I. Question

Since February 2117, Yuan has been running a catering company with his wife * * *. At present, the catering company is still in operation, but there are losses after opening, and the specific amount of losses has not been audited.

Gao and Yuan are friends. From October 2117 to October 2118, Gao transferred RMB 51,111 to Yuan's husband and wife five times. More than a year later, Gao brought a lawsuit to the B District Court of City A on the grounds that the Yuan couple had not repaid the loan, requesting that the Yuan couple return the principal and interest totaling more than 1.58 million yuan.

Gao advocates a private lending relationship between the two parties. However, Gao can't issue creditor's rights certificates such as "IOU" and "loan contract", and only has bank transfer records. The Yuan couple argued that there was an investment cooperation relationship between the two parties, and the RMB 51,111 yuan delivered by Gao was not a loan, but the investment money of the catering company; To this end, Yuan's husband and wife produced evidence such as chat records and audio-visual materials of the shareholders of the catering company to prove it.

second, the analysis of the problem

the court held that it was true that Gao transferred 1.5 million yuan to Yuan's husband and wife. Evidence such as the chat records of shareholders submitted by the Yuan couple can prove that the money transferred by Gao to them is based on the purpose of investing in catering companies with * * *; However, Gao could not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the relationship between the two parties was private lending. Therefore, the relationship between the two parties should be regarded as investment cooperation. Because the catering company is still in operation, and the two sides have not audited the specific operating conditions such as previous profits and losses, Gao now asks the Yuan couple to return the principal and interest, which has no factual and legal basis.

III. Problem Solving

The court ruled that Gao's claim was rejected.

IV. Summary

Although both investment and lending are economic behaviors of certain economic entities, they are essentially different in nature, source, application and purpose, and they are two different legal relationships, which will have different legal consequences. Legally speaking, if it is a loan relationship, the lender has the right to recover the principal and interest after the loan expires; If it is an investment relationship, it means that the profit risk is * * *, and investors have no right to ask for withdrawal of investment at will. Plaintiffs in private lending disputes should bear two burdens of proof, one is to prove that both parties have agreed to borrow money, and the other is to pay the borrowed money to the borrower.

Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Private Lending Cases clearly stipulates the distribution of burden of proof for the plaintiff to file a private lending lawsuit only on the basis of the transfer voucher of a financial institution. If the defendant argues that the transfer is other debts, he shall provide evidence to prove his claim; After the defendant provides corresponding evidence to prove his claim, the plaintiff should still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship. In this case, the Yuan couple's defense transfer is based on the investment cooperation relationship between * * * and the investment catering company, and provides evidence such as chat records and audio-visual materials of the shareholders of the catering company to prove their claims. Since then, Gao should still bear the burden of proof on the existence of loan agreement between the two parties and that the transfer is based on the loan relationship. However, Gao can't provide sufficient evidence to prove it, so he bears the adverse consequences of failing to prove it.