Do practical things for the masses | 1.44 million!One point is not less!

Money exchanges in acquaintances are relatively common in practice. Based on trust or obstructing face, failure to leave a creditor's certificate, which leads to controversy on the nature of the money. The most common of which is the dispute between investment funds and borrowing. No, the seventies of the old man Sun encountered such a thing.

Introduction to the case

This case is a non -governmental lending dispute. Sun claimed that Wang was his friend's son and run a sofa field. At first, Wang borrowed 200,000 yuan from Sun and issued an IOU, and then borrowed 1.24 million yuan from Sun, a total of 1.44 million yuan, and has not been repaid so far. Wang argued that 200,000 yuan was indeed a loan, but the subsequent 1.24 million yuan was the investment of Sun Mou's sand field, not a loan, and did not agree with it.

Referee result

After receiving the case, the judge starts from the nature of the controversy in the case in this case and conducts investigations around the focus of the dispute. In the evidence of the undertaking judge, the evidence submitted only in the "Cooperation Agreement" was signed and confirmed by Sun, but the agreement was signed in August 2011, which was not related to the case. There is no signature confirmation in other protocol documents. Although Wang advocated that he held a shares for Sun, Wang failed to submit evidence to prove it. At the same time, Wang recognized that the company that Sun had invested was over -red, and Sun did not receive any dividend models. In the case of only witness testimony, it is not enough to prove that the 1.24 million yuan is an investment fund, and the liability for proof has not yet been transferred. The court finally judged that Wang repaid the principal of 1.44 million yuan to Sun and paid the corresponding interest.

Judge

According to Article 16 of the "Supreme People's Court on the Application of Laws on the Application of Civil Loan Cases", the plaintiff only filed a civil lending lawsuit in accordance with the transfer voucher of financial institutions, and the defendant's debate of the transfer of the transfer or other debt of the two parties, the defendant's debate system, the presence, The defendant should provide evidence to prove it. After the defendant provided the corresponding evidence to prove its claim, the plaintiff should still bear the responsibility for the establishment of a loan relationship.

In this case, the passive part of the parties failed to allow the other party to issue a debit or other creditor's rights. After Sun Mou mentioned a private loan dispute based on the transfer voucher, Wang should complete the proof of the proof of the investment of the money. Because Wang could not complete the proof, he lost the case.

So, what enlightenment does such disputes bring to us?

The first is to retain the creditor's rights in time. There is a saying that "brothers and brothers settle accounts." No matter how good the relationship is, the nature of the exchanges should be clear. If it is a loan, it is recommended to write a written borrowing agreement or debit to write the principal of the loan, interest and loan period.

The second is to pay attention to saving transfer vouchers. The loan contract is a practical contract and needs to be established after the payment is delivered. It is recommended to use transfer remittances and other methods of delivery. If you need cash delivery, please pay attention to reserve a withdrawal certificate and let the other party issue cash receivables.

Third, the payer should pay special attention to retaining evidence. In practice, the plaintiff often has the claim of the funds of investment funds as a loan. In view of the aforementioned legal provisions, the defendant shall bear the responsibility for proof of the facts of the funds. If you do n’t pay attention to retaining evidence, it ’s easy to eat dumb losses. Signing a written investment agreement is a good choice.

- END -