IOUs, receipts, IOUs and other creditor's rights documents are important evidence of lending, and people may sign or seal the creditor's rights vouchers in the capacity of borrowers, guarantors or witnesses, but the form and content of the creditor's rights vouchers between the borrower and the borrower are often irregular.
on the Internet (invasion and deletion).
Chen Mouxian v. Huang Mouqin and Liang Mouqun in the private lending case, after the first and second trials, the final judgment was made that the third party, Chen Mouxian, did not have to jointly bear the debt.
Basic facts of the case. On April 14, 2021, Liang Mouqun and Chen Mouxian issued an IOU to Huang Mouqin, stating: "Today, Liang Mouqun borrowed RMB 100,000 cash from Huang Mouqin00 yuan (capitalized 10,000 yuan) This is true. Note: The title deed is used as collateral. Repayment from April 14, 2021 to December 31, 2021". Liang Mouqun signed and fingerprinted the "borrower" of the IOU, and Chen Mouxian signed and fingerprinted below the date of Liang's group payment.
on the Internet (invasion and deletion).
On April 14 and 15, 2021, Huang Mouqin transferred 100,000 yuan to Liang's group by WeChat transfer. Although the "IOU" did not stipulate the interest on the loan, after the loan, Liang Mouqun paid a total of 7,000 yuan in interest to Huang Mouqin, and Liang Mouqun did not repay the loan. After urging the repayment many times after the deadline was ineffective, Huang Mouqin sued Liang Mouqun to the Xingning District People's Court of Nanning City, demanding that Liang Mouqun pay 100,000 yuan in arrears and pay interest.
Heard by the courts. After trial, the Xingning District Court held that Huang Mouqin submitted the original IOU and WeChat transfer records, and also appeared in court to reasonably state the details of the loan between the two parties, which was sufficient to prove that Huang Mouqin had delivered the loan principal involved in the case to Liang Mouqun. Huang Mouqin and Chen Mouxian both recognized that the two parties were fellow villagers, and Chen Mouxian introduced Liang Mouqun to Huang Mouqin to borrow money, combined with the fact that Chen Mouxian's signature on the IOU was below the borrower, and Huang Mouqin agreed to transfer the loan to Liang Mouqun's account after Chen Mouxian signed, it was determined that Chen Mouxian was the co-borrower in this case and shared the repayment responsibility with Liang Mouqun. To sum up, it was decided that Liang Mouqun and Chen Mouxian should repay Huang Mouqin's loan principal of 10 yuan and interest.
Chen Mouxian was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed. After trial, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court held that Chen Mouxian was not a co-borrower in this case. In the body of the IOU, there is only the content of Liang Mouqun borrowing money from Huang Mouqin, not Liang Mouqun and Chen Mouxian jointly borrowing;The position of Chen's signature is in the blank space below Liang Mouqun's signature and signature date at the borrower's place, which is inconsistent with the general habit of co-borrowers to signThe loan was remitted to Liang's account, and Liang repaid Huang's loan.
To sum up, combined with the format and content of the IOU, the receipt and repayment of the loan, it cannot be reflected that Chen Mouxian has the intention to borrow together, and Chen Mouxian should not be determined to be a co-borrower. Chen Mouxian's defense that he is a witness is more in line with common sense. Huang Mouqin's request that Chen Mouxian bear the responsibility for repaying the debts in this case lacks factual and legal basis. As a result, the Nanning Intermediate People's Court ruled that Liang Mouqun should repay the principal of Huang Mouqin's loan of 100,000 yuan and pay interest.
What the judge said. Debt documents such as IOUs, receipts, and IOUs serve as important evidence for lending, and people may sign or seal them for a variety of purposes, such as being a borrower, guarantor, or witness. However, due to the hasty borrowing of the borrower and the borrower, the legal awareness is not strong, Factors such as lack of life experience, in the form and content of the credit certificate, are often non-standard characteristics, writing and other credit documents only sign without indicating the identity of the situation is also common, very easy to disputes, the borrower and the borrower have their own views on the responsibility of the third party who has not identified the identity, need to determine the identity of the third party in the dispute in private lending through the distribution of the burden of proof and combined with other evidence, and this is directly related to the third party's responsibility or not.
1. In judicial practice, the determination of the nature of the signature of another person on the IOU, receipt, IOU, or other creditor's right documents without indicating the identity.
1) Confirm the identity according to the position of the third party's signature, and generally sign the borrower's signature on the IOU, receipt, IOU and other creditor's rights documents provided by the creditor, and above the borrower's left and right places and above the date of payment, will be recognized as a co-borrower, because the position at this time is a parallel relationship, which can reflect the expression of intent of the third party and the borrower to jointly borrow. In such cases, the burden of proof lies with the creditor.
2) According to the relationship between the third party and the borrower, the borrower and the borrower are often based on personal credit, and the mutual geographical, blood and kinship relationship is relatively close, and the acquaintance relationship is usually used as a guarantee for the transaction and the execution of the contract. If the third party and the borrower are husband and wife, parents or children, because there is a basis and possibility of living together, it can generally be regarded as knowledge and recognition of the debt, unless the third party has valid evidence to support its defense, in which case the third party shall provide evidence to prove that it is not aware of the debt.
3) Combined with other evidentiary materials, if the creditor proves that the third party has provided an account to accept the loan or that the third party has repaid the loan to the creditor, it may be determined that the third party has the intention of co-borrowing.
4) There are two divergent views on the signature of the signature that is below the date of payment or in the blank space far from the borrower's signature, one is the first opinion mentioned above, which holds that the location of the signature does not conform to the logic and life experience of daily borrowing, and cannot be determined to be a co-borrower, and the creditor should continue to bear the legal responsibility of proving that the third party is a co-borrower;Another view is that the third party, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, should know the legal consequences of his signature on the IOU, receipt, IOU and other creditor's rights certificates, and therefore should bear the joint liability for repayment, unless the third party can provide evidence to prove that it did not know.
2. In the provisions of the law, it is stipulated that others sign on IOUs, receipts, IOUs and other creditor's rights documents without indicating their identity.
Article 20 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases clearly stipulates how to determine a signature that does not indicate the identity of the guarantor: "Where another person signs or seals an IOU, receipt, IOU or other proof of creditor's rights or a loan contract, but fails to indicate his identity as a guarantor or bears the guarantee liability, or cannot be presumed to be the guarantor through other facts, the people's court shall not support the lender's request that the lender bear the guarantee liability." Although the above-mentioned judicial interpretation only clarifies the adjudication criteria for the issue of whether a guarantee clause can be determined if another person signs or seals on the IOU, receipt, IOU or other creditor's rights voucher or loan contract, it can be seen that the law tends to give priority to protecting the interests of such a third party whose signature is unidentified, and first assigns the burden of proof to the creditor whether the liability for repayment should be borne by the creditor. Of course, if the other person only signs or seals the loan voucher or loan contract, but does not identify himself, it does not necessarily deny that he bears the responsibility for repayment, but it needs to be excluded only if it cannot be presumed in combination with other facts (such as the creditor's right voucher and other provisions in the loan contract, the transaction habits of the parties, the correspondence, faxes, WeChat chat records formed by the parties in the process of concluding the contract, etc.).
3. Allocation of the burden of proof on whether another person should bear the responsibility for repayment if he or she signs on an IOU, receipt, IOU, or other creditor's right certificate but does not indicate his identity.
The issue of who should present evidence as to whether the act of signing or stamping on a creditor's right certificate without indicating its identity has an expression of intent to repay the loan jointly involves the issue of the allocation of the burden of proof in the Civil Procedure Law. According to the above-mentioned views in judicial practice, the burden of proof may be assigned to the creditor or to a third party depending on the circumstances. China's Civil Procedure Law and related judicial interpretations adopt the viewpoint of the theory of allocation of legal elements, that is, the party asserting the existence of a legal relationship shall bear the burden of proving the basic facts that gave rise to the legal relationshipA party claiming that a legal relationship has been modified or extinguished or that its rights have been interfered with shall bear the burden of proving the basic facts of the modification or termination of the legal relationship or the obstruction of rights. In a private lending dispute, the creditor claims that the third party who signs or seals the creditor's right certificate bears the joint responsibility for repayment, which is in essence a claim that a contractual relationship is established between the third party and the creditor. Therefore, the burden of proof should be borne by the creditor to prove that the third party and the creditor have reached an agreement on the loan and repayment. After examining and evaluating the evidence provided by the creditor, if the people's court finds that the evidence submitted by the creditor can prove that the signature or seal of the third party has an agreement to jointly borrow and repay the loan, it shall order the creditor to bear the joint responsibility for repayment, otherwise, it shall not support the creditor's claim;If the third party raises a defense and submits rebuttal evidence, so that the creditor's evidentiary power does not meet the standard of "high probability", or the truth or falsity of the fact to be proved is unclear whether the third party is a co-borrower, the third party cannot be presumed to bear the repayment liability due to the signature, and the creditor must continue to provide evidence, and then comprehensively judge the third party's expression of intent in light of factors such as the purpose of the transaction.
In this case, the court of first instance held that Chen's signature on the IOU was below the borrower, and Huang Mouqin only agreed to transfer the loan to Liang's account after Chen Mouxian's signature, thus determining that Chen Mouxian was a co-borrower;The court of second instance held that the identity of Chen Mouxian in the loan in this case could not be inferred from the position of Chen Mouxian's signature and the statements of the parties alone. For example, in a private lending dispute case in this case, when it is not possible to determine that the third party's signature on the IOU, receipt, IOU and other creditor's rights voucher is an expression of intent to undertake joint borrowing and joint repayment after reviewing the existing facts such as the transaction history, the content of the credit voucher, and the WeChat chat record, it is determined that the third party is not a co-borrower, which is more consistent with the legislative spirit of Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation on Private Lending, and is also more in line with the principle of good faith in the Civil Law.
[**Guangxi High Court].
Statement: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author, if there is a mistake or infringement of your legitimate rights and interests, you can contact us by email, and we will deal with it in a timely manner. E-mail address: [email protected]