After the limitation of action expires, it is common for the creditor to send a loan collection notice to the debtor and the guarantor, and the guarantor signs or seals it in real life. How to characterize this behavior depends on the specific situation. The Supreme People's Court's "Reply on the Legal Effect of Borrower's Signature or Seal on the Reminder beyond the limitation of action" stipulates: "According to the spirit stipulated in Articles 4 and 90 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the credit union sends the borrower a reminder beyond the limitation of action. If the debtor signs or seals the notice, it will be regarded as a reaffirmation of the original debt, and the creditor-debtor relationship will be protected by law." Although the reply stipulates that the borrower's signature or seal on the above-mentioned notice is regarded as a reconfirmation of the original debt, resulting in the legal consequences of recalculation (interruption) of the limitation of action, it does not stipulate the legal consequences of the guarantor signing a reminder notice after the guarantee period and the limitation of action have expired, nor does it distinguish in detail the influence of the contents of the notice on the effectiveness of reconfirmation. In this regard, the Supreme People's Court stipulated in the Reply on whether the repayment agreement reached by the parties beyond the limitation of action should be protected by law: "During the limitation of action, the repayment agreement reached by both parties on the original debt belongs to a new creditor-debtor relationship. According to the spirit of Article 90 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the repayment agreement is protected by law. " To sum up, it can be seen that the guarantor's signature on the dunning notice after the limitation of action or the expiration of the guarantee period can be applied to the specific determination in the Supreme People's Court's Reply on whether the repayment agreement reached by the parties during the limitation of action should be protected by law, but in the specific application, attention should be paid to reviewing whether there is a repayment period and a guarantee period in the specific content of the dunning notice. Specifically, when reviewing the dunning notice, it is important to review whether the guarantor has indicated that he is willing to continue to guarantee repayment or assume the guarantee responsibility. If so, it can be understood that the two parties have reached a new agreement on the original debt, and the new agreement is legally binding on the guarantor; If the guarantor has no intention to continue to bear the responsibility, it cannot be regarded as reconfirming the debt or providing a guarantee. In reality, lenders often use the need of financial accounting as an excuse to ask the guarantor to sign for confirmation, so as to hide the real purpose of this move, and the guarantor often falls into the debt collection trap designed by the lender because of lack of legal knowledge. Therefore, when signing the reminder, the guarantor should make it clear whether he is willing to take responsibility, so as to reduce the litigation risk that may be brought by signing. (Baofeng County People's Court Zhang Jianli)

Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.