Pay Change? Only Transfer Accounts Cannot Confirm Loan Relationship.

For the distribution of the burden of proof of the parties in the case of private lending disputes only by bank transfer records, Linda, the case's judge, said that the disputes of private lending have their corresponding legal elements, and the facts that the parties should base on their claims should be proved by evidence.

During the employee's work, there is much money in connection with his boss's bank account. On the grounds of returning the loan, the boss asked the employees to return the money for a total of 120 thousand yuan. Is this 120 thousand yuan money really a loan? Recently, the people's Court of Jimei District of Xiamen, Fujian Province, dismissed the boss's claim.

Lao Li is the legal representative, shareholder and business leader of the company. Lao Li said that he had borrowed money from him many times during his working together, and the two sides reached an oral loan agreement. He paid the loan of 120 thousand yuan to the east bank in a bank transfer way. Now the loan has already expired, and he has repeatedly urged no fruit, so he sued the court and asked for a return of 120 thousand yuan and overdue interest.

He argued that the 120 thousand yuan for the dispute was the wages and royalties paid by the company to itself. Prior to that, Lao Li, as a legal representative of the company, took part in his labour dispute case and confirmed that the nature of the transfer was the wages and royalties paid by the company to himself.

The court found that from 2010 to 2012, Lao Li paid a lot of money to Dong Dong through his bank account, totaling 120 thousand yuan. Lao Li is the legal representative of the company. The company has brought charges to other courts for a labor dispute, and has claimed the above 120 thousand yuan in the facts and reasons of the complaint. The company's financial personnel also proved that the transfer between the company and Mr. Dong was directly settled by Mr. Lao, and he was also operated by Lao Li, who paid his salary through Lao Li account.

The court held that the case is a private lending dispute arising from repayment of loans. The controversy is whether there is a private lending relationship between the defendant and the defendant. According to the facts found in the court trial, the evidence provided by Lao Li is not enough to prove that the money paid in this case is the loan that he paid to him. The reasons are as follows: on the one hand, the legal representative, shareholder and business leader of Lao Li company is a company employee and Lao Li subordinates. The two sides have been paying the wages and royalty payments for a long time, and the company's financial personnel have also confirmed that their wages are also paid through Lao Li's bank account. Therefore, Lao Li's bank account can be identified as one of the ways in which the company pays wages. As for the transfer of funds in many cases, Lao Li failed to provide evidence of borrowing or other loan certificates. Therefore, it is not enough to confirm the fact that only the accounts of transfer payments are valid. Lending relationship 。 On the other hand, before the court accepted the case, Lao Li's company had filed a labor dispute lawsuit against addon and claimed that the company had paid wages and royalty to the company in the same record of payment. Labor dispute The dispute was finally concluded by the second instance, while Lao Li, as the legal representative of the company, was involved in the lawsuit. It is clear that Lao Li has made it clear that the nature of the dispute is not a private lending relationship. Therefore, considering the labor relations between the defendant and the defendant, the position of the plaintiff, the way of payment of the company's wages, and the fact that he advocated the facts, the court held that Lao Li advocated that he had a private lending relationship with the two sides, which lacked the factual basis.

Accordingly, the court made the decision.

As in this case, the plaintiff referred to the bank with a bank transfer certificate. Loan disputes Litigation, but the defendant has made evidence to prove that the transfer of the bank does not mean that there is no loan. It is actually the wages and royalties paid by the employer on behalf of the company. The plaintiff needs to bear further burden of proof on the establishment of the loan relationship, but the plaintiff failed to provide further evidence to prove the loan fact. Therefore, in the case of comprehensive cases, the court held that the plaintiff advocated the existence of a private lending relationship between the two sides, which lacked the factual basis and therefore did not support it.