Guangzhou lawyer Zhang Jing answers: In a dispute over unjust enrichment, the plaintiff shall provide evidence for the payment of the money, and the defendant shall provide evidence for the reason for receiving the money. If the defendant does not appear in court, it is deemed to have waived the burden of proof, and the court is likely to accept the plaintiff's claim that the reason for the transfer, i.e., unjust enrichment, and thus order the defendant to return it. Therefore, in unjust enrichment cases, the defendant has a greater burden of proof, and it is better to appear in court. It is more beneficial for the plaintiff if the defendant does not appear in court. In the following case, after Lin paid a project deposit of 150,000 yuan to Rong's company, he failed to obtain the promised project, so he sued for unjust enrichment and demanded that Rong's company return 150,000 yuan. Rong's company did not appear in court to respond to the lawsuit. The court of first instance held that Rong's company received the project deposit according to the contract, not without reason, and that this case did not belong to unjust enrichment, and ruled to reject Lin's litigation claim. The court of second instance held that in the unjust enrichment dispute, the reason for receiving the money should be proved by the defendant, and that Rong's company did not appear in court to respond to the lawsuit, so it should bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence, and changed the judgment to Rong's company to return the 150,000 deposit. Lawyer Zhang reminds that in this case, if a certain company Rong appeared in court and submitted a little evidence to prove that it was a project deposit, and it was not collected without any reason, the court is likely to reject the plaintiff's claim.
Excerpt from the verdict:
The court of first instance held that if the gainer has no legal basis to obtain improper benefits, the person who suffers losses may request the gainer to return the benefits obtained Now Lin admits that the 150,000 yuan he transferred to Rong's company is a project deposit, and has not provided evidence to prove that his act of prepaying the project deposit to Rong's company has been found to be invalid and has lost its legal basis, so Lin claims that the 150,000 yuan obtained by Rong's company is unjust enrichment, and this court does not confirm it, and rejects Lin's claim
The court of second instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether Rong's company should return the money involved in the case to Lin. Lin provided preliminary evidence to prove the reason for the payment of the money involved in the case. Rong's company did not appear in court to defend and did not provide evidence to refute Lin's claim, and should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence This court accepted Lin's claim After Rong's company received Lin's money, it did not provide the agreed project. Rong's company should return the money and interest involved in the case to Lin.