[Case Summary]This case is a second-instance civil loan dispute. In 2014, Liu Xia successively lent a total of 472,222.23 yuan to Li Gang (including transfers, cash deposits, and transfers to the accounts of third parties), but Li Gang failed to repay the loan on time. In 2025, Liu Xia filed a lawsuit against him. In the first-instance trial, the court only recognized the loan of 270,000 yuan and rejected the remaining claim of over 200,000 yuan. Liu Xia was not satisfied with the judgment and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on her behalf.Chen JieThe lawyer appealed, and the second-instance court adopted the main opinion, ruling that Li Gang should return the loan of 440,000 yuan (about 170,000 yuan was newly identified on the basis of 270,000 yuan, and the remaining 30,000 yuan was not supported because it was only withdrawn in cash and not proven to have been delivered). The core disputes include: the determination of the facts of delivery such as cash deposit and transfer to other people's accounts, and the allocation of the burden of proof; applicable legal provisions: the Civil Procedure Law and judicial interpretations concerning the burden of proof and the court's power to collect evidence on its own initiative.

I. Review of the case

When lending money without a promissory note and the first-instance court only recognizing the transferred portion, what should be done? This is a common challenge in civil lending cases at the second instance. In 2014, Liu Xia successively lent money to Li Gang, claiming a total of 472,222.23 yuan, including multiple bank transfers, cash deposits, and transfers to the accounts of third parties (her brothers Liu Zhigang and Liu Zhiqiang). Li Gang argued that the two were lovers living together and that the funds were kept as deposits, demanding that Liu Xia provide further evidence of the loan agreement. The first-instance court determined that the five transfers of 270,000 yuan in March 2014 were valid, but rejected the claims for the four transfers totaling 202,222.23 yuan (30,000 yuan in cash deposits, 32,222.23 yuan in cash payments, 100,000 yuan in cash deposits, and 40,000 yuan in transfers to third parties) because there were no bank transaction records showing that Liu Xia transferred the money to Li Gang on the same day. Liu Xia appealed and entrusted Henglue Law Firm to handle the case.Chen JieThe lawyer appealed and requested that the verdict be changed to return all the borrowed money.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The determination of delivery in the case of cash deposit and transfer of funds to third parties.Can the co-signature of the deposit slip, the proof of cash withdrawal on the same day, and the witness's appearance in court prove that the loan has actually been delivered?
  • Focus Two: Allocation of the burden of proof.When it's difficult to provide written evidence for cash payments, does the burden of proof shift to the other party after the initial proof has been provided?
  • Focus Three: Whether the failure of the first-instance court to collect evidence on its own initiative constitutes a procedural flaw.Does the fact that the court failed to retrieve the key bank transaction records affect the determination of the facts of the case?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The appellant (Liu Xia) alleged that:Claim that the four sums of money were actually delivered, submit deposit slips, cash withdrawal records, and witnesses' testimonies, and request to revoke the first-instance judgment and order the defendant to return all the borrowed money.

The appellee's (Li Gang's) position:The defense parties claimed that they had a special relationship and that the funds in question were custodial funds. They argued that they had never received the four payments and requested that the first-instance judgment be upheld.

Legal Opinion by Hengluo Law Firm:Attorney Chen Jie formulated a strategy of "strengthening the evidence chain + accurately applying the law + clarifying the burden of proof", and submitted four sets of core evidence in the second instance: the deposit slip dated April 4, 2014 (Liu Xia held the original receipt, and the amount of 34,100 yuan withdrawn on that day matched the loan amount, with the signature forged by Li Gang); the deposit slip dated May 16 (the frequent cash withdrawals matched the loan amount); the transfer certificate dated May 20 (Liu Xia's brother testified in court about the entire process of loan delivery); and the testimony of Liu Zhiqiang. The attorney pointed out that the first-instance court made incorrect factual findings, improperly allocated the burden of proof (when it is difficult to leave evidence for cash delivery, the responsibility should be transferred), and failed to collect evidence on its own initiative, which constituted a flaw in the proceedings.

  • The original deposit slip + the cash withdrawal record of the same day can prove the source of the funds and the delivery of the funds
  • Completing the delivery chain of the transfer of funds from the third-party account through witness testimonies
  • Accurately citing the burden of proof and the court's rules on evidence collection, and overturning the unfavorable findings of the first-instance court

IV. Outcome of the case

The second-instance court adopted the main arguments of Attorney Chen and handled Li Gang's appeal as a withdrawal of appeal (as he failed to pay the second-instance litigation fees). The court confirmed that the three loan transactions were valid: the 30,000 yuan loan on April 4, the 100,000 yuan loan on May 16 (with a co-signed deposit slip and Li Gang's text message admitting the debt, which constituted strong circumstantial evidence), and the 40,000 yuan loan on May 20 (which was corroborated by documentary evidence and witness testimony). However, the court did not support the claim of 32,222.23 yuan on April 26, as there was no evidence of actual delivery of the funds. In the final judgment, the first-instance judgment was revoked, and Li Gang was ordered to repay the loan of 440,000 yuan within 30 days after the judgment took effect. Liu Xia was ordered to bear the first-instance litigation fees of 286 yuan and Li Gang was ordered to bear the second-instance litigation fees of 7,811 yuan. This represents a fundamental reversal of the original judgment of 270,000 yuan.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Chen JieAttorney (Practice License No.: 11101202310622227, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting on behalf of the client. Attorney's Tip: When lending funds, it is important to retain creditor's documents such as loan notes and IOUs, and make payments via bank transfer whenever possible. For cash payments, keep deposit slips, cash withdrawal records, affidavits signed by a third party, and witness statements to form a chain of evidence. If a dispute arises, promptly engage an attorney to safeguard your rights by leveraging the rules of burden of proof and court evidence collection procedures. This case demonstrates the professional competence and reversal ability of the second-instance proceedings.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Private Lending Cases in the Second Instance

  1. Q: What should I do if the court refuses to recognize the cash loan without a promissory note in the first-instance trial?
    A:In the second instance, the court supplemented the evidence chain with the original deposit slips, the cash withdrawal records of that day, the explanation of signing on behalf of others, and the witnesses' appearance in court. Based on this, the court changed the verdict and made new findings in this case.
  2. Q: Is the money transferred through someone else's account considered a loan?
    A:Yes. The transfer of funds from the third-party account is supported by documentary evidence and witness testimonies, which form a closed loop and can prove the actual delivery. In this case, the 40,000 yuan was recognized as valid evidence.
  3. Q: Can you still turn the tables even if you lose the first-instance lawsuit?
    A:Yes. If new evidence is submitted in the second instance and the errors in facts and evidence are corrected, the judgment can be changed. In this case, the compensation amount was increased from 270,000 yuan to 440,000 yuan.
  4. Q: Who bears the burden of proof for cash delivery?
    A:After the lender provided initial evidence, if it is objectively difficult to retain the vouchers, the responsibility should be shifted to the borrower for failing to receive the vouchers. The lawyer in this case argued based on this point.
  5. Q: What will happen if the other party fails to pay the second-instance appeal fee?
    A:The appeal was handled as a withdrawal, and the second-instance court only reviewed the appellant's opinions. In this case, Li Gang was deemed to have withdrawn his appeal.