Litigation and result: On March 4, 2004, the plaintiff sued the two defendants, demanding that the two defendants jointly repay the loan principal and interest of more than 680,000 yuan. During the trial, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the lawsuit against one of the defendants, because the business license of one of the defendants was revoked by the local administrative department for industry and commerce in 2002, and the court ruled in court to allow it.
During the trial of this case, the plaintiff submitted three loan collection notices, showing that the plaintiff collected the loans from the two defendants on September 1 day, September 1 day, September 1 day and March1day respectively. The defendant had no objection to the authenticity of the loan contract, the guarantee contract, the loan voucher and the collection notice, but claimed that the seals on the three collection notices were all stamped by our company at the same time and could not be used as valid evidence in this case, so the plaintiff's lawsuit had passed the statute of limitations and applied for the identification of the official seal. The plaintiff claimed that the original collection notice dated September 1 day 01kloc-0/2006 was lost. Therefore, the court entrusted the Provincial Higher People's Court to appraise the two reminders on September 1 day, May 1 day, and March1day, 2002, and the appraisal conclusion was that the seals of the two defendants on the notices were formed by continuous stamping. The plaintiff refused to accept this and applied to the higher authorities for re-appraisal, but failed to pay the appraisal fee within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the court held that the seals of the two confirmation reminders were formed by continuous stamping and could not be used as valid evidence in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff has sued for more than two years, and the judgment is as follows: the plaintiff's claim is rejected.
My comments: In view of the above cases, I think the focus of this case is the statute of limitations: the loan expires in September of 1 year, and the defendant's guarantee period is two years from the date of debt performance, that is, the guarantee period is from September 10 to September 10, 2003. During these two years, if the plaintiff collects money from the defendant, the limitation of action may be interrupted. According to the law, the limitation of action is recalculated from the time of interruption.
Through calculation, in this case, in order to ensure the limitation of action for loan recourse, the plaintiff must collect money from the defendant at least once from March 4, 2002 to September 10, 2003, so as to ensure that the legal limitation of action can be reached by March 4, 2004.
According to the above analysis, the plaintiff made the following mistakes in the loan operation and litigation:
1. The plaintiff seriously violated the operating rules in the process of collecting loans. In order to save trouble, the borrower and guarantor are required to stamp the blank collection notice several times at the same time, so that they don't have to meet each other when collecting in the future, just fill in the relevant contents. However, according to the law, the subsequent collection is not the true intention of the parties, so it cannot cause the legal consequences of the interruption of the limitation of action. There are not a few cases in which banks lose cases, and the disciplinary responsibility of the managers should be seriously investigated.
Second, the plaintiff did not carefully review all the case materials and provided redundant evidence materials. For example, the original reminders dated September 2006 1 and May 2006 1 1 have been lost, and only copies have been submitted. There is no other evidence to prove that the copies are true. Although this evidence is actually unnecessary in this case, if it must be provided, the defendant will also object to the copy, and its authenticity cannot be determined. The notice of collection on September 38, 2006540 1 day is also redundant, because it has no influence on the case at this time, but it provides comparative materials for the other party to apply for identification.
Three, should pay the appraisal fee in time. If the plaintiff refuses to accept the appraisal and requests re-appraisal, he shall pay the appraisal fee in time within the time specified by the court, otherwise he shall bear the adverse legal consequences. If the re-appraisal result is the same as the previous appraisal result, the lawsuit can be stopped in time to avoid wasting more expenses.
Fourth, the defendant obviously came prepared. The second defendant knew that he had stamped two collection notices in succession at the same time, and put forward the idea of identification seal during the trial. Once the appraisal results show that the seals of the two evidences are formed at the same time, it can be proved that the evidence is illegal, the illegally formed evidence has no evidence effect, and the plaintiff has lost at the starting line.
5. Due to the short time interval between two collection notifications, it is difficult for the existing identification technology to identify the formation time. Even if it can be identified, the cost is high and there is no litigation interest.
To sum up, both in the process of loan handling and litigation, the plaintiff laid the groundwork for losing the case. However, if the case is carefully studied in advance, there is still hope of winning the case.
According to the previous analysis, we know that in order to ensure the limitation of action for loan recourse, the plaintiff must collect money from the defendant at least once from March 4, 2002 to September 2003 10, and during this period, the plaintiff collected money from the defendant on March 4, 2002 10. If the plaintiff fails to submit the collection notice with the date of September 200 1 year 1 day at the same time, the limitation of action can only be interrupted by this collection notice, because the defendant can't ask the appraisal question without comparative materials.
Lessons learned: First, the parties concerned should carefully analyze the case, carefully screen the evidence to be submitted, and don't gild the lily, let alone make the evidence used by the other party into evidence that the other party refutes itself. The second is to fully exercise litigation rights and strictly abide by various legal provisions. Third, we should treat our work with a correct attitude and not neglect our duties.