Witness the "no head case" of borrowing among acquaintances, the judge sacrificed psychology and high probability
The plaintiff claimed that he borrowed 10,000 yuan, and the defendant insisted that he only borrowed 1,000 yuan, but there was no IOU...A private lending dispute was brought to the court. How should the judge decide?
A few days ago, after hearing the case, the Sichuan Great Britain Court, based on information such as “the lender often remembers more clearly than the borrower”, determined that the probability that the plaintiff lent 10,000 yuan to the defendant and did not require the defendant to issue an IOU was greater than that the defendant borrowed 1,000 yuan from the plaintiff. Yuan also issued a probabilistic IOU.
Based on the existing evidence and reasoning, a judgment was made, which supported the plaintiff’s claim of “borrowing 10,000 yuan”.
According to the judge handling the case, the defendant has not appealed and promised to perform the repayment agreement within this month.
"Old acquaintances" borrowed 10,000 yuan
When repayment, he said that he only borrowed 1,000 yuan
According to the Daying County People’s Court, Peng and the plaintiff Jiang are both villagers in a township in Daying County. Because they are both pigeon breeders and they are family members, they usually move around like friends.
According to the statements of both parties, Peng has had the experience of borrowing from Jiang several times. Because of the good relationship, he has never issued an IOU. The amount ranges from a few thousand yuan to 20,000 yuan. Repaid.
Jiang said that in 2016, Peng once again borrowed from Jiang.
Because there was no cash around, Jiang applied for a loan of 10,000 yuan from the bank and handed it to Peng.
Bank loans have a prescribed interest and repayment period, so the two parties did not agree on the fund interest and repayment date.
In view of Peng's good reputation in the early stage, Jiang did not ask him to issue an IOU.
In 2019, when the loan expired, Jiang urged Peng to borrow.
At this time, Peng only admitted 1,000 yuan, and proposed to Jiang that the IOU he had issued stated that he had only borrowed 1,000 yuan, and he asked Jiang to take out the IOU and repay it with the amount stated on the IOU.
Jiang insisted that no IOU was issued at all, so he could not get the IOU. After the two sides negotiated for many times, Peng Mou still only repaid Jiang 1,000 yuan.
The undertaking officer told reporters that Jiang did not accept Peng's statement and believed that although the other party did not issue an IOU, the loan of 10,000 yuan was a fact.
The two people caused disputes. Local township and village cadres conducted many mediations, but they were limited to limited evidence and did not "settle", and they were finally sued in the British Court.
No IOU
Judge launches "logical chain"
After the trial, the court held that it is a fact that both parties have debt problems, but there are differences in amount.
The plaintiff Jiang provided a bank loan and cash withdrawal certificate, and several witnesses respectively confirmed that he "had a loan", "borrowed money to Peng", "seeing him took a stack of money to Peng", etc., but also Can't prove how much money was borrowed.
But the judge found a suspicious point in the trial.
The two parties are acquaintances. They have borrowed many times and have never signed an IOU. Even the previous 20,000 yuan loan did not write an IOU. Why do you have to write the "just 1,000 yuan" this time?
The judge in charge of the case stated that, judging from the premise that both parties have agreed to "have borrowed money multiple times," writing IOUs for borrowing this time is not consistent with the usual practice.
In this regard, the defendant Peng argued that the last time he borrowed only 2,000 yuan from the plaintiff, the plaintiff said that he borrowed 20,000 yuan. After the dispute, he learned a lesson and issued an IOU to the plaintiff for this loan.
But this reason is hard to convince.
The judge handling the case stated that firstly, the plaintiff denied the existence of this fact and the defendant did not provide strong evidence to prove it; secondly, since the two parties had a dispute over borrowing money, why did they borrow money this time?
Moreover, a small loan of only 1,000 yuan is not in line with the common sense of life. Finally, considering that in daily life, the lender often remembers the borrowing matters more clearly than the borrower, combined with the plaintiff’s source of funds and the timing of the loan.
The court therefore determined that the probability of the plaintiff lending 10,000 yuan to the defendant and not requiring the defendant to issue an IOU is greater than the probability that the defendant borrowed 1,000 yuan from the plaintiff and issued an IOU.
Based on the above evidence and reasoning, the court finally made a judgment, and the defendant Peng repaid the remaining loan principal of 9,000 yuan to the plaintiff Jiang.
According to the judge handling the case, the defendant has not filed an appeal, and the judgment has become legally effective. The defendant Peng also promised to perform the repayment obligation within this month.