Lao Wang signed an IOU with Da Liu to borrow 40,000 yuan, and Da Liu actually transferred 38,000 yuan. After the loan expired, Lao Wang transferred 20,000 yuan to Da Liu's WeChat and did not repay the remaining loan. Should Da Liu use the IOU amount or the actual transfer amount when asking for accounts?
- The actual amount delivered shall prevail.
Article 675 of the Civil Code The borrower shall return the loan within the agreed time limit. Where there is no agreement on the term of the loan or the agreement is not clear, and it is still uncertain in accordance with the provisions of Article 510 of this Law, the borrower may return it at any time, and the lender may urge the borrower to return it within a reasonable period of time.
Article 26 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases stipulates that the amount of the loan indicated in the IOU, receipt, IOU and other proof of creditor's rights shall generally be deemed to be the principal. Where interest is deducted from the principal in advance, the people's court shall determine the amount actually lent as the principal.
Private lending essentially belongs to the category of loan contracts, and loan contracts are practical contracts, which can only be established and effective after the loan is delivered. In this case, the IOU issued by Lao Wang and Da Liu recorded an amount of 40,000 yuan, while Da Liu actually lent 38,000 yuan. According to the law, if the IOU and the actual loan amount are inconsistent, it shall be treated according to the actual loan amount.
The Civil Code - an encyclopedia of social life
Broadcast Production: Guo Lan
Article source: Original Jilin News Comprehensive Broadcasting
Editors: Guo Lan, Wang Haoyi
Review: Huai Nan
Producer: Zhao Min, Zhong Xiao
Poke the small flower in the lower right corner to share it with more people