英文摘要 |
In judicial practices, there have been common differences in the judicial application of replacing the benchmark interest rate with the loan prime rate (LPR) on the loan market, which was initiated on August 20, 2019. This has resulted in a large number of cases where the court improperly interprets why the party changed the interest rate, or changed the agreement or the legal interest rate without authorization. This kind of situation not only leads to wrongful application of the law and damages the trust and interests of the parties, but also causes inconsistent judgments frequently and undermines judicial unity and justice. The main reason lies in the mistaken understanding that the interest rate in the loan market has been cancelled and in the confusion of the retrospective effect of the relevant judicial interpretation. Based on the gradual nature of the reform of interest rate marketization and the lag of legislative amendments, the benchmark interest rates and the loan prime rate will continue to coexist for a period of time. In practice, the improper practice of applying the loan prime rate without exception from August 20, 2019 should be corrected, and the benchmark interest rate should be determined pursuant to Civil Code Time Effectiveness Regulations according to specific circumstances. In addition, it is necessary to revise the existing legislation, establish the general system of interest on delayed performance of monetary debt, and clarify the retroactivity benchmark of relevant judicial interpretation, so as to realize the standardization and unification of interest rates. |