news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

mr. li, the "big brother" of the "best list", transferred money to the female anchor miss chen many times during their relationship. after they broke up, mr. li sued miss chen in court, claiming that all the money he transferred to miss chen, excluding the expenses of their relationship, was a loan, and demanded that miss chen return more than 150,000 yuan.

on september 3, a reporter from the paper (www.thepaper.cn) learned from the shanghai hongkou district people's court (hereinafter referred to as the "shanghai hongkou court") that the court recently heard a case of private loan dispute caused by money transfer during a relationship.

less than half a year of living together, a loan dispute arose

according to the shanghai hongkou court, ms. chen was originally a live streamer on a certain platform. mr. li met ms. chen in the live broadcast room, and the two developed a romantic relationship in january 2023. during the relationship, the two lived together, and mr. li and ms. chen had many financial transactions.

in less than half a year, mr. li transferred dozens of money to ms. chen, totaling more than 150,000 yuan. some of mr. li's transfers and reasons are listed below: to express his gratitude, he transferred "520" and "1314" yuan, etc.; to buy gifts for ms. chen, he paid 1,151 yuan on her behalf; due to conflicts during the relationship, he transferred 12,888 yuan to seek ms. chen's forgiveness; because the live broadcast company asked ms. chen for liquidated damages for not completing the live broadcast, to help her overcome the difficulties, he transferred 100,000 yuan; because ms. chen said that her father owed debts and needed ms. chen's help to repay the debt, to help her solve the difficulties, he transferred 20,000 yuan...

in june 2023, the relationship that was initiated through the live broadcast came to an end and the two had a loan dispute.

the plaintiff, mr. li, claimed that most of the transfers during the relationship were loans that ms. chen requested from mr. li on the grounds of difficulty in cash flow. since the two parties were in a relationship at the time of the loan, mr. li did not ask ms. chen to issue an iou. after the breakup, ms. chen delayed returning the money. when communicating with ms. chen about the repayment via text messages, ms. chen had acknowledged the loan of 120,000 yuan and promised to return 5,000 yuan at the beginning of each month.

later, mr. li saw that ms. chen still had not repaid the loan, so he had no choice but to call the police. the two sides mediated under the arrangement of the police, but failed to reach an agreement. so mr. li sued in court, claiming that the money he transferred to ms. chen, minus the expenses of their relationship, was a loan, and demanded that ms. chen return all the loans and the overdue interest, totaling more than 150,000 yuan.

in this regard, ms. chen only acknowledged that the 20,000 yuan sum was a loan and agreed to repay it, and claimed that the remaining funds were gifts and should not be returned.

ms. chen argued that she had never issued an iou, and the transferred money was not a loan, but a gift from mr. li during their relationship. the 100,000 yuan penalty for breach of contract for the live broadcast and the 20,000 yuan to help ms. chen's father pay off his debts were also gifts from mr. li out of his willingness to help his girlfriend. as for the money other than the 120,000 yuan, some of it was used for the expenses of the two people's common life, and most of it was money given by mr. li for his personal use. the promise she made in the text message to return 5,000 yuan per month was a helpless move made when mr. li called the police to collect the money and his life was affected.

the court: the defendant agreed to repay 120,000 yuan, which was deemed a loan

after trial, the shanghai hongkou court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was the nature of the transfer of more than 150,000 yuan from mr. li to ms. chen, whether it was a loan or a gift. the establishment of a loan relationship requires the existence of a loan agreement and the delivery of money.

first, although mr. li did not ask ms. chen to issue a promissory note, this does not directly deny the nature of the loan. since the transfers occurred during the relationship between the two parties, and given the special nature of the relationship, it is reasonable for mr. li not to ask ms. chen to issue a promissory note.

secondly, most of the transferred funds from mr. li were used by ms. chen for her own use or to solve problems for ms. chen, and ms. chen had expressed her agreement to repay mr. li in monthly installments of rmb 120,000.

again, although mr. li had expressed on wechat that he was willing to transfer the money to ms. chen, due to the changes in the relationship and situation between the two parties, it cannot be concluded that all the transfers by mr. li were gifts to ms. chen. this situation is corroborated by mr. li's statement that he had verbally agreed with ms. chen that the 100,000 yuan penalty for breach of contract and the 20,000 yuan to help ms. chen's father were loans, and that ms. chen had agreed to repay the 120,000 yuan.

in addition, ms. chen argued that the underlying legal relationship on which the transfer was based was a gift legal relationship, but ms. chen failed to provide sufficient evidence to exclude the legal relationship of a private loan between the two parties, and ms. chen had expressed her consent to return the transferred funds of rmb 120,000. therefore, the court did not accept ms. chen’s defense.

in summary, the shanghai hongkou court ruled that the 120,000 yuan transfer was a loan from ms. chen to mr. li, and ms. chen should return it and bear the corresponding overdue interest. as for the remaining 30,000 yuan claim, the court considered the relationship between the two parties, the number and amount of transfers, the specific purpose of the transfers, and the opinions of both parties on the nature of the money, and determined that it was a reasonable expense during the relationship or a gift from mr. li to ms. chen, and did not support it. at present, the judgment has come into effect.