User consultation:
Is usury unjust enrichment? What is the definition of usury?
Lawyer Duan of Yunnan Datao Law Firm replied:
The part of usury that exceeds the highest interest rate of bank loans in the same period is deemed as unjust enrichment.
Article 26 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases stipulates that if the interest rate agreed by both lenders and borrowers does not exceed 24% per annum, the people's court shall support it.
The interest rate agreed between the borrower and the borrower exceeds the annual interest rate of 36%, and the interest agreement in excess is invalid.
From the judicial interpretation, it can be concluded that the court generally thinks that the annual interest rate is higher than 24%, the court agrees that the interest rate is not higher than 36% and the parties are willing to pay. If the interest rate exceeds 36%, the court will definitely consider it as a high interest rate at this time. Even if the parties can still get it back after paying, the reason for getting it back should be unjust enrichment, that is, even if the interest rate is higher than 36%, the law does not support it.
Comments on Duan Lawyer of Yunnan Datao Law Firm;
Unjust enrichment refers to the act of obtaining benefits without legal basis and causing others to suffer losses. There are four elements: one party's income; The other party is damaged; There is a causal relationship between gains and losses, and there is no legal basis. Unjust enrichment can be divided into paid unjust enrichment and unpaid unjust enrichment. Among them, paid unjust enrichment can be subdivided into three types: no purpose at first, no purpose to be realized and no purpose to be destroyed, while unpaid unjust enrichment can be embodied in infringement of others' rights and interests, refund of compensation fees and compensation.
In the lawsuit of unjust enrichment, there are also defenses related to borrowing put forward by the defendant. Defendant's insurance policy often defends the money paid by the plaintiff on the grounds that the money is the plaintiff's repayment of the loan, indicating that there is a legal basis for obtaining the plaintiff's money.
When the court asks the defendant to prove his claim, the defendant will say that after receiving the repayment from the plaintiff, the original IOU issued by the plaintiff has been returned to the plaintiff, or the IOU has been destroyed, and no evidence can be provided to prove the existence of the loan relationship.