A brief summary of the case: the plaintiff for a bank, the bank in 2000 September 14 to the defendant of an electronic company 610000 yuan loans, loan expires in September 10, 2001. On the same day, the two of a new technology development Co. Ltd and the plaintiff signed a guarantee contract, provide a suretyship of joint and several liability is one of the defendants borrowing, the guarantee period of the contract as agreed debt expiration date two years, scope of the guarantee to include the liabilities under the main contract, and all expenses, compound interest, overdue interest penalties, liquidated damages, damages and legal costs, legal fees and the realization of creditor's rights. After the expiration of one of the defendants did not meet loan repayment, the two defendants failed to perform the guarantee liability.

   Action and result: in March 4, 2004, the plaintiff sued the two defendants asked the two defendants jointly and severally to repay the loan principal and interest 68 yuan. During the trial, the plaintiff because one of the defendants have been in 2002 by the local administrative department for Industry and Commerce shall revoke the business license in accordance with the law, and therefore the application to withdraw the prosecution in court one of the defendants, the court ruled to permit.

   Proceedings in this case, the plaintiff submitted three loan collection notice, that the plaintiff respectively in September 1, 2001, September 11, 2001, 2002 10 March, two defendants have loan collection. The authenticity of the two defendants on the loan contract, the guarantee contract, loan certificate, collection notice of no objection, but claims three collection notices of the seal is the company at the same time the cover, not as effective as evidence in the case, so the plaintiffs have limitation, and apply for the identification of seal. The plaintiff claimed the original collection notice September 11, 2001 loss. Therefore, the court commissioned the Provincial Higher People's Court on September 1, 2001 and March 10, 2002 two collection notices were identified, the appraisal conclusion to notice the two seals of continuous stamping forming. The plaintiff refuses to accept this, apply to the upper level department re identification, but the appraisal fees not paid within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the court that the continuous stamp forming two collection notices seal is identified, cannot be used as evidence in the case of litigation, aging, therefore the plaintiff has more than two decision as follows: dismissed plaintiffs request.

   My comments: in view of the above cases, I think, the focus of the case lies in the limitation problem: September 10, 2001 loan expires, the warranty period for the debt two years as of the expiry date, the guarantee period is from September 10, 2001 to September 10, 2003. In this two years, if the plaintiff to the defendant for the collection, can be caused by the interruption of the limitation of action, according to the law of limitation of action from the time of the interruption, the period of limitation of action re calculation.

   Through the calculation, in this case to ensure timeliness loan litigation recourse to the defendant, the plaintiff must have at least one collection after March 4, 2002 to September 10, 2003 March 4, 2004, in order to ensure the prosecution in accordance with two years of litigation legal.

   Based on the above analysis, the plaintiff has the following errors in loan operation process and procedure:

   A serious violation of operating rules, the plaintiff in the loan process. In order to save map, regulations require the borrower and guarantor in the blank collection notice at the same time continuous multiple copies stamped, purpose is not to meet with the other party collection, just fill in the relevant contents. But according to the provisions of the law, said after the collection is not the true meaning, it can not cause the legal consequences of the interruption of the limitation of actions. So the banks and lose the case is absent a few, should seriously investigate violations responsibility agency personnel.

   Two, the plaintiff did not seriously review the cases of all materials, provides evidence of excess. If the original collection notice in September 11, 2001 has lost, only submit the copy, and no other evidence to prove that the copy is true. Although the evidence in fact has no need to provide this in the case, but if must provide, the defendant may raise objections to copy, its authenticity is not accepted. Informs the September 1, 2001 is superfluous, because then the collection or not, does not have any effect on the case, but to the other party for identification provides a contrast of reference material.

   Three, we should promptly pay appraisal cost. The plaintiff refuses to accept the re identification of identification, requirements, shall promptly pay appraisal cost in the court within the stipulated time, otherwise it shall bear the legal consequences of its adverse. Re identification results such as the same with the previous identification, also can timely interest disputes, avoid wasting more cost.

   Four, the defendant is obviously well prepared. The two that he had the same time in two consecutive collection notices on the seal, and the identification of seal claims in court, once the identification results for the two evidence seal system formed at the same time, can prove that the evidence is against the law, but the illegal evidence is not evidence of effectiveness, the plaintiff it has to lose at the starting line.

   Five, because the two collection notices time are too close, the existing identification techniques are difficult to identify the formation time, even if it can be identified, costs will be great, have no the lawsuit benefit.

   In summary, the plaintiff in the loan process, or in the course of legal proceedings, are losing the foreshadowing. But if early to make detailed research on the case, can still have the hope of winning.

   According to the above analysis, we know that, in order to guarantee the loan recourse limitation of action, the plaintiff must at least to the collection of a later in March 4, 2002 to September 10, 2003, and during this period, the plaintiff to the defendant is in March 10, 2002 the collection. If the plaintiff did not submit the September 1, 2001 collection notices it, only by this collection notice can be caused by the limitation of actions, because there is no comparison in the wood, nor the appraisal problem.

   Lesson: one is the careful analysis of cases, ready to submit evidence of careful screening, not superfluous, but can not make the evidence for each other, into the retort their evidence. The two is to fully exercise their litigation rights, strictly abide by the laws and regulations. The three is to use a correct attitude towards work, cannot neglect or dereliction of duty.