Fenghua Machinery Factory (hereinafter referred to as Machinery Factory) under the Agricultural Machinery Administration of a certain district of Xinxiang City is an enterprise with legal person qualification. On December 26th, 1994, the factory borrowed 29, yuan from a rural credit cooperative of a certain district of Xinxiang City (hereinafter referred to as the Credit Cooperative), with an agreed loan period of 2 years. By May 1997, the machinery factory had returned 13, yuan, and still owed 16, yuan in principal and 7,6 yuan in interest. The machinery factory closed down in 1998. According to the instruction of Agricultural Machinery Bureau, Wang Qing, the legal representative of the factory, handed over all the property of the factory to Hou Sheng on June 13th, 1999. On January 15th, 21, Xinxiang Administration for Industry and Commerce revoked the business license of this factory. On March 28th of the same year, the credit union sent a loan collection notice to the machinery factory, and Wang Qing, the former legal representative of the factory, signed it for approval. On November 29, 21, when the credit union learned that the machinery factory had been recovered by the Agricultural Machinery Bureau and handed over the property to others, it served a loan collection notice to the Agricultural Machinery Bureau through the notary office. In May 22, the credit union appealed to the court to ask the Agricultural Machinery Bureau to repay the loan principal of the original Fenghua Factory of 16, yuan and the interest of 16,272 yuan. In this case, there are two opinions on whether the behavior of the credit union has exceeded the limitation of action: < P > One opinion is that the behavior of the credit union has exceeded the limitation of action. Because the machinery factory paid part of the principal and interest of the credit union before May 1997, and the credit union didn't file a lawsuit until May 23, 22, which has exceeded the statute of limitations of two years, the credit union's claim should not be supported. Although the credit cooperative provided a dunning notice signed by Wang Qing, the former legal representative of the machinery factory, it was no longer the legal representative of the factory after the factory closed down in 1998 and handed over all the property of the factory to Hou Sheng on June 13, 1999, and the business license of the factory was revoked on January 15, 21. Therefore, Wang Qing's behavior is not a duty behavior, so it cannot be concluded that the credit cooperative has demanded repayment of debts from the debtor within the limitation of action, and the limitation of action should not be interrupted. According to the provisions of Articles 36, 4 and 48 of the General Principles of Civil Law and the first and second paragraphs of Article 18 of the Civil Procedure Law, the claims of the credit cooperatives should be rejected.

Another view is that the statute of limitations has not been exceeded in this case. Because: 1. The behavior of the credit union asking Wang Qing, the former legal representative of the machinery factory, to repay the debt should be regarded as asking the debtor to repay the debt. Although the credit cooperatives only served the loan collection notice to Wang Qing on March 28th, 21, at this time, the business license of the machinery factory had been revoked, and Wang Qing was no longer the legal representative of the factory, but the credit cooperatives didn't know this fact before, and no one told him, so they still thought that the factory was still the legal representative of Wang Qing, so they served the loan collection notice to Wang Qing. Wang Qing's behavior here is essentially a kind of apparent agency, and the consequences of his behavior should be attributed to the machinery factory. The behavior of a credit cooperative should be regarded as a request for repayment of debts to the debtor. 2. Wang Qing's recognition of debts is legal and effective. From May 1997, when the credit cooperatives should know that their rights have been infringed to the time when they filed a debt repayment request with the machinery factory, the statute of limitations has exceeded two years. However, when Wang Qing received the loan collection notice, he did not raise any objection and said that he would continue to perform his obligations. Therefore, it should be regarded as that the debtor voluntarily gave up the right of defense in the statute of limitations, so the credit cooperatives' right to win the lawsuit still exists after being recognized by the debtor. This is also a manifestation of civil subjects' independent disposition of their civil litigation rights, which should be respected. 3. The statute of limitations was interrupted in this case. The statute of limitations in this case can be divided into: first, from May 1997 to March 21, at this stage, the credit union exceeded the statute of limitations, but it was still valid because of Wang Qing's recognition, and the statute of limitations was interrupted from March 21 and recalculated from this time; Second, from March to November, 21, when the credit union learned that the machinery factory had been recovered by the Agricultural Machinery Bureau and the property was recovered, it served the loan collection notice to the Agricultural Machinery Bureau through the notary office, and the statute of limitations was interrupted again from November, 21; Third, from November 21 to May 22, when the creditor's rights of the credit cooperatives were not repaid, they brought a lawsuit to the court, and the limitation of action was interrupted for the third time from May 22; Third, from November 21 to May 22, when the creditor's rights of the credit cooperatives were not repaid, they brought a lawsuit to the court, and the limitation of action was interrupted for the third time from May 22. However, in the above-mentioned second and third interruptions, the two-year limitation of action stipulated in the General Principles of Civil Law was not exceeded. Therefore, during the litigation period stipulated by Chinese law, the credit cooperatives should support their claims.

I agree with the second opinion.