Chinanews.com, Wuxi, September 9th (Lu Fangfang and Sun Quan) During a relationship, couples often do not care about money exchanges, but after breaking up, they want to liquidate this "emotional debt."
One party said it was a loan, but the other party said it was a gift. How should it be determined?
On the 9th, the Liangxi District People’s Court of Wuxi City gave an answer in a judgment: If the transfer is marked with "borrowing", it shall be deemed to be a loan.
Wang and Liang met in August last year and then fell in love.
However, after more than a month, the two broke up.
During the period of love, Wang transferred more than 30,000 yuan to Liang via WeChat and Alipay. Among them, WeChat transferred twice, once for 5200 yuan and once for 1,314 yuan; Alipay transferred 4,400 yuan without specifying the reason, and the other transfers were 2.2 Ten thousand yuan is marked with "borrowing."
After breaking up, Wang wanted to ask Liang to get the money back, but Liang had blocked him from WeChat, and there was no response from Alipay.
Wang then sued the Liangxi court and demanded that Liang immediately return all the loans and pay overdue interest.
After the trial, the court held that the amount of WeChat transfers was a specific figure, combined with the fact that the two parties were in a romantic relationship at the time, and should not be considered a loan.
In Alipay transfers, some of the loans are indicated at the time of the transfer, which can prove that Wang's true intention at the time of the transfer was not a gift; for unmarked Alipay transfers, combined with the fact that the two parties are in love, it should not be considered as a loan.
Therefore, the court ruled that Liang returned the loan of 22,000 yuan to Wang and paid interest on overdue repayment.
"For the evidence provided by the party who bears the burden of proof, the people's court, after reviewing and combining relevant facts, is convinced that the existence of the fact to be proved is highly probable, it should determine that the fact exists." The judge handling the case stated that the particularity of the case lies in During the period of love, the two parties formed specific personal attributes. The plaintiff who advocates borrowing needs to bear a stricter burden of proof than the person in the ordinary relationship. Only the transfer record does not rule out the possibility of gifting. Borrowing is not highly possible. Therefore, transfers that are not marked with "borrowing" should not be regarded as loans.
The judge also issued a reminder: If there is no intention to donate the accounts between lovers, especially when large amounts of money or property are involved, they should be clear and have evidence, otherwise they will bear corresponding legal risks.
(Finish)