Not long ago, there was an online loan lawsuit, and from September 2016 to September 2020, the plaintiff Wang lent money through the Jiufu Puhui platform by registering the "Wukong Finance" APP, and the defendant Jiufu Puhui matched a total of multiple loans. As of November 30, 2020, the plaintiff Wang's account still showed that more than 40,000 yuan of loan principal and interest could not be repaid. The plaintiff Wang filed a lawsuit, requesting that Jiufu Puhui be ordered to repay the principal and interest of the loan of more than 40,000 yuan, and after the civil judgment of the municipal and provincial courts at all levels was lost, the plaintiff Wang was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme Court for a retrial.
The Supreme People's Court ruled that: After review, this court believes that the focus of the review of this case is: (1) whether the legal relationship between Wang and Jiufu Puhui is a private lending; (2) Whether Jiufu Puhui should bear the responsibility of repaying principal and interest to Wang.
Based on the ascertained facts, the Supreme People's Court found that there was no expression of intent to enter into a private loan contract between Wang and Jiufu Puhui, and objectively Wang did not actually lend money to Jiufu Puhui, nor did Jiufu Puhui actually lend money to the user. Therefore, the Jiufu Puhui Platform is an intermediary service agency that provides loan information services, and the relationship between it and Wang is an intermediary contract. Based on the above analysis, Wang's assertion that the establishment of a private lending relationship between him and Jiufu Puhui lacked factual and legal basis, and this court did not accept it. As to the question of whether Jiufu Puhui should bear the responsibility of repaying principal and interest to Wang, according to the above analysis, the relationship between Jiufu Puhui and Wang is an intermediary contract relationship, not a private lending relationship, so Jiufu Puhui does not need to bear the responsibility of repaying the loan in accordance with the law. The Supreme People's Court ruled as follows: rejecting Wang's application for retrial.
Since the withdrawal of P2P online loans, such cases have become uncommon. In P2P online lending, the question of whether the platform is the debtor of the online loan and whether there is a creditor-debtor relationship between the lender and the platform directly determines who the online loan lender should sue. There is only an information intermediary contractual relationship between the platform and the lender that is compliant, and it is not a private lending relationship, so the lender will inevitably lose the lawsuit against the platform for a loan dispute. If the lender wants to protect its rights and interests through legal means, it should sue the actual payee. Based on the spirit of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases and the Judicial Interpretation on Private Lending, some online lending platforms are currently promoting "localized collection litigation" and supporting lenders to initiate collection and legal proceedings against overdue borrowers with the help of lawyers. This is undoubtedly a good thing for lenders.
This collection method organically combines lenders, platforms and lawyers, which can effectively eliminate the previous problems of violent collection and slow payment collection by the platform, and at the same time put pressure on the non-repayment of the old people to force them to repay. You can pay more attention to whether the platform you have invested in has launched a territorial collection lawsuit, and the sooner you intervene, the better.