[Case Summary]This case involves a civil loan dispute. From 2018 to 2023, Liu Nana lent more than 1.38 million yuan to Zhao Nan via WeChat, Alipay, and bank transfers. After Zhao Nan repaid part of the loan, there was still more than 950,000 yuan outstanding. In November 2020, Zhao Nan issued a promissory note for 920,000 yuan. Zhao Nan argued that some of the transfers were loans of funds, and that he had already repaid 1.04 million yuan in cash and that the statute of limitations for the lawsuit had passed. Liu Nana entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Xiong BinrongAttorney representation. The lawyer built a complete evidence system and refuted the claim of cash repayment. The People's Court of Shunyi District, Beijing City determined that the debt amounted to 835,000 yuan, and ordered Zhao Nan to repay the principal and interest calculated at the one-year LPR (3.85%) rate, as well as bear the case acceptance fee of 6,000 yuan. The core disputes include: the establishment of the loan relationship, the authenticity of the cash repayment, the statute of limitations, and the calculation of interest. Applicable legal provisions: Article 679 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation on Private Lending.

I. Review of the Case Facts

When lending money to others, the most worrying things are "how to sue if the borrower refuses to repay the loan", "how to provide evidence for cash repayment in private lending", and "can a copy of the IOU win the case". Liu Nana and Zhao Nan met online and became friends. From 2018 to 2023, Zhao Nan borrowed money from Liu Nana multiple times, citing reasons such as cash flow and repaying credit cards. Liu Nana paid a total of over 1.38 million yuan through WeChat, Alipay, and bank transfers, while Zhao Nan repaid some of the money but still owed over 950,000 yuan. In November 2020, Zhao Nan issued an IOU agreeing to borrow 920,000 yuan and promising to repay the loan by November 27, 2020. However, after the deadline, Zhao Nan kept delaying and making excuses.

Liu Nana decided to protect her rights and sought help from Beijing Henglu Law FirmXiong BinrongThe lawyer appointed an agent. During the trial, Zhao Nan argued that the transfer of funds was a "loan of funds" rather than a loan, and that he had returned 1.04 million yuan in cash (including the original promissory note), but there were no receipts or witnesses. He also claimed that the statute of limitations had passed and that the chat records were just "acting in cooperation".Xiong BinrongThe lawyer used hundreds of transfer records, copies of IOUs, and WeChat chat records to establish a chain of evidence, proving that Zhao Nan had repeatedly confirmed that he owed 835,000 yuan and expressed his willingness to repay the debt.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether a lending relationship has been established.The plaintiff submitted transfer records, copies of promissory notes, and chat records to prove the delivery of funds and the agreement on the loan; the defendant argued that the purpose of some transfers was unclear, but failed to provide evidence to refute it.
  • Focus 2: Is the cash repayment of 1040,000 yuan genuine?The defendant claimed that he returned the cash in two installments, but there were no receipts, cash withdrawal records, or witnesses. Moreover, he continuously admitted the debt in the chat, and the focus of the case lies on the burden of proof.
  • Focus 3: Whether the statute of limitations has expired and how to calculate the interest.The plaintiff first demanded repayment in March 2023 and filed a lawsuit in November 2024, which did not exceed three years. The court determined that there was no agreement on interest, and the interest was adjusted to be calculated according to the one-year LPR (3.85%).

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (the lender) alleges that:Liu Nana claimed that the transfer records and promissory notes could prove the lending relationship, and Zhao Nan defaulted on the principal of 952,000 yuan. The WeChat records showed that the multiple promises to repay the debt constituted an interruption of the statute of limitations. She also claimed that the overdue interest should be calculated at four times the LPR rate.

The defendant's (borrower's) position:Zhao Nan argued that the transfer of funds was not a loan, that he had repaid 1.04 million yuan in cash without any receipt, that the statute of limitations had passed, and that the chat records were false communications, attempting to deny his repayment responsibility.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xiong BinrongThe lawyer constructed a complete evidence system: sorted through hundreds of transfer records over five years, distinguished between scattered and large-scale loans, and accurately calculated the unpaid principal; submitted copies of promissory notes and chat records to prove that Zhao Nan confirmed the debt of 835,000 yuan; refuted the claim of cash repayment: pointed out that the lack of basic vouchers and the claim of "tearing up the promissory note" was unreasonable, which contradicted the fact that the debt was continuously acknowledged in the chat. Accurately applied the law: cited Article 679 of the Civil Code to clarify that the natural person's loan contract is established upon delivery; in accordance with Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation of Private Lending, required the defendant to provide evidence of the repayment fact; and adjusted the interest claim to comply with the regulation that if no interest is agreed upon, the interest shall be calculated according to the LPR.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Court of Shunyi District, Beijing City determined that the loan relationship was established, but the amount of the debt was confirmed to be 835,000 yuan after the reconciliation; the defendant failed to prove the cash repayment, and should bear the unfavorable consequences of the burden of proof; the plaintiff's collection records interrupted the statute of limitations and did not exceed the time limit; and the overdue interest shall be calculated at an annual interest rate of 3.85%.

The verdict: Zhao Nan is required to repay the principal and interest of 835,000 yuan, and bear the case acceptance fee of 6,000 yuan.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Civil lending requires enhancing legal awareness. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xiong BinrongAttorney (Practice License No.: 11101202211410897, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ): Agent services. Reminder: It is necessary to sign a standardized written loan contract, specifying the amount, interest rate, and term; properly preserve evidence such as transfer records, IOUs, and chat records; pay attention to the three-year statute of limitations, and promptly assert rights when detecting breach of contract risks to prevent rights from being unprotected due to exceeding the statute of limitations.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions about Civil Loan Disputes

  1. Q: If the other party says they have paid off the debt in cash but don't have a receipt, how can I prove that they haven't repaid it?
    A:The party claiming repayment of cash bears the burden of proof. If there are no receipts, cash withdrawal records, or witnesses, the court generally will not accept the claim, and the defendant in this case lost the case.
  2. Q: Can a copy of the IOU help win a lawsuit over a loan dispute?
    A:Yes. If the transfer records, chat records, and other evidence can form a chain of evidence to prove the borrowing agreement and the delivery of the loan, the copies of these documents can be used as the basis for making a final judgment.
  3. Q: If there's no agreement on interest, how much will the court calculate it as?
    A:If no interest rate has been agreed upon, the overdue interest shall be calculated based on the one-year LPR (3.85% in this case), rather than the four-fold of the LPR claimed by the plaintiff.
  4. Q: Can WeChat chat used to collect debts interrupt the statute of limitations for lawsuits?
    A:Yes. Continuous collection of debts and repayment commitments can interrupt the statute of limitations. In this case, the plaintiff collected the debts in March 2023 and filed a lawsuit in November 2024, which did not exceed three years.
  5. Q: What evidence do I need to prepare if I want to sue someone for not repaying a loan?
    A:Prepare transfer vouchers, IOUs or promissory notes, chat records, and debt collection records, etc. After forming a complete chain of evidence, file a lawsuit against the defendant at the court in the defendant's residence.