Record of Chen's Agency for the Reexamination of a Loan Dispute Case

----Lawyer Zhou Xiangen

Misfortune begets receipt

In January 1999, Chen issued a receipt to Chen XX for a payment of 80000 yuan from his niece Chen XX. The receipt stated that he received 80000 yuan from Chen XX today; In November 2001, Chen XX sued the grassroots people's court on the grounds that Chen had not repaid the loan; The lawsuit states that due to a shortage of funds, Chen borrowed RMB 80000 from him. During this period, he repeatedly urged Chen to repay the loan, but Chen refused to return it on the pretext. Chen argued that the receipt was issued to Chen XX, but the amount stated in the receipt was a loan returned by Chen XX to him.

The reason for the first trial is puzzling

The first instance court held that the fact that Chen issued a receipt and received 80000 yuan from Chen XX was recognized as there was no objection from both parties during the judgment argument. As for whether the payment is a loan or repayment, as a receipt, in terms of form, it should be the recipient's reason and basis for possessing the payment or the payer's reason and basis for paying the payment. Chen is the payee in the dispute in this case, and did not provide a reason and basis for possession of the payment in this case, or Chen XX has a reason and basis for paying the payment. Chen's claim that the payment was originally recovered by Chen XX after borrowing from him is inconsistent with common sense. The receipt should indicate "recovery" or "receipt of the loan" rather than "receipt". If Chen has no reason or basis to possess the funds, nor is it the repayment of the loan that Chen XX originally borrowed from him, Chen is obligated to return Chen XX 80000 yuan; The receipt provided by Chen XX, from the perspective of its probative effect, can prove its litigation claim; The fact of the debt and debt relationship formed between the two parties is clear, and Chen argues that the reasons are insufficient and will not be adopted. Therefore, within ten days after the judgment takes effect, Chen XX will be returned RMB 80000. Chen was dissatisfied and appealed to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court. Due to his failure to pay the appeal within the prescribed time, the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court made a ruling on automatic withdrawal of the lawsuit.

Initiation of Prosecution Protest Supervision Procedure

The prosecution protested that: the original first instance court's judgment found that the facts were contradictory, leading to errors in the judgment. The reasons for this are: 1. According to the principle of "who claims, who provides evidence" in the Civil Procedure Law, Chen XX sued and requested Chen to repay the loan, and sufficient evidence should be provided to prove the existence of a legal relationship between the two parties regarding the loan; Chen XX only provides receipts and cannot independently prove the existence of a loan legal relationship between the two parties. 2. There is a fundamental difference between receipts and IOUs; A promissory note can independently prove the existence of a loan legal relationship between the two parties, while a receipt cannot independently prove the existence of a debt legal relationship between the two parties; If there is no other evidence to support this case, it can only be confirmed based on the surface content of the documentary evidence; Therefore, relying solely on the receipt can only prove the fact that Chen received 80000 yuan from Chen XX, and cannot prove the fact that Chen borrowed 80000 yuan from Chen XX. 3. To prove that Chen has no facts or basis to possess the funds, the burden of proof should be borne by Chen XX, not Chen. 4. On the one hand, the first instance court found that the evidence provided by Chen XX could prove his lawsuit claim, and on the other hand, it also believed that Chen had no reason or basis to possess the money, and therefore was under an obligation to return due to improper enrichment. This contradicts Chen XX's claim.

The legal consequences of promissory notes and receipts are different

Lawyer Zhou Xiangen, as Chen's agent in the retrial proceedings, expressed his own views on the legal significance of promissory notes and receipts in this case. Believing that:

1、 The legal significance and consequences contained in receipts and IOUs are different. From a legal perspective, it can be concluded that the person issuing the receipt has legal reasons to accept other people's property as a written certificate issued by the person delivering the property; It marks the end of a legal relationship as the obligor fulfills its obligations. A promissory note, which indicates that the person holding the promissory note hands over the property to another person for possession or ownership and is issued by the receiving party to the party providing the property, signifies that a legal relationship arises from the performance of obligations by the obligor, resulting in a specific debt relationship between the two parties. The first instance court used the receipt as a promissory note for judgment, which clearly confused the different legal meanings and consequences between the two.

2、 As a judicial judgment, the meaning contained in receipts and promissory notes should be inferred based on the general public's understanding. However, the original first instance judgment goes beyond the general public's understanding, and the receipt is authenticated as a promissory note and the judgment requires the person issuing the receipt to bear the responsibility for return, which is contrary to common sense.

3、 In civil legal acts, both parties have the obligation of diligence and careful attention. In this case, the receipt was written by Chen XX and signed by Chen for completion; When Chen XX receives a receipt signed by Chen, necessary inspections and reviews should be conducted on the content and form of the receipt. Receipts or promissory notes that do not match the content and form should not be accepted; Otherwise, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, it shall be deemed that they acknowledge the content contained in the receipt or promissory note and bear the adverse or favorable legal consequences arising from it. In this case, Chen XX believes that the receipt issued by Chen is the promissory note issued to him, indicating that there is a deficiency in the content of the promissory note. Therefore, the holder of the promissory note should bear the burden of proof for the defective promissory note; The original first instance judgment requires Chen to bear the responsibility for the reasons and basis for possessing the paragraph, which is inconsistent with the principle of "who claims, who provides evidence" stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law.

4、 The original judgment of the first instance court held that Chen had no reason or basis to hold the funds and should be returned, indicating that the funds held by Chen should be defined as unjust enrichment in law. However, the original judgment of the first instance court was based on the legal relationship of the loan, indicating that the reasons and results of the judgment contradict each other, and also contradict the facts claimed by Chen XX, and contradict the principle of "no complaint, no response" stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law.

Considering that Chen XX was unable to explain the reason and content of the amount contained in the receipt, it was proposed in the retrial procedure that the amount contained in the receipt was formed by converting partnership investment funds into debts; Regarding this, Lawyer Zhou Xiangen believes that the original record of the first instance court indicates that there is no legal relationship between the two parties regarding partnership investment. In the original record of the first instance court, Chen XX pointed out that Chen borrowed money from him due to a shortage of funds, and never pointed out that the partnership investment was converted into a loan.

The settlement of the mediation case did not determine the legal relationship of the dispute in this case

After the retrial process in this case, the preliminary opinion of the court is that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that the receipt held by Chen XX was sued as a promissory note and Chen was required to repay the loan; Considering that both parties have a relationship of uncle and nephew, it is recommended that the case be settled through reconciliation. Finally, under the persuasion of his brother, Chen agreed to give Chen XX RMB 40000 on the basis of withdrawing the lawsuit; In this situation, lawyers can only respect the opinions of the parties involved in order to facilitate harmonious coexistence between both parties.