In private lending relationships, a promissory note is crucial. It not only serves as evidence to prove the borrowing fact but also relates to issues such as the statute of limitations and interest calculation. If you lend money to someone but accidentally lose the promissory note, can you still recover the loan?

Case Brief

In 2013, Ru Mou borrowed 10,000 yuan from Li Mou and issued a promissory note. Later, Li Mou accidentally lost the promissory note. Starting from March 2024, Li Mou contacted Ru Mou to repay the loan through WeChat, phone calls, and other methods. Ru Mou transferred 200 yuan to Li Mou via WeChat on July 27 and September 5, 2024, totaling 400 yuan. Subsequently, Ru Mou made no further repayments, and Li Mou filed a lawsuit with the court.

Court Trial

After trial, the court held that although the plaintiff Li Mou lost the promissory note, the evidence he provided such as WeChat chat records could prove the creditor-debt relationship between the two parties. Although Ru Mou argued that the loan had passed the statute of limitations, Li Mou had repeatedly demanded repayment from Ru Mou via WeChat. Ru Mou did not raise any objection to the loan amount and transferred a total of 400 yuan to Li Mou twice via WeChat, which sufficiently indicated that he recognized the borrowing fact and was willing to repay the loan. Therefore, his statute of limitations defense should not be supported. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Ru Mou should repay Li Mou 9,600 yuan of the loan plus overdue interest.

Judge's Statement

1. Remedial Measures After Losing a Promissory Note       Article 2 of the "Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases" stipulates: "When a lender initiates a private lending lawsuit with a people's court, it shall provide creditor's rights vouchers such as promissory notes, receipts, and IOUs, as well as other evidence that can prove the existence of the lending legal relationship." In this case, the creditor Li Mou lost the promissory note due to improper storage. Later, he proved through communication records that he had claimed the creditor's rights from Ru Mou via WeChat and other methods. Key evidence showed that Ru Mou admitted the borrowing fact, repaid part of the loan via WeChat, and expressed his intention to acknowledge the loan and continue repaying it, which could prove the existence of the creditor-debt relationship. A promissory note is the core evidence for determining private lending, but in practice, there are often cases where the promissory note is lost due to improper storage after lending. To address such risks, creditors must remember to take timely remedial measures: 1. Negotiate with the debtor to re-sign a promissory note, specifying elements such as the reason for the loan, the amount, the time of debt formation, and the repayment period; 2. Obtain the debtor's recognition of the borrowing fact through phone calls, WeChat, short messages, etc., and fix the evidence. 2. Application of the Statute of Limitations       Article 19 of the "Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Statute of Limitations System in the Trial of Civil Cases" stipulates: "Where the statute of limitations period has expired, and one party makes an expression of intent to agree to perform the obligation to the other party or voluntarily performs the obligation, it shall not be allowed to raise a defense on the ground that the statute of limitations period has expired." In this case, whether the original promissory note contained an agreement on the debt repayment period could not be verified due to objective reasons, but the two parties reconfirmed the original creditor-debt relationship. Ru Mou's partial repayment also constituted the "voluntary performance" as stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 192 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China". This performance has dual legal effects: first, it shall not claim the return of the performed part on the ground of unjust enrichment; second, it produces the effect of precluding the statute of limitations defense for the unperformed part. Therefore, regardless of whether the original debt exceeded the statute of limitations period, Ru Mou lost the right to raise a defense that the statute of limitations period had expired. In practice, some creditors are negligent in exercising their rights after lending, resulting in the expiration of the statute of limitations and the loss of the right to win the lawsuit. In such cases, the following remedies can be taken: 1. Obtain evidence that the debtor recognizes the borrowing fact and is willing to continue performing the debt; 2. Collect evidence indicating the interruption of the statute of limitations, such as the debtor's partial performance or request for an extension of the repayment period.

Legal Provisions

"Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" Article 188  The time limit for requesting a people's court to protect civil rights is three years. Where there are other provisions of law, such provisions shall prevail. The statute of limitations period shall commence from the date on which the obligee knows or should know that his rights have been infringed upon and who the obligor is. Where there are other provisions of law, such provisions shall prevail. However, no people's court shall protect the rights if more than twenty years have passed since the date on which the rights were infringed upon. Under special circumstances, the people's court may extend the time limit upon application by the obligee.Article 192  Where the statute of limitations period has expired, the obligor may raise a defense against the performance of the obligation.

After the expiration of the statute of limitations period, if the obligor agrees to perform the obligation, he shall not raise a defense on the ground that the statute of limitations period has expired; if the obligor has voluntarily performed the obligation, he shall not request the return thereof. Article 675  The borrower shall repay the loan in accordance with the agreed time limit. Where the time limit for repayment is not agreed or the agreement is unclear, and it cannot be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 510 of this Code, the borrower may repay it at any time; the lender may urge the borrower to repay it within a reasonable time limit. "Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the             Statute of Limitations System in the Trial of Civil Cases" Article 19  Where the statute of limitations period has expired, and one party makes an expression of intent to agree to perform the obligation to the other party or voluntarily performs the obligation, it shall not be allowed to raise a defense on the ground that the statute of limitations period has expired.