[Case Summary]This case involves a civil loan dispute. On June 7, 2024, the plaintiff, Li Na, and the defendant, Liu Shufen, signed a "Loan Contract". Li Na lent 3 million yuan to Liu Shufen with a term of one month. The contract stipulated that if Liu Shufen failed to repay the loan on time, she would pay a penalty of 0.05% of the loan amount per day and bear the litigation fees, attorney fees, etc. After the loan expired, Liu Shufen failed to repay the loan, so Li Na entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Peng XinyueThe lawyer filed a lawsuit, demanding repayment of the principal of 3 million yuan, overdue interest (with an annual interest rate of 3.45%), liquidated damages (with an annual interest rate of 10.35%), and attorney's fees of 120,000 yuan. The core disputes were the authenticity of the borrowing relationship, the qualification of the lender, and the legality of the breach of contract liability. The applicable legal provisions are the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The court fully adopted the lawyer's opinion and supported all the claims.

I. Review of the case

Private lending often leads to searches for solutions to problems such as "What to do if a borrower refuses to repay a 3 million yuan loan?", "Can you win a lawsuit even if you have both a promissory note and a transfer record?", "Can the defendant be made to pay the lawyer's fees?", and "What is the maximum penalty for breaching a private lending contract?". The plaintiff, Li Na, and the defendant, Liu Shufen, were originally business partners. In June 2024, Liu Shufen requested a loan from Li Na due to a need for working capital. The two parties signed a written "Loan Contract" on June 7, 2024, which stipulated a loan amount of 3 million yuan, a term of one month (from June 7 to July 5, 2024), and a one-time repayment of the principal; the breach of contract liability was to pay a daily penalty of 0.05% of the unpaid amount, and to bear the litigation fees, attorney fees, etc. incurred by the lender in realizing the creditor's rights; the payment method was by bank transfer. On the day the contract was signed, Li Na transferred the full 3 million yuan in two installments (1.3 million yuan and 1.7 million yuan) through two banks, and Liu Shufen issued a signed and thumbprinted "Receipt".

After the loan matured, Liu Shufen failed to repay the principal as agreed, and made repeated promises to repay the loan but failed to fulfill them. Li Na entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Peng XinyueThe lawyer filed a lawsuit and put forward three core demands: repayment of the principal of 3 million yuan and payment of overdue interest at an annual interest rate of 3.45% from July 6, 2024; payment of a breach of contract penalty at an annual interest rate of 10.35%; and compensation for attorney's fees of 120,000 yuan.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the lending relationship is genuine and whether the lender is qualified.The defendant argued that Zhang Hua, who was not a party to the case, engaged in predatory lending, and the plaintiff was not the actual lender. The lawyer used contracts, receipts, transfer records, and WeChat records to prove that the plaintiff was the only legal lender.
  • Focus II: The defendant's breach of contract and liability.The lawyer argued that since the borrower failed to repay the loan after its maturity and continued to delay the repayment despite being reminded, this constituted a fundamental breach of contract, and the borrower should bear all the contractual liabilities.
  • Focus Three: Whether the overdue interest, the breach of contract penalty, and the attorney's fees are legally supported.The lawyer pointed out that the total amount of the two did not exceed the statutory interest rate cap, and the lawyer's fees were contractually agreed upon and actually incurred.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Li Na) alleges that:Li Na argued that the borrowing relationship between the two parties is clear, and she has already paid the full amount of 3 million yuan. The defendant failed to repay the loan on time and repeatedly made promises that were not fulfilled. She requested the repayment of the principal, overdue interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

The defendant (Liu Shufen) argued that:Liu Shufen raised two defenses: firstly, there was no civil lending legal relationship. The 3 million yuan was a scam loan organized by the third party Zhang Hua, and the plaintiff was not a qualified party; secondly, she disagreed with the compensation for attorney's fees, which lacked factual and legal basis.

Legal opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Peng XinyueAfter accepting the client's commission, the lawyer conducted the representation based on three core aspects: the authenticity of the loan relationship, the legitimacy of the lender's subject status, and the legality of the breach of contract liability. In terms of evidence, the lawyer submitted a written contract and receipt, transfer vouchers from two banks, and WeChat chat records (in which the defendant repeatedly promised to repay the loan without raising any objections), forming a complete chain of evidence. In legal terms, the lawyer argued that the contract was a true expression of the parties' intention and was legally valid. The funds were directly transferred from the plaintiff's account to the defendant's account, and the defendant issued a receipt to confirm the transfer. Moreover, the defendant consistently promised to repay the loan to the plaintiff via WeChat. The plaintiff was the sole legitimate lender. Regarding the defendant's breach of contract, the lawyer demonstrated that the facts were clear, and the total amount of overdue interest and breach of contract penalties did not exceed the statutory limit. The lawyer's fees were contractually agreed upon and actually incurred, and the defendant's claim of "predatory lending" was not supported by any evidence.

IV. Outcome of the case

After the trial, the court fully adopted Attorney Peng's legal opinion: regarding the borrower, based on the transfer receipts and WeChat chat records, the plaintiff is the actual lender of the funds involved, and the defendant should fulfill his repayment obligation to the plaintiff; regarding the overdue interest, the court ordered the defendant to calculate the interest based on a base amount of 3 million yuan and an annual interest rate of 3.45% from July 6, 2024 to the actual repayment date; regarding the penalty, the court ordered the defendant to calculate the penalty based on an annual interest rate of 10.35% from July 6, 2024; and ordered the defendant to repay the principal of the loan of 3 million yuan and the plaintiff's attorney's fees of 120,000 yuan incurred in this litigation. The plaintiff's claims were fully supported by the court.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Attorney Peng Xinyue of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202511977924, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ). Private lending should be signed in a written contract, and transfer receipts and receipts should be retained. Communication records such as WeChat can corroborate the lending agreement and the identity of the lender. If the agreed interest and penalty for overdue payment exceed the statutory interest rate limit, the reasonable attorney's fees incurred for the enforcement of the creditor's rights, which are stipulated in the contract and actually incurred, may be claimed together.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving Creditor-debtor Relationships

  1. Q: Can I win a lawsuit over a loan if I have a promissory note and transfer records?
    A:Yes. If the written contract, transfer receipt, receipt, and communication records form a complete chain of evidence, the court generally recognizes the authenticity of the lending relationship and the lender's qualification as a legitimate party.
  2. Q: Can I demand both the default penalty and interest in a private loan?
    A:Yes, but the total of overdue interest and the penalty fee shall not exceed the statutory interest rate protection cap. Any amount exceeding this cap will not be supported.
  3. Q: Can the borrower be made to bear the attorney's fees?
    A:The loan contract clearly stipulates that the defaulting party shall bear the legal fees actually incurred, and the court generally supports this provision.
  4. Q: What should I do if the other party says I'm not qualified to be the subject of a predatory lending scheme?
    A:If there is no supporting evidence, a mere defense is not enough to challenge the direct creditor's claim; the lawyer will use the transfer records and communication records to prove that you are the actual lender.
  5. Q: How can I obtain the most reliable evidence for a large loan?
    A:It's safest to have all four items in place: signing a written loan contract, keeping records of bank transfers, having the borrower issue a receipt, and preserving the WeChat records of the collection process.