The transfer is given or borrowed during the love period? Judgment this court

The transfer is given or borrowed during the love period? Judgment this court

Modern Express (Reporter Zhu Whaun Correspondent Lu Fangfang) During love, often do not count the more money, but after breaking up, I want to clear the "emotional debt".

One side said that it is a loan, the other party is a gift, how to determine? Recently, the judgment of the Liangxi District Court of Wuxi City gives an answer: indicate "borrowing" when transferring, should be recognized as a borrow. Wang and Liang met in August 2019, and later talked about love.

However, after more than 1 month, the two broke up. During the love, Wang was transferred to Liang through WeChat, Alipay transferred a total of more than 30,000 yuan, including WeChat transfer twice, once is 5,200 yuan, once it is 1314 yuan; Alipay is transferred 4400 yuan unnotes the except, the rest of the transfer 10,000 yuan indicate "loan".

After breaking up, Wang wants to return to Liang, but Liang has pulled him from WeChat, and Alipay has no echo. Wang sued the Liangxi Court and asked Liang immediately returned all borrowings and pays overdue interest.

After the trial, the court believes that the amount of WeChat transfer is a specific number, and the fact that the two sides is in love relationship at the time, should not be recognized as a borrow. In Alipay transfer, some of the borrowings are indicated when they transfer, which can prove that the truth of Wang’s transfer is not a gift; for unmarked Alipay transfers, combined with the facts of their love, should not be recognized as loans.

Therefore, the court decided that Liang was returned to Wang and retained the payment of overdue payments. The judge stated that the evidence provided by the parties who had the responsibility of the proof of proof, the people’s court was reviewed and combined with the relevant facts, and it was convinced that the existence of the facts of the confidence was highly likely, and the facts should be identified.

The particularity of the case is that the two sides are in love, forming a specific personal property, the plaintiff advocates lending, requiring a more stringent proof responsibility than ordinary relationships, only transfer records, can not exclude the possibility, lending Does not have high possibility, therefore no transfer labeling "loan" will not be recognized as a borrow.

The judge also reminded the accounts between lovers, especially when there is a large amount of money or property, if there is no gift, it should express the clear and have evidence, otherwise it will undertake the corresponding legal risk.

(This article is related to the consolidation of the surname).