Only the parties' statement cannot be used as a basis for identifying the facts of the case.

【case】

On July 7, 2022, Wang claimed that he had a cooperative relationship with Zhao. On May 25, 2020, due to the capital transfer, Zhao borrowed 100,000 yuan to him, agreed to have a monthly interest of 2.5 points, and he wrote a debit. Now that he urgently needs money, he asked Zhao, but Zhao only paid 13 months of interest of 3,2500 yuan, and the principal refused to pay it back, so he sued the court.

【Hearing】

On August 24, 2022, the People's Court of Yangquan City conducted a public trial in accordance with the law. In the court, Zhao commissioned the lawsuit agent of the Chinese Law Society and Chen Shaoyong, a member of the Shuguang Law Service Institute of Quyang County, believed that there were 30 places between the plains and the defendant, including the profit dividend of the plaintiff and the principal of the repayment, the dividend of the paid, the payable dividend model The defendants have noticed notes, so 85,000 yuan of not remarks should be the principal of repayment, and the monthly interest required by the plaintiff is 2.5 points, which exceeds the legal interest.

Wang did not recognize Zhao. It believes that the defendant claims to repay the loan, but the helling is still in the hands of the plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant still owed its dividend models, so 85,000 yuan was actually a paying dividend.

【judgment】

On August 31, 2022, the People's Court of Yangquan City after public trial believes that the facts of the borrowing are confirmed and the plaintiff of the dispute 85,000 yuan claims to be the dividend of other economic exchanges with other defendants, but no objective evidence is provided to prove it. Only its statement. According to the provisions of Article 90 (1) of the Supreme People's Court on the Several Provisions of the Evidence of Civil Litigation, only the statement of the parties cannot be used as a basis for identifying the facts of the case. Therefore, the court identified 85,000 yuan to repay the principal and interest of the defendant to the plaintiff. At the same time, the monthly interest rate of 2.5 points claimed by the plaintiff was counted in accordance with the law, and the excess part was reduced. Then, the court ruled that the defendant repaid the plaintiff's borrowing of 4639.3 yuan and the amount owed until July 7, 2022, 413.88 yuan, and from July 8, 2022, the payment was based on 4639.3 yuan. By the date of settlement of the above loans.

(Chen Shaoyong)

- END -