Who can provide me with several controversial civil litigation cases on the Internet in recent years?

Does the behavior of credit cooperatives exceed the limitation of action?

Fenghua Machinery Factory (hereinafter referred to as Machinery Factory) under the Agricultural Machinery Administration Bureau of a certain district in Xinxiang City is an enterprise with legal personality. On February 26th, the factory borrowed 290,000 yuan from a rural credit cooperative in a certain district of Xinxiang City, 1994+05438, with an agreed loan period of 2 years. By1May, 1997, the machinery factory had returned130,000 yuan, and still owed the principal160,000 yuan with interest of 7,600 yuan. 1998 machinery factory closed. According to the instructions 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 1999. 200 1 1 65438+5 Xinxiang City Administration for Industry and Commerce revoked the business license of the factory. On March 28th of the same year, the credit union issued a loan collection notice to the machinery factory, which was signed by the original legal representative of the factory, Wang Qing. 2001165438+1On October 29th, after learning that the machinery factory had been repossessed by the Agricultural Machinery Bureau and the property had been handed over to others, the credit cooperative served the loan collection notice to the Agricultural Machinery Bureau through the notary office. In May, 2002, the credit cooperative filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the Agricultural Machinery Bureau repay the loan principal 1.60 million yuan and interest 1.062 yuan. In this case, there are two opinions on whether the behavior of the credit union exceeds the limitation of action:

One view is that the behavior of credit cooperatives has exceeded the statute of limitations. Because the machinery factory paid part of the principal and interest of the credit union before May 1997, the credit union didn't file a lawsuit until May 23, 2002, which has exceeded the limitation of action for two years, so the claim of the credit union 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 in June 1999, and it was no longer the legal representative in 20015. According to the provisions of Articles 36, 40 and 48 of the General Principles of Civil Law and the first and second paragraphs of Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law, the claims of the credit cooperatives shall be rejected.

Another view is that this case has not exceeded the statute of limitations. Because: 1, the credit cooperative's repayment of debts to Wang Qing, the former legal representative of the machinery factory, should be regarded as a request for repayment of debts to the debtor. Although the credit union sent a loan collection notice to Wang Qing on March 28th, 20001year, 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 union didn't know this fact before, and no one told him, so it still thought that the factory was still the legal representative of Wang Qing, so it sent a 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 asking the debtor to repay the debt. 2. Wang Qing's recognition of debt is legal and effective. Since May 1997, the credit cooperatives should have known that their rights had been violated when they filed a debt repayment request with the machinery factory. However, when Wang Qing received the loan collection notice, he did not raise any objection and said that he would continue to fulfill his obligations. Therefore, it should be regarded that the debtor voluntarily gave up the right of defense during the limitation of action, so the right of victory of credit cooperatives still exists under the condition of debtor's approval. This is also a manifestation of civil subjects' independent disposition of civil litigation rights, which should be respected. In this case, the limitation of action was interrupted. The statute of limitations in this case can be divided into: first, from May 1997 to March/200 1 year, the credit union exceeded the statute of limitations at this stage, but because Wang Qing's approval was still valid, the statute of limitations was interrupted from March/20001year and recalculated from this time; 2. From March, 2000 to June, 2000 1 1, the credit cooperatives, after learning that the machinery factory had been repossessed by the Agricultural Machinery Bureau and its property, served the loan collection notice to the Agricultural Machinery Bureau through the notary office, and the limitation of action was interrupted again from June, 20001. 3. 20011/By May 2002, the creditor's rights of the credit cooperatives were not paid off, and the statute of limitations was suspended for the third time from May 2002; III. 20011/By May 2002, the creditor's rights of the credit cooperatives were not paid off, and a lawsuit was brought to the court. The limitation of action was interrupted for the third time since May 2002. However, the above-mentioned second and third interruptions did not exceed the two-year statute of limitations stipulated in the General Principles of Civil Law. Therefore, during the legal proceedings in China, credit cooperatives should support their claims.

The author agrees with the second opinion.