During the relationship between the two parties
Actual case: the plaintiff and the defendant are in love. During the period of love, the plaintiff used a special number to transfer money irregularly through WeChat, and some ordinary numbers were transferred through the bank. After the two parties broke up, the plaintiff sued the defendant for repayment on the grounds of private lending disputes, but the lawsuit was rejected by the court.
Summary of the case: The plaintiff Xiaodong was told to introduce the defendant Xiaohong to the plaintiff through one of his fellow villagers, and the plaintiff Xiaodong said that he had been pursuing the defendant. The official statement is 2065438+May 28th, 2006, which is proved by mail. The plaintiff Xiaodong claimed that the defendant Xiaohong borrowed money from the plaintiff Xiaodong as follows: 1. Bank transfer: 2065438+May 25, 2006, transfer 1.5 million yuan; May 3 1, 2065438, transfer 10999 yuan; Transfer RMB 22118 on June 28th, 20/6; 2065438+transfer on July 7, 2006 16000 yuan; 2. WeChat transfer: 201May 6 17, WeChat transfer 199.99 yuan; On May 22, 20 16, WeChat transferred 88.88 yuan; On May 23, 20 16, WeChat transferred RMB 168.88 yuan; On May 24, 20 16, WeChat transferred RMB 199.99 yuan; 201June 3, 6, WeChat transfer 168.88 yuan; 201June 4, 6, WeChat transfer 199.99 yuan; 201June 6, 6, WeChat transfer 166.66 yuan; RMB 2,0/kloc-0,438+04 was transferred from WeChat on June 9, 20 16; 2065438+WeChat transfer on June 27th, 2006 199.99 yuan; 201wechat transfer on July 2, 6 199.99 yuan; On July 9, 20 16, wechat transferred 199.99 yuan.
Therefore, the plaintiff Xiaodong asked the defendant Xiaohong to repay 73,000 yuan and interest, and asked the defendant Xiaohong to compensate the plaintiff Xiaodong for mental damages of 30,000 yuan. Defendant Xiaohong replied that Defendant Xiaohong had no objection to the above transfer amount, and Defendant Xiaohong claimed that bank transfer was the plaintiff Xiaodong's request for the defendant Xiaohong to buy a gift, and WeChat transfer was a red envelope blessing, which belonged to the gift behavior of plaintiff Xiaodong during his pursuit of Defendant Xiaohong, and was not a loan. Defendant Xiaohong didn't borrow money from plaintiff Xiaodong, but plaintiff Xiaodong pursued me at that time and said that she would give me a gift, so she gave me a red envelope with WeChat. The confession of 20 13. 14 yuan transferred by WeChat belongs to the normal gift behavior of defendant Xiaohong in the original trial during her love.
Legal fairness and justice
Referee's point of view: The court held that the focus of this case was to determine whether the money transferred by plaintiff Xiaodong to defendant Xiaohong was a private loan or a gift during love. The basis for distinguishing the legal relationship between the two depends on the real meaning of the actor when he makes the act. Combined with this case, the plaintiff and the defendant met in the second half of 20 15, and both parties confirmed that the plaintiff Xiaodong had been pursuing the defendant Xiaohong. Plaintiff Xiaodong claimed to formally declare his confession to defendant Xiaohong by email on May 28th, 20 16, while Plaintiff Xiaodong claimed that the earliest transfer was May 6th, 20 17/99. Plaintiff Xiaodong claimed that the relationship between the two parties deteriorated in September of 20 16, defendant Xiaohong claimed that it was July of 20 16, and plaintiff Xiaodong claimed that the latest transfer was WeChat transfer in July of 20 19/99.99 yuan.
Therefore, from the above analysis, the bank transfer and WeChat transfer of plaintiff Xiaodong to defendant Xiaohong were concentrated from May to July, 2065438+2006, which coincided with the warming-up (formal confession) period and cooling-down (deterioration) period of the relationship confirmed by the original and defendant Xiaohong, and the amount of WeChat transfer listed by plaintiff Xiaodong was quite special, with a small amount, accurate to two decimal places, mostly "6, 8 and 9". It belongs to a red envelope blessing that represents a good blessing. According to life experience, it can be inferred that the plaintiff Xiaodong's true meaning is blessing rather than borrowing. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff Xiaodong has the intention to lend the money to the defendant Xiaohong to repay the principal and interest when due. Although the amount of bank transfer is large, it also occurred from May to July of 20 16, which is highly consistent with the time period of WeChat red envelope transfer and the changes in the relationship between the two parties. According to the judgment standard of high probability of existing evidence and evidence in civil litigation, the court held that the transfer from plaintiff Xiaodong to defendant Xiaohong was a voluntary gift, but in this case, the gift from plaintiff Xiaodong had been completed and there was no legal revocation, so plaintiff Xiaodong asked defendant Xiaohong to repay the loan and interest. Accordingly, the court rejected all the claims of the plaintiff Xiaodong according to law.
Judge's decision
Law Review Bian Xiao: According to Article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation on private lending, if both parties are ordinary colleagues or friends, the plaintiff only has the transfer voucher, which can also be presumed as the loan agreement. Unless the defendant can disprove that the transfer is not a loan, the plaintiff will claim that the plaintiff's request will generally be supported by the court according to the loan. In this case, the plaintiff Xiaodong paid the defendant Xiaohong through bank transfer and WeChat transfer, in which WeChat transfer was obviously a gift during the period of love, which can be inferred from the special digital meaning. However, the amount of bank transfer is relatively large, and there is no special figure. It is not excluded that the defendant Xiaohong did borrow money from the plaintiff Xiaodong, but it is precisely because of the close love relationship between the original and the defendant that it cannot be ruled out that the transfer between the two parties may be due to various legal relationships such as living consumption, gift, loan and investment, so the plaintiff Xiaodong advocates returning the loan to the defendant Xiaohong as a private loan. The plaintiff Xiaodong needs to bear a stricter burden of proof than ordinary private lending disputes to prove his claim. Unfortunately, the plaintiff Xiaodong has no other evidence to prove that the transfer between the two parties is a legal relationship of lending, so the court can only reject the plaintiff Xiaodong's claim.
The amount involved in this case is not large, and it is in line with social common sense to give certain gifts during love. No matter whether the love is successful or not, the general gift can't be returned. However, if the amount of gifts during love is huge, obviously with conditions or purposes, then the large amount of property gifts during love is often for the purpose of concluding marriage, which is more in line with social common sense and is a reasonable category that the public can recognize. In the case of large gifts, if the two parties terminate their love relationship for some reason, the desire to conclude a marriage will not exist, so the other party should return the large amount of property received, otherwise it will violate the fair and reasonable civil legal code of conduct. As for how much money can be considered as a large amount of property, this standard does not exist. Of course, this is another legal topic, which will be discussed in detail with you later.
Finally, it is suggested that if there are a large number of accounts, the prospective husband and wife relationship between the two sides should have written proof, because once a dispute occurs, it is this intimate relationship that will lead you to bear a stricter burden of proof. If you can't prove it, you will bear the adverse legal consequences. Moreover, we must choose a reasonable cause of action to claim rights according to the actual situation of both parties, and we cannot require all transfers to be private loans, otherwise it is inevitable to lose the case.