Recently, the Haidian District Court of Beijing Municipality concluded a loan dispute case, finding that there is a difference between the nature of WeChat red envelopes and transfers, red envelopes are gifts, and transfers are loans, and accordingly ordered the defendant Mr. Zhou to repay the plaintiff Ms. Liu for a loan of 12,900 yuan.
Related topics have attracted attention and rushed to the top of the hot search!
According to reports, Ms. Liu complained that she met Mr. Zhou through WeChat in 2019. Soon after the two parties got to know each other, Mr. Zhou borrowed money from him on several occasions on the grounds of financial difficulties. From 2020 to 2021, Ms. Liu transferred a total of 15,669 yuan to Mr. Zhou through bank transfers, WeChat red envelopes, etc., but after repeated reminders, to no avail. In this regard, Mr. Zhou argued that the money involved in the case was not a loan, but a gift.
After trial, the court held that:
Combined with the specific circumstances of this case, Ms. Liu sent Mr. Zhou a total of 2,769 yuan in WeChat red envelopes out of her financial support for Mr. Zhou's life, which was a gift by Ms. Liu and did not need to be repaid by Mr. Zhou.
With regard to the RMB 12,900 paid by Ms. Liu to Mr. Zhou through WeChat transfer, although Mr. Zhou argued that it was a gift, he had no evidence to prove that Ms. Liu had expressed her intention to make a gift in this regard, and considering that Mr. Zhou had borrowed money from Ms. Liu to repay the loan, the payment made by Ms. Liu to Mr. Zhou through WeChat transfer should be deemed to be a loan provided by Ms. Liu to Mr. Zhou, and Mr. Zhou should repay it.
Accordingly, the court rendered the above judgment.
What the judge said:
"Although WeChat transfer and WeChat red envelope are both payments made through the WeChat software, the nature of the two types of payment should be distinguished from the different functions and attributes of the WeChat software. The judge reminded after the trial that as a social tool, WeChat software has social functions in addition to daily communication functions, and WeChat red envelopes are a typical embodiment of the social functions of WeChat software. The upper limit of the amount set by WeChat red envelopes is 200 yuan, and it is called "red envelopes", and according to the folk customs of the mainland, the "red envelopes" are usually given voluntarily and do not need to be returned.
WeChat transfer is different from red envelopes, and does not have the meaning of "gift", it is only a payment function set by WeChat software, and it is one of the commonly used payment methods between social subjects. In this case, the plaintiff claimed the establishment of a private lending relationship through WeChat transfer, and if the defendant claimed that the nature of the money was a gift, it needed to submit relevant evidence, otherwise it would bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence.
See the case
Many netizens said:
"I finally know why the red envelope can only be 200 yuan. ”
There are also people who care
What should I do if the transfer amount is "1314" or "520"?
Similar cases have been heard by the courts before
In specific circumstances
Some special amount transfers are also counted as gifts
For example, "1314" and "520" during a relationship
Mr. Li and Ms. Yang in Nanjing have been in love for less than 1 year, and after breaking up, Mr. Li asked Ms. Yang to return more than 230,000 yuan transferred during their relationship, including 520 yuan, 1,314 yuan and other special amounts, and sued the court after refusal.
After the trial, the court held that the gifts or expenses made by the parties to each other to express their love during their relationship were voluntary civil juristic acts, which were gifts rather than bride prices, and that the gift did not far exceed Mr. Li's financial capacity in light of his income level. Moreover, Mr. Li's assertion that Ms. Yang maliciously solicited money lacked factual basis, and the final judgment rejected the litigation claim.
In similar cases, the judge said that when it comes to money exchanges, whether between couples or friends, the nature of the money should be accurately defined in the first place. Although sometimes there may be some expressions of love between men and women, such as some special transfer amounts, such as 520 and 1314 often mentioned, some transfers that express love are often recognized as gifts. However, if both parties have a clear intention to borrow, saying that they urgently need money or need something to ask for your help, this is the intention to borrow, and there is a possibility of determining the lending relationship.
In addition, if it is a large gift on the premise of marriage, such as the purchase price of a car or a house, and the purpose of the marriage is not realized, the donor may request a refund. The criterion of "large amount" should be determined comprehensively taking into account the economic capacity of both parties and the local consumption level.
The judge reminded that whether it is between ordinary friends or lovers, for large amounts of money, both parties should clarify the nature of the money through various forms as much as possible, so as to avoid unnecessary disputes in the future.
Source: China Youth Daily WeChat (ID: zqbcyol Collation: Zhang Xiaosong) Comprehensive Rule of Law Daily, Litchi News, CCTV News, Netizen Comments, etc