[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over unjust enrichment. In 2013, Zhang Zhigang transferred 300,000 yuan to Liu Li with the note "loan", and in 2025, he sued Liu Li for unjust enrichment. The first-instance court ruled that Liu Li should return the money. Liu Li was not satisfied with the judgment and entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for her.Xue SuhuaAttorney,Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer appealed, focusing on the allocation of the burden of proof, and submitted new evidence such as the "Breakup Agreement" and WeChat records to prove that the funds were used to repay the debt on behalf of his cousin and had a legal basis. The second-instance court revoked the first-instance judgment and dismissed all of Zhang Zhigang's claims. The core disputes include the elements of unjust enrichment and the burden of proof, as well as the application of the unjust enrichment rules in the Civil Code and the guiding opinions of the Supreme People's Court.

I. Review of the Case Facts

A transfer of 300,000 yuan with a note stating "loan", and ten years later, the recipient was sued for unjust enrichment. Was this unfair? Many people search for terms like "how to provide evidence in unjust enrichment disputes" and "can the plaintiff switch the lawsuit to unjust enrichment after losing a loan case". On March 6, 2013, Zhang Zhigang transferred 300,000 yuan to Liu Li with a note stating "loan". In January 2025, Zhang Zhigang sued for unjust enrichment, and the first-instance court supported the claim. Liu Li insisted that the funds were related to a debt with Zhang Zhiqiang, Zhang Zhigang's cousin, and therefore entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Xue SuhuaAttorney,Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer filed an appeal and requested the revocation of the first-instance judgment.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Who should bear the burden of proof for unjust enrichment.The plaintiff, Zhang Zhigang, should bear the burden of proof for the claim that there is "no legal basis", which is the key point of the reversal in the second instance.
  • Focus II: Does the payment involve any other underlying legal relationships?Liu Li claimed that she was repaying the debt on behalf of Zhang Zhiqiang, so she needed to prove that there was a legal basis for doing so.
  • Focus Three: Can the facts determined in the first instance be overturned?Can the new evidence, the "Breakup Agreement" and WeChat records, prove that the money was transferred for a specific purpose?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The original plaintiff (the respondent) claimed that:Zhang Zhigang insisted on the viewpoint of the first instance, claiming that the money was transferred to Liu Li's account. However, Liu Li argued that there was no basis for the advance payment of the demolition compensation, and the claim did not exceed the statute of limitations.

The defendant (appellant) argued that:Liu Li claimed that the money was paid by Zhang Zhiqiang to Zhang Zhigang as a loan repayment. She once sued Zhang Zhigang for the loan, but withdrew the lawsuit due to insufficient evidence. In this case, Zhang Zhiqiang should be added as a third party, and Zhang Zhigang should bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Xue SuhuaAttorney,Zhu GuiyingThe lawyer argued that unjust enrichment has strict constitutive elements and cannot be used as a general claim right; Zhang Zhigang knew the purpose of the transfer before making the transfer, and Liu Li might have obtained the money through borrowing or making payments on behalf of others, both of which have legal basis; the submission of the "Breakup Agreement" and WeChat records forms a chain of evidence.

  • Submitting the "Breakup Agreement" proves that there is a creditor-debtor relationship between Liu Li and Zhang Zhiqiang involving a debt of 460,000 yuan
  • Extract the WeChat records of 2020 to prove that Zhang Zhigang knew the purpose of the payment and that it was not a "gratuitous gift".
  • Citing the opinion of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court, it argues that after losing the lawsuit in a loan case, the defendant cannot file a separate lawsuit for unjust enrichment

IV. Outcome of the case

The appellate court adopted the opinion of Hengluo Law Firm and determined that Zhang Zhigang should bear the burden of proof to establish that Liu Li obtained the funds improperly; based on the WeChat records and transfer receipts, there are two possibilities for Liu Li to obtain the funds, namely, a loan or a payment instruction, both of which have legal basis. In accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on unjust enrichment, the court ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and reject all of Zhang Zhigang's claims. The acceptance fees of the first and second instance cases shall be borne by Zhang Zhigang. The parties successfully reversed the unfavorable situation.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Xue SuhuaAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201211769926, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ)Zhu GuiyingThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011246828, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's Note: Unjust enrichment is an independent cause of debt, with strict constitutive elements, and cannot be used as a fallback when there is no evidence for other legal relationships; if the borrower sues for unjust enrichment after losing the loan dispute, the court generally will not support it, and the key lies in the allocation of the burden of proof and the evidence of the underlying legal relationship.

6. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Unjust Enrichment

  1. Q: If the transfer note specifies "loan", can the other party sue for unjust enrichment?
    A:Yes, but the plaintiff must prove that there is "no legal basis". If the defendant can prove the existence of other relationships such as loans and payments on behalf of others, the unjust enrichment will not be established.
  2. Q: Can I sue for unjust enrichment after losing a lawsuit over a loan dispute?
    A:Generally, this is not allowed. The Supreme Court's opinion explicitly states that unjust enrichment cannot be used as a fallback right when there is a lack of evidence in other legal relationships, and separate lawsuits are often dismissed.
  3. Q: Who bears the burden of proof for unjust enrichment?
    A:The plaintiff shall provide evidence for all four elements, namely "one party benefits while the other party suffers losses, causality, and lack of legal basis", and the defendant shall provide evidence if they claim to have other legal relationships.
  4. Q: Will the failure of the other party to pay the appraisal fee affect the determination of the will or handwriting authenticity?
    A:If the identification is terminated due to non-payment of fees, the applicant shall bear the consequences of failing to provide sufficient evidence.
  5. Q: Can I still sue for the transfer that took place ten years ago?
    A:It is necessary to pay attention to the statute of limitations; however, if the nature of the payment is clear and there is continuous evidence, it can still be claimed. The key is to ensure that the evidence chain is complete.