During the relationship between "Big Brother" Mr. Li and the female anchor Ms. Chen, he transferred money to Ms. Chen many times. After the breakup, Mr. Li sued Ms. Chen to the court, claiming that the money he transferred to Ms. Chen, excluding the love expenses of both parties, was a loan, and asked Ms. Chen to repay more than 150,000 yuan.
html 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 private lending dispute caused by a transfer during a relationship. case.After living together for less than half a year, a loan dispute arose.
According to the Shanghai Hongkou Court, Ms. Chen was originally a platform anchor. Mr. Li met Ms. Chen in the live broadcast room. In January 2023, the two developed a romantic relationship. During their relationship, the two lived together, and there were many financial transactions between Mr. Li and Ms. Chen.
In less than half a year, Mr. Li made dozens of transfers to Ms. Chen, amounting to more than 150,000 yuan. Some of Mr. Li’s transfers and the reasons are listed below: For expressive purposes, he transferred "520" and "1314" yuan, etc.; I bought gifts for Ms. Chen and paid 1,151 yuan on my behalf; due to conflicts during the relationship, I transferred 12,888 yuan to seek forgiveness from Ms. Chen; because the live broadcast company asked Ms. Chen for liquidated damages for unfinished live broadcasts, to help her tide over the difficulties, I transferred 100,000 yuan. Yuan; because Ms. Chen said that her father had debts abroad and needed Ms. Chen's help in repaying them, in order to help him solve his difficulties, he transferred 20,000 yuan...
In June 2023, this live broadcast matchmaking relationship came to an end, and the two had a loan dispute. .
The plaintiff, Mr. Li, said 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. Because 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 failed to repay the money. When communicating with Ms. Chen about repayment through text messages, Ms. Chen approved a loan of 120,000 yuan and promised to repay 5,000 yuan at the beginning of each month.
Later, Mr. Li had no choice but to call the police when he saw that Ms. Chen had not repaid the loan. The two parties conducted mediation under the arrangement of the police, but failed to reach an agreement. Therefore, Mr. Li sued the court, claiming that the money he transferred to Ms. Chen, excluding the love expenses of both parties, was a loan, and required Ms. Chen to repay the entire loan and the interest on overdue repayment, totaling more than 150,000 yuan.
In this regard, Ms. Chen only recognized that one of the 20,000 yuan was a loan and agreed to return it, and claimed that the rest of the money was a gift and should not be returned.
Ms. Chen argued that she had not issued an IOU and that the transfer was not a loan but a gift from Mr. Li to her during their relationship. The liquidated damages of 100,000 yuan for the live broadcast and the 20,000 yuan to help Ms. Chen’s father pay off the debt were also given to him by Mr. Li out of his willingness to actively help his girlfriend. As for the money other than 120,000 yuan, some of it was used for the living expenses of both parties, and most of it was money donated by Mr. Li for his personal use. The promise I made in the text message to return 5,000 yuan every month was a helpless move when Mr. Li called the police to demand the money and his life was affected.
Court: The defendant had agreed to repay 120,000 yuan, which was considered a loan.
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 lending relationship requires the existence of a loan agreement and the delivery of money.
First of all, although Mr. Li did not ask Ms. Chen to issue an IOU, he cannot directly deny the loan nature of the transfer money based on this. Since the transfers all occurred during the relationship between the two parties, and given the special nature of the relationship, it was reasonable for Mr. Li not to ask Ms. Chen to issue an IOU.
Secondly, most of Mr. Li's transfer funds were used by Ms. Chen for her own use or to solve problems for Ms. Chen, and Ms. Chen had expressed her intention to repay Mr. Li 120,000 yuan in monthly installments.
Again, although Mr. Li once expressed in WeChat that he was willing to transfer money to Ms. Chen, due to the changes in feelings and situations involved between the two parties, it cannot be considered that all the money transferred by Mr. Li was a gift to Ms. Chen. This situation is consistent with Mr. Li's statement that he had verbally agreed with Ms. Chen that the 100,000 yuan in liquidated damages and the 20,000 yuan to help Ms. Chen's father were loans, and that Ms. Chen had expressed her agreement to repay the 120,000 yuan. Confirm.
In addition, Ms. Chen argued that the basic legal relationship on which the transfer was based was a donation legal relationship. However, Ms. Chen failed to provide sufficient evidence to exclude the private lending legal relationship between the two parties, and Ms. Chen had made a mistake in the transfer of 120,000 yuan. She had expressed her intention to return the property, so the court did not accept Ms. Chen’s defense.
In summary, the Shanghai Hongkou Court ruled that the transfer of 120,000 yuan was a loan from Ms. Chen to Mr. Li, and Ms. Chen should return it and bear the corresponding overdue interest. For the remaining 30,000 yuan, the court considered factors such as the relationship between the two parties, the number and amount of transfers, the specific use of the transfers, and the opinions of both parties on the nature of the money, and determined it to be reasonable expenditure during the relationship or Mr. Li’s relationship with Ms. Chen. Donations will not be supported. Currently, the judgment has taken effect.
