In March 2021, Li borrowed 100000 yuan from Zhang, citing the need for capital turnover in business. The two parties agreed on a loan term of one year, and Yang, as a joint guarantor, signed and stamped the loan contract. After the loan expired, Li failed to repay the loan principal and interest as agreed. Zhang repeatedly appealed to Li and Yang for repayment but was unsuccessful. In July 2025, he sued the two parties to Longjing People's Court in Jilin Province, requesting that Li repay the loan principal of 100000 yuan and corresponding interest, and that Yang assume joint and several guarantee liability for the above-mentioned debt. During the trial, Li admitted to Zhang's lawsuit request, while Yang argued that the guarantee period had expired and there was no need to bear the guarantee responsibility again. After trial, the court found that Li, as the debtor, should bear the responsibility for repayment, and the focus of the dispute is whether Yang should bear the guarantee responsibility. According to Article 692 of the Civil Code, the guarantee period refers to the period during which the guarantor assumes the guarantee responsibility, and there shall be no suspension, interruption, or extension. Creditors and guarantors may agree on a guarantee period, but if the agreed guarantee period is earlier than or expires at the same time as the main debt performance period, it shall be deemed that there is no agreement; If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, the guarantee period shall be six months from the expiration of the main debt performance period. If there is no agreement or unclear agreement between the creditor and the debtor on the performance period of the main debt, the guarantee period shall be calculated from the date when the creditor requests the debtor to perform the debt within the grace period. In this case, Zhang and Yang agreed on a joint and several liability guarantee, but did not specify a guarantee period. Therefore, the period during which Yang assumed joint and several guarantee liability was six months from the expiration of the main debt performance period. However, Zhang did not assert any rights against Yang during the guarantee period, and the guarantee liability has been extinguished. Although Yang stated over the phone that he is willing to assume the guarantee responsibility if Li does not repay, Yang made a verbal commitment based on the previous guarantee contract, and did not establish a new guarantee contract with Zhang. Therefore, the verbal guarantee contract does not have legal effect. Zhang's claim that Yang bears joint and several guarantee responsibility is unfounded in law, and the court does not support it. The judge in charge of this case stated that according to Article 685 of the Civil Code, a guarantee contract can be a separately concluded written contract or a guarantee clause in the main creditor debtor contract. Any changes in the content after the conclusion and effectiveness of the guarantee contract, including changes in the principal debt of the guarantee, changes in the guarantee period, changes in the object of the guarantee, namely the principal debtor, and even changes in the agreement of the creditor, must be based on the clear expression of the guarantor's intention and the signing of a written guarantee contract or provision of a written guarantee letter with the creditor as a prerequisite for its establishment. If the creditor fails to exercise their rights in accordance with the law during the guarantee period, the guarantee liability shall be extinguished upon the expiration of the guarantee period, and the guarantee debt shall cease to exist. Therefore, the act of the guarantor verbally promising to continue to assume the guarantee responsibility through telephone or other forms does not restore the already eliminated guarantee responsibility, and it cannot be recognized that both parties have established a new guarantee contract. (New Society)