Article 21 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases stipulates: "If someone else signs or seals the creditor's rights certificate or loan contract, such as IOUs, receipts and IOUs, but fails to indicate his guarantor identity or assume the guarantee responsibility, or cannot be presumed as a guarantor through other facts, and the lender requests him to assume the guarantee responsibility, the people's court will not support it."

It should be noted that if someone else adds the word "borrower" before signing afterwards, the signer may be sentenced to bear the repayment responsibility or guarantee responsibility of the borrower if he can't provide evidence to prove that he only signed as a witness at that time. In this case, it is necessary to identify the IOUs.

Extended data:

situation

On May 9, 20 15, Party B issued an IOU to Party A, stipulating that Party B would borrow 90,000 yuan from Party A, and verbally agreed to repay it in about 3 days. On the same day, Party A paid Party B a loan of 90,000 yuan in cash. After borrowing, Party B fails to repay the loan in time as agreed. On October 20th, 2005/kloc-0, 20 15438+065438, Party B repaid the loan principal of 30,000 yuan to Party A. ..

After repeated reminders from Party A, Party B still fails to fulfill its repayment obligations. On May 9, 20 16, Party C signed the IOU. After repeated reminders from Party A, Party B and Party C failed to fulfill their repayment obligations, so Party A appealed to the court to order Party C and Party B to pay the arrears of 60,000 yuan and interest.

The court held that the legal relationship of private lending between Party A and Party B was confirmed by the receipt, and both the original and the defendant had no objection to the fact that Party B still owed Party A the loan principal of 60,000 yuan. Now Party A requires Party B to repay the loan principal of 60,000 yuan, which is well-founded in law and supported.

Regarding the responsibility of Party C in this case, according to Article 21 of the Regulations on Private Lending, although Party C signed the IOU on May 9, 201June, it did not indicate its guarantor status or willingness to assume the guarantee responsibility. Moreover, according to the ascertained facts, when Party A asked Party C to sign the iou, it did not show that Party C signed as a guarantor, nor did Party C show that he was a guarantor.

Therefore, from the existing evidence submitted by Party A, it cannot be inferred that Party C is the guarantor of the loan in this case. Party A's claim that Party C should bear the repayment responsibility is not supported. Appellant A's claim that "Appellee C should be jointly and severally liable for repayment in this case" could not be established, and the court did not support it.

Peking University Legal Information Network-Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases