1. The types of cases
1. The private loan contract that knows that the loan is used for illegal and criminal activities is invalid
2. The name of buying a house is actually a loan, which is treated as a loan
3. Non-governmental lending does not enjoy the priority right of repayment without going through mortgage registration according to law
4. The loan during the marriage relationship should still be repaid together after divorce
5. Only the transfer vouchers claim that private lending relationships are difficult to receive court support
6. The cash repayment without proof was defeated
7. It is agreed that interest exceeding the upper limit of judicial protection is not protected by law
8. It is difficult to determine the existence of a loan relationship with large loans only with IOU
9. P2P online lending provides intermediary services for private lending, and high fees in disguised form are not protected by law
10. The arrears that exceed the statute of limitations lose the right to win
Two, typical cases
(1) The private loan contract that knows that the loan is used for illegal and criminal activities is invalid
Case number: ( 2019) Zhejiang 0327 Minchu No. 7232
Basic case
The plaintiff Chen Mozhi and the defendant Du Moqian were relatives, and they participated in the "All Love Alliance" MLM organization. The MLM organization develops downline members in the name of charitable donations from the "All-Love Alliance" company. Each member receives a temporary deposit of 51,000 yuan. The MLM organization distributes the temporary deposit as a dividend to the leading members of the team, and then continues to distribute it to the team leaders. Team development members. On June 7, 2016, the plaintiff transferred 50,000 yuan and 1,000 yuan to the account 62×××51 of China Construction Bank under the name of Wang Mousu, an outsider, respectively, for a total of 51,000 yuan, and paid for the defendant to participate in the "Zhong Ai Alliance" MLM Organization’s temporary deposit. Later, the defendant issued an IOU to the plaintiff, confirming to borrow 50,000 yuan from the plaintiff on June 7, 2016. After the plaintiff urged, the defendant has not yet returned.
Court decision
Defendant Du Moqian issued an IOU with a loan amount of 50,000 yuan to the plaintiff after the plaintiff Chen Mozhi paid the temporary deposit for him to participate in the "All Love Alliance" MLM organization. The 50,000 yuan advance payment was actually a loan borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff . According to the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Private Lending Cases, Article 14, paragraph 1, paragraph 3, the lender knows or should know in advance that the borrower is still providing loans for illegal and criminal activities. The people's court should affirm that the private lending contract is invalid. The plaintiff and the defendant participated in the "Alliance Alliance" MLM organization, and knew that the borrowed money was used for the criminal activities of the MLM organization but still provided the defendant with the loan. The loan contract in the case should be deemed invalid. After the contract was invalidated, the property acquired under the contract should be returned, so the defendant should return the 50,000 yuan loan that was advanced to him. Since the defendant has not been able to repay the loan after the plaintiff’s request, it has caused the plaintiff’s interest loss. The plaintiff now requires the defendant to compensate for the interest loss calculated at the benchmark interest rate of similar loans for the same period set by the People’s Bank of China from the date of the lawsuit. . The defendant argued that there was no agreement between the two parties to borrow, and that the plaintiff was the defendant’s online and involved criminal activities such as pyramid schemes, so the loan should not be returned. The basis was insufficient and it was not accepted.
(2) The name of buying a house is actually a loan, which is treated as a loan
Case Number: ( 2015) Qi Min Chu Zi No. 2809
Basic case
On February 5, 2015, the defendant Duan borrowed money from the plaintiff Li, and the plaintiff signed a "House Sales Contract" with the defendant in order to ensure that the creditor's rights can be realized when it expires. The contract stipulated that the plaintiff purchased a villa from the defendant in Qilin District, Qujing City, Yunnan Province at a price of 1 million yuan. The defendant went to the housing property registration authority before May 6 of the same year to cooperate with the plaintiff in the property transfer registration procedures. On the same day, the plaintiff remitted 945,000 yuan to the defendant, and the defendant issued a receipt to the plaintiff. The receipt stated that the defendant had received 1 million yuan from the plaintiff for the transfer of the Shuiyunjian Villa, of which 945,000 yuan was paid by transfer and 55,000 yuan was paid in cash. Later, the plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant to cooperate with the house transfer formalities, but the defendant kept shitting. Therefore, the plaintiff went to the court and requested the court to order the defendant to immediately go through the real estate transfer formalities for the plaintiff. During the trial, the plaintiff changed the lawsuit request for the defendant to repay the plaintiff’s loan principal of 1 million yuan, and the interest from February 5, 2015 to the day when the repayment was completed (calculated at the bank loan interest rate for the same period). It was also found that the plaintiff and the defendant did not issue written IOUs and did not agree on interest and repayment time.
Court decision
The loan should be repaid. The defendant borrowed 1 million yuan from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff delivered the loan to the defendant on February 5, 2015. The loan contract between the two parties was established and became effective. According to Article 206 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China: “The borrower shall repay the loan within the agreed period. There is no agreement on the loan period or the agreement is not clear, and it cannot be determined in accordance with Article 61 of this law. The borrower can repay the loan at any time; the lender can urge the borrower to repay within a reasonable time limit.” Therefore, the plaintiff’s petition for the defendant to repay the loan principal of 1 million yuan is supported.
(3) Non-governmental lending does not enjoy the priority right of compensation if it has not gone through the mortgage registration according to law
Case number: ( 2016) Beijing 0114 Minchu No. 8232
Basic case
On March 18, 2015, the defendant Guo Mouxue also borrowed 450,000 yuan from the plaintiff Sun Mou and wrote an IOU with the content: "Jin Guo Mouxue (ID: ×××) borrowed Sun Mouye in cash of 450,000 yuan (Four hundred and fifty thousand yuan), Guo Mouxue paid Sun Mouye 250,000 yuan (two hundred and fifty thousand yuan) before June 1, 2015, and then paid Sun Mouye 200,000 yuan before September 1, 2015 (two Ten thousand yuan in whole). Borrower: Guo Mouxue. 2015.3.18". A receipt is written under the IOU at the same time, which reads: "Today Guo Mouxue received Sun Mouye's cash of 450,000 yuan (four hundred and fifty million yuan). Payee: Guo Mouxue. 2015.3.18. On July 28, Guo Mouxue issued a letter of undertaking to Sun Mouye, which read: "Guo Mouxue borrowed Sun Mouye RMB 450,000 (four hundred and fifty thousand yuan). The loan date is from March 18, 2015 to 2015. Ended on September 1. The two parties negotiated and agreed to return to Sun Mouye in one lump sum before September 15, 2015. During this period, Guo Mouxue voluntarily agreed to use his own Mercedes-Benz as loan collateral, such as before September 15, 2015 Unable to pay off the loan, Guo Mouxue agreed to unconditionally transfer a Mercedes-Benz under his name to Sun as the loan repayment. The loan collateral is a Mercedes-Benz: (number plate ×××, brand model: Mercedes Mercedes-Benz WDDNGSEB, vehicle identification code: ×××, engine number: 27294631969075). Hereby promises. Promiser: Guo Mouxue." Later Sun Mou and Guo Mouxue did not go through the vehicle mortgage registration.
Court decision
Legitimate private lending relationships are protected by law. The loan contract relationship between Sun Mouye and Guo Mouxue is the true intention of both parties, and it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and should be deemed legal and effective. The parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or the facts on which they refute the other party’s claims. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the parties’ factual claims, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences . Guo Moxue asserted that the fact of the loan did not exist and that it was an IOU issued under coercion, but Guo Moxue did not submit evidence to prove his claim and rejected it. Guo Mouxue argued that he had already repaid Sun Mou also through bank transfer, but the bank transfer time he claimed all occurred before the issuance of the IOU, the receipt and the date of the issuance of the IOU and the receipt, and it was different from July 28, 2015. The content of the letter of undertaking issued by Sun Mou also contradicted, so he believed that the evidence submitted by him was insufficient to prove that he had repaid Sun Mouya. The loan that Guo Mouxue borrowed from Sun Mouye should be repaid. Sun also asked the defendant Guo to repay the loan, which was supported by sufficient evidence and legal evidence. Regarding Sun’s claim that he has priority to receive compensation for the vehicle mortgaged by Guo Mouxue, although Guo Mouxue promised to mortgage the vehicle in his letter of undertaking, the clause was invalid because both parties did not register the mortgage. Sun Mouxue Nor does it have the right to receive priority compensation for the price of the vehicle.
(4) Loans during the duration of the marriage relationship should still be repaid together after divorce
Case number: ( 2016) Shanghai 0112 Minchu No.937
Basic case
The plaintiff Zhang Moudong and the defendant Yu Mouming were friends. Yu Mouming and the defendant Tao were originally married. The two registered their marriage in January 2009, and they lived together after marriage and operated logistics business. In March and April 2013, the two defendants separated. On May 28 of the same year, the two defendants went to the Civil Affairs Bureau to register for divorce. On February 6, 2013, in order to borrow 1.2 million yuan from Zhang Moudong, both parties signed a personal loan contract. The contract agreed that the principal of the loan was 1.464 million yuan. The loan period was from February 6, 2013 to 2013. On June 5, 2010, if the borrower fails to repay the loan as agreed, in addition to paying 50,000 yuan in compensation, it shall also bear the daily liquidated damages calculated at three-thousandths of the day until the loan is paid off. The contract was signed by Zhang Moudong and Yu Mouming. After Yu Mouming signed the contract guarantor with the words "Tao", the contract was handed over to Zhang Moudong. After the loan expired, Yu Mouming only returned the loan of 110,000 yuan, and the balance was not paid. It was also found that when the two defendants divorced, Yu Mouming issued a list of debts to Tao. The list listed the debts under the names of Tao and Yu. Among them, the debt to Zhang Moudong was listed as 1.3 million yuan. under.
Court decision
During the period when the defendant Yu Mouming borrowed money from the plaintiff Zhang Modong, the two defendants were married and still lived together and did not live apart. Although the guarantor in the personal loan contract was not signed by the defendant Tao himself, the defendant Tao did not bear the joint responsibility for this reason. The reason for the repayment liability is insufficient. The defendant Yu Mouming stated whether the signature of the word "Tao Mou " was signed by him , and the plaintiff did not know. The list of debts provided by Tao provided by Yu Mouming when both parties registered for divorce showed that the debt was indeed listed as Yu Mouming’s debt, but the division of the debt between the two defendants did not affect the plaintiff’s request for the two defendants The right to assume joint repayment responsibilities. Therefore, Zhang Moudong's claim that Tao Mou jointly repay the loan and the corresponding liquidated damages should be supported.
(5) It is difficult for the court to support a private lending relationship with only the transfer vouchers
Case number: ( 2018) Su 0106 Minchu No. 9927
Basic case
According to the remittance certificate, debit card details, bank certificate and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff Wang Moudong passed its ending number on November 9, 10, 11, 12, and December 2, 2015. The bank account number of "3345" and the bank account number of "4807" of the defendant Shen Mou were transferred respectively 1 million yuan, 400,000 yuan, 350,000 yuan, 250,000 yuan and 1 million yuan. People Wang. On May 27, 2016, the defendant transferred 1 million yuan to the bank account of the plaintiff’s agent Wang with the end number "5222" through his account. The detailed list of debit card account history submitted by Shen proved that after receiving the plaintiff’s first four sums of 2 million yuan in total , they paid four times on November 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2015. A total of RMB 1 million, RMB 400,000, RMB 300,000, and RMB 300,000 were transferred to the stock account with the ending number "5496" opened in Nanjing Securities. On May 27, 2016, after the defendant received the transfer of 1 million yuan into the above-mentioned stock account, he transferred the money to Wang on the same day. In addition, in the first trial of this case, the plaintiff’s indictment and the power of attorney were not written by the plaintiff after review, so he requested the plaintiff Wang Moudong to attend the court in person. In the second trial of this case, the plaintiff made a statement in court that it was his original intention to sue and authorize an agent ad litem. At that time, he orally entrusted his daughter Wang to handle it. And the plaintiff also stated in the court statement that he did not know the defendant, "My son ** told me that he knew the defendant and that he could make money in stocks, and asked me to give her the money and give me interest." This is corroborated by the defendant’s argument that “the defendant does not know the plaintiff, there is no relationship between friends, relatives, work and economic contacts between the two parties”, that is, the plaintiff and the defendant do not know each other.
Court decision
The legal loan relationship is protected by law. The parties concerned shall have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their own claims are based or on which they refute the other party's claims. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual claims of the parties, the parties who bear the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. According to Article 196 of the "Contract Law of the People's Republic of China", a loan contract is a contract in which the borrower borrows from the lender, returns the loan and pays interest when due. According to the facts ascertained, the plaintiff and the defendant did not know each other. The plaintiff only acted on the instructions of his son XX to transfer money into the defendant Shen's account. The two parties did not sign a loan contract and did not agree on rights and obligations. , The plaintiff did not provide any evidence to prove the existence of a loan relationship between the two parties except for the bank transfer certificate. Therefore, there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to borrow money, the defendant only has a corresponding legal relationship with the person outside the case, and there is no loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. At present, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the loan of 2 million yuan in accordance with the basic legal relationship of the private loan. There is no factual and legal basis and it is not supported.
(6) The cash repayment without proof was defeated
Case number: ( 2014) Yang Minyi (Min) Chuzi No. 5487
Basic case
The plaintiff Hu Mouliang alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant were friends. On June 15, 2012, the defendant Huang Mouxing borrowed money from the plaintiff on the grounds of financial difficulties. After the plaintiff lent RMB 522,500 in cash to the defendant, the defendant issued a statement to the plaintiff on the same day. Issued the IOU and promised to return it on August 15, 2012. Afterwards, the defendant failed to repay the loan as agreed, so the plaintiff filed a complaint to the court and demanded the defendant to repay the loan of RMB 522,500, and based on the principal of the loan of RMB 522,500, the payment was made from August 16, 2012 to the date of actual repayment, according to the bank. Overdue repayment interest calculated from loan interest rate over the same period. The defendant Huang Mouxing argued that it was true that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff, but the amount actually borrowed was 500,000 yuan. Because the plaintiff said that some interest was to be paid, the IOU wrote 522,500 yuan. The defendant has already returned RMB 280,000 to the lawsuit. Since the repayments were all in cash, they were unable to provide relevant evidence. The defendant only agreed to return the unpaid money.
Court decision
Citizens' legal borrowing relationship is protected by law. The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and issued an IOU, indicating that the loan relationship between the two parties was established. The defendant’s delay in paying back is obviously improper. The defendant argued that the actual amount of the loan was 500,000 yuan, and 280,000 yuan had been returned, but the corresponding evidence was not provided to prove it, and it was not accepted. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to repay the loan and pay interest on the overdue repayment was supported.
(7) The agreed interest exceeds the judicial protection and goes online without legal protection
Case number: ( 2018) Shanghai 0109 Minchu No. 21441
Basic case
The two defendants are husband and wife and were married in September 2008. From August 2016 to March 2017, the two defendants successively borrowed a total of 5.5 million yuan from the plaintiff, with an agreed monthly interest of 5%. In June 2017, the two defendants returned 1 million yuan, so the loan principal is 4.5 million yuan. In addition, the two defendants paid the plaintiff's interest at 5% per month until May 2017. Starting from June 2017, the interest rate has been changed to 3% per month as agreed by both parties. Since then, the two defendants have repaid several interest payments, and they have not repaid the loan since October 1, 2017. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a complaint to the court to request the two defendants to return the loan and interest.
Court decision
The lawful property rights of citizens are protected by law. The two defendants have borrowed money from the plaintiff, and there is evidence to prove that both parties have no objection, which this court confirms. However, the interest agreed by both parties during the loan was too high, and this court adjusted it in accordance with the law, and the overpaid interest was converted into the principal according to the repayment time. After calculation, the two defendants still owe the plaintiff the principal of 3,264,038 yuan. After August 28, 2017, the two defendants did not repay the loan. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed the interest from October 1, 2017 at an annual interest rate of 24%. This did not violate the law and this court allowed it.
(8) It is difficult to determine the existence of a loan relationship with large loans only with evidence
Case number: ( 2016) Beijing 0102 Minchu 28028
Basic case
The plaintiff stated that the two parties have had economic exchanges with each other since 2008 and 2009. The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff many times for children, relatives buying a car, getting married, etc., and the plaintiff also borrowed money from the defendant. The two parties both exchanged tens of thousands of dollars in cash and did not issue an IOU. During the period, the defendant also made repayments, mostly in cash. On December 17, 2013, both parties determined after liquidation that the defendant had to repay the plaintiff with a loan of 300,000 yuan. The repayment date was at the end of December 2014, and an IOU was issued. This IOU was formed due to intermittent loans, and the amount was determined to be 300,000 yuan after liquidation. The non-one-off delivery of 300,000 yuan is in cash. The defendant denied what the plaintiff said, saying that the relationship between the two parties was lover, which lasted for ten years. The plaintiff was unmarried, the defendant and his spouse were separated, and the defendant lived in the plaintiff’s home for four or five years and lived with the plaintiff’s parents. The two parties started quarreling at the end of 2013. On December 17, 2013, the two parties clashed and agreed to break up. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had delayed himself, so he asked the defendant for a breakup fee. The defendant signed an IOU and agreed to pay the plaintiff 300,000 yuan. In 2015, the two sides officially broke up. The plaintiff is unemployed, there is no mutual loan between the two parties, only the defendant has given the plaintiff money. This 300,000 yuan did not actually happen, nor was it delivered.
Court decision
The lender’s provision of IOUs can only prove that both parties have reached a loan agreement. If the lender cannot further prove the actual delivery of the loan, the loan contract does not take effect. The plaintiff’s presentation of the IOU issued by the defendant can only prove that the plaintiff and the defendant reached a loan agreement, but they did not submit evidence to prove that the loan was actually delivered. The plaintiff claimed that the formation of this IOU was formed after the settlement of cash transactions between the two parties for many years, but it could not clearly state the delivery details such as the delivery time and place of delivery, and the defendant denied the formation of a private lending relationship between the two parties and did not recognize the actual delivery of the loan. In this case, the plaintiff claimed to pay a large amount of loans in cash. In the whole case, only IOU was used as evidence of the loan, and there was no other evidence to support it. Therefore, this court determined that there was no real loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The detailed list of debit card account history submitted by the plaintiff can only prove that the defendant remitted 100,000 yuan into the plaintiff’s account on April 21, 2015, and failed to prove the actual delivery of the 300,000 yuan loan. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for the defendant to repay the loan and pay interest does not comply with the law and this court does not support it.
(9) P2P online lending provides intermediary services for private lending, and high fees in disguised form are not protected by law
Case number: ( 2018) Shanghai 0115 Minchu No. 16379
Basic case
On January 4, 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant Shanghai You Wo Loan Company signed an offline "Loan Agreement", stipulating that the plaintiff borrowed 217,600 yuan, an annual interest rate of 12%, and a loan period of 36 months (received from the plaintiff’s fund account on the platform Calculated from the date of borrowing the principal), platform service fee is 16,000 yuan, platform management fee is 652.80 yuan/month, and monthly repayment amount is 7880.23 yuan (including principal and interest of 7227.43 yuan and platform management fee of 652.80 yuan). After platform registration, loan information release, lender’s bidding, etc., on January 6, the defendant Shanghai Youwodai Company transferred 217,600 yuan to the platform virtual sub-account opened by the defendant Shanghai Youwodai Company for the plaintiff, after deducting a fee of 57,800 After RMB 16,000 for the platform service fee marked in the capital flow list, RMB 200 for entrusted inquiry, RMB 16,000 for credit investigation service, RMB 25,600 for post-loan management fee, the remaining RMB 159,800 will be paid by a third party commissioned by the defendant Shanghai Youwo Loan Company The organization transferred to the plaintiff's China Merchants Bank account. It is found again that the accumulative repayment of the plaintiff is 181,245.29 yuan (7880.23 yuan/month × 23 months). During the execution of the contract, the plaintiff requested to adjust the principal and interest of the repayment to no avail. During this period, the defendant requested the plaintiff or a close person to collect it by phone or SMS, and the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Shanghai Banking Regulatory Bureau of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.
Court decision
The "Credit Consulting and Management Service Agreement" listed the defendant and Jiayin Credit Reporting Company as the platform party and service party respectively, and agreed that the defendant and Jiayin Credit Reporting Company would provide the plaintiff with information release, loan recovery, and post-loan services, but the defendant Both Jiayin Credit Information Co., Ltd. and Jiayin Credit Information Company are actually controlled by Yan Mougui. The contractual obligations of the two overlapped, the behavior was mixed, and the representation was consistent, and the service content was virtual. It should be pointed out that the comprehensive cost of funds collected by various institutions from borrowers in the form of interest rates and various fees should comply with the provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on private lending interest rates. The comprehensive cost of funds collected by various institutions from borrowers should be converted into an annual basis. Information such as various loan conditions and overdue processing should be fully and publicly disclosed in advance to remind borrowers of related risks. According to the "Loan Agreement" and "Credit Consultation and Management Service Agreement", the defendant and Jiayin Credit Information Company have collected a total of 8,1300.80 yuan (including platform service fee of 16,000 yuan, entrusted inquiry fee of 200 yuan, credit investigation service fee of 16,000 yuan, The post-loan management fee is 25,600 yuan, the platform management fee is 23,500.80 yuan (652.80 yuan/month × 36 months)], and the charge ratio is 50.88% (81300.80 yuan/159800 yuan). During the performance of the agreement, in response to the situation encountered by the plaintiff, the defendant and Jiayin Credit Reporting Company also failed to take active measures to provide services, and the amount of fees charged was obviously asymmetry with the service quality. When the defendant Shanghai Youwo Loan Company, as the platform party, gave the plaintiff a loan, it first deducted the post-loan management fees and other expenses from the loan principal, which caused the plaintiff’s actual loan amount to be obviously inconsistent with the amount agreed in the loan agreement, which increased the plaintiff’s borrowing in disguise Therefore, based on the contract process, actual deduction, content of the agreement, and the cause of the dispute, the plaintiff’s loan should be based on the actual amount of 159,800 yuan, and the borrowing cost (including interest and various expenses) should be based on the annual The interest rate is limited to 24%.
(10) The arrears exceeding the statute of limitations lose the right to win
Case number: ( 2013) Jiangfa Minchuzi No. 05892
Basic case
Li used the name Li XX. On September 12, 2005, Luo borrowed 30,000 yuan from Li XX and issued an IOU. According to the IOU, Li XX borrowed 3000 yuan (30,000 yuan) in cash today, which was used as the capital turnover of the gas station, and it was returned before March 30, 2006. On December 20, 2006, Luo also borrowed 50,000 yuan from Li. It is recorded that the IOU issued by Luo Mou borrowed 50000.00 yuan (50 million yuan) from Li Mou for the X club decoration project. After that, Luo did not repay the loan, and Li sued the court on July 8, 2013.
Court decision
A loan contract is a contract in which the borrower borrows from the lender, repays the loan and pays interest when due. The IOU issued by Luo to Li was sufficient to prove the fact that Luo borrowed money, and the loan relationship between the two parties was established. On December 20, 2006, when Luo borrowed from Li, the two parties did not agree on the repayment period. It was an indefinite loan, and Li could ask Luo to repay at any time. Therefore, he supported Li's request for Luo to repay the loan of 50,000 yuan. After Li claims his rights to Luo, Luo should pay Li the interest on capital occupation at the bank loan benchmark interest rate. Li supported Luo's litigation request to pay interest at the benchmark lending rate of financial institutions for the same period announced by the People's Bank of China from the date of the lawsuit. The statute of limitations refers to the statute of limitations that the right holders whose civil rights have been violated do not exercise their rights within the statutory statute of limitations. When the statute of limitations expires, they lose their right to request the people's court to compel the obligor to perform their obligations in accordance with the procedure. The statute of limitations stipulated in the "General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China" is 2 years, counting from the time when the right is known or should have been infringed. On September 12, 2005, when Luo borrowed 30,000 yuan from Li, the agreed repayment period was March 30, 2006. After the loan period expired, Luo did not repay the loan. Li already knew that his rights were infringed and the statute of limitations Start counting. Li did not provide evidence to prove that he had claimed creditor's rights against Luo within the statute of limitations period. Luo also denied that Li had claimed creditor's rights against him. The statute of limitations expired on March 30, 2008. Li's request for Luo to repay the loan of 30,000 yuan and interest has exceeded the statute of limitations and has lost the right to win. Therefore, Li's request for Luo to repay the loan of 30,000 yuan and interest is not supported.