss all of Liu *'s claims. Key disputes: Determination of interest rate stipulations for multiple loans, and joint marital debts. Applicable legal provisions: The provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China regarding interest rate stipulations being unclear between natural persons being deemed interest-free, and the relevant judicial interpretations on private lending.

I. Review of the Case

"I've lent several sums of money to my friend, but only one of them has an interest rate written down. Can the others also be considered with interest?" This is a common dispute in private lending. Related terms include "how to calculate the interest on multiple loans", "does a loan without a promissory note count as having interest?", "unclear interest rate agreements in private lending", and "does the spouse need to jointly repay the debt?" From March 2017 to December 2018, Liu * lent money to Shi * seven times, totaling 688,000 yuan. There was no promissory note between the two parties, but they both acknowledged that the interest rate for the last loan of 100,000 yuan on December 30, 2018, was 1.5% per month.

From August 2017 to February 2021, Shi * repaid a total of 805,500 yuan. Liu * argued that, except for the agreed interest of 100,000 yuan on December 30, 2018, the interest rate for the remaining payments was also 1.7% per month. Liu * provided WeChat chat records with Shi *, which showed that on January 29, 2019, Liu * said, "You need to give me the benefit of 15,000 yuan," claiming that 11,500 yuan, which is the interest of the entire loan principal of 688,000 yuan for one month; and from January 30, 2019 to June 3, 2019, Shi * also repaid 11,500 yuan per month. Therefore, the court calculated the monthly interest rate as 1.7%, but Liu * claimed the interest according to the statutory upper limit standard. Therefore, Liu * sued Shi * and his wife, Wei *, demanding that they jointly repay the principal of 158,000 yuan and the interest from March 15, 2017 to the actual repayment date.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Apart from the 100,000 yuan agreed upon by both parties, is there an interest rate agreement for the remaining amount?The core of the controversy is whether the "income of 15,000 yuan" on WeChat can be inferred to be the monthly interest rate of all loans.
  • Focus II: The determination of the nature of Shi's repayment and whether it constitutes a joint debt of the couple, and whether Wei should be held jointly and severally liable.Whether Wei * was aware of this and whether the funds were used for their joint living and business operations are relevant to the issue of joint and several liability.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The plaintiff (Liu * ) alleged that:Liu * claimed that the monthly interest rate for the remaining amount, except for 100,000 yuan, was 1.7%. Based on the WeChat records, he demanded that Shi * and Wei * jointly repay the principal of 158,000 yuan and the interest thereon.

The defendants (Shi * and Wei *) argued that:Shi * disagrees with the claim, saying that except for the last payment of 100,000 yuan, no interest was agreed on for the rest of the payments, and he has already repaid the overdue amount. He has entrusted Henglue Law Firm to handle the case for himXiong BinrongThe lawyer represented the defendant in the lawsuit; Wei * was unaware of the loan and did not consent to it, nor was the loan used for their joint living and business. Therefore, he should not bear joint and several liability.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer communicated with the client at the first time, reviewed the case again, and pointed out that:

  • Interest dispute: 1. The payment cycle and amount of the repayments made by Shi * before December 30, 2018 did not comply with the interest payment method; 2. The "income of 15,000 yuan" claimed by Liu * did not specify the calculation of the principal and payment cycle; 3. Although the repayments made from January 30, 2019 to June 3, 2019 had relatively fixed amounts per transaction, they did not demonstrate clear periodicity. Moreover, the subsequent repayments did not comply with the interest payment method. Therefore, it should be determined that the parties did not explicitly agree on the interest for other payments, and the interest shall be deemed to have not been agreed upon.
  • Joint debts of the couple: Wei * was not aware of this and did not agree to it. The funds involved were not used for their common life or joint business, so Wei * does not bear joint and several liability.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court accepted the opinion of Hengluo Law Firm and determined that: the parties did not specify the interest rate for the amount other than 100,000 yuan in their agreement, and it would be difficult to support the lender's claim for interest if there is no clear agreement on interest in loans between natural persons; therefore, the repayments made before December 30, 2018 should be deemed as repayments of the principal. After that date, the parties agreed to first repay the interest on the 100,000 yuan loan and then repay the excess amount as principal. Based on Shi *'s repayment history, it should be determined that Shi * has repaid all the loans, and Liu *'s request for further repayment would be difficult to support.

In the end, the courtThe judgment dismisses all the claims of the plaintiff, Liu *The case acceptance fee shall be borne by Liu*. Shi* successfully avoided the loss of "duplicate repayment" and his legitimate rights and interests were safeguarded.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

When there are multiple loans between natural persons, only some promissory notes specify the interest rate, and the others do not explicitly stipulate interest. Therefore, it cannot be directly assumed that there is interest, nor can interest be inferred solely from installment repayment. It is recommended to write down the promissory notes and interest rates for each loan. If you encounter the situation of "what to do if you are sued for repaying interest twice", you should entrust a professional lawyer to clarify the agreement. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xiong BinrongThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts on behalf of the client, relying on the interest rules of private lending, to help the client avoid making duplicate repayments.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Interest Agreements in Private Lending Cases

  1. Q: There are multiple loans, but only one of them has the interest rate specified. Are the others considered to have interest rates as well?
    A: It doesn't count. For other IOUs that do not explicitly stipulate interest, it cannot be determined that there is interest, nor can it be directly determined as interest payment just based on the repayment in installments. In this case, the plaintiff's claim was rejected accordingly.
  2. Q: Can saying "give me some returns" in WeChat be considered an agreement on interest rates?
    A: It is necessary to clearly calculate the principal and the period. If it is just a sentence "the income is 15,000 yuan" without indicating which transaction or what kind of interest rate it corresponds to, it is difficult to regard it as an interest agreement, and the plaintiff in this case lost the case for this reason.
  3. Q: Does my spouse have to repay the debt jointly with me for the loan I took out?
    A: See if there is a mutual expression of intent, and whether it is used for the couple's joint life or business. In this case, Wei * was unaware of it and did not use it for their joint life, so he does not bear any responsibility.
  4. Q: For the money that the borrower has already repaid, should it be applied to the principal or the interest first?
    A: If there is an agreement, the court will follow the agreement; if both parties agree to repay the specific loan interest first and then the principal exceeding that amount, the court will support it. In this case, the court handled the 100,000 yuan loan in this way.
  5. Q: Can I get back the money I lent without a promissory note?
    A: Yes, but you need to provide transfer records, chat records, and other evidence to prove the loan agreement and the delivery of the funds. If there is no explicit agreement on interest, it is considered an interest-free loan between natural persons.