[Case Summary]This case is a second-instance civil loan dispute. The respondent (the plaintiff in the first instance), Lan * , lent 80,000 yuan in cash, with only a promissory note and WeChat chat records as evidence. After the first-instance court issued a default judgment in favor of Lan *, the defendant appealed, denying having received the money and claiming that the funds were partnership funds. Lan * entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Wang XinruiThe lawyer acted on behalf of the client. After three court hearings to verify the evidence in the second instance, the court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The core dispute was whether the cash delivery of the loan constituted actual performance and the nature of the funds. The applicable legal provision is Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

I. Review of the Case

"Can I get back the money I lent out without a transfer record?", "Can I win a lawsuit with a promissory note and WeChat chat records?", and "What should I do if the other party appeals and says they haven't received the money?" are common questions in private lending disputes. Shanxi XX Company (the defendant) was established on January 21, 2021, and Wang * (the defendant) is the legal representative. On September 1, 2020, the two defendants borrowed 80,000 yuan from Lan * for project working capital. Lan * lent the money in cash, and Wang * wrote a promissory note stating that he owed Lan * 80,000 yuan, which was signed by the company and Wang * and dated January 3, 2021. When Lan * failed to recover the money through negotiations, he filed a lawsuit. In the first-instance trial, the two defendants did not appear in court, and the court ruled that the company should repay 80,000 yuan.

After the appeal by XX Company in Shanxi, it claimed that it did not receive the subpoena and was unable to participate in the litigation, and that the funds involved in the case were not actually delivered and were the joint funds of Lan * and Wang *. Wang * argued that the signature was his own, but the seal was not his, and admitted that he had provided the funds, but the company had not been established yet, so he could not borrow money. Both parties requested that the witness Zhang * appear in court. Lan * entrusted our law firm to handle the case.Wang XinruiThe lawyer represented the client in the second instance. The lawyer pointed out that Zhang * and Wang * were friends and worked in his company, so the evidence they provided had low probative value. At the same time, the lawyer did not recognize the authenticity, relevance, and evidentiary purpose of the appellant's evidence.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the 80,000 yuan cash loan was actually delivered.The IOU, WeChat records, and subsequent statements can verify the fact of delivery.
  • Focus II: The nature of the funds involved - are they loans or partnership funds?The appellant claimed to be a partner, but he was unable to explain why he issued the IOU.
  • Focus Three: Was there any error in the first-instance proceedings?The appellant claimed that he had not received the subpoena, but the second-instance court should still review the merits of the case.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The lender (the respondent) claimed that:Lan * claimed that he lent 80,000 yuan in cash, and provided a promissory note and WeChat chat records to support his claim. He demanded that the two defendants repay the loan.

The borrower's (the appellant's) position:The company claimed that it had not received the subpoena, that the payment had not been delivered, and that the funds were partnership funds. Wang * acknowledged signing the documents but denied having stamped them, claiming that the company had not been established and therefore could not borrow money.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Wang XinruiThe lawyer agreed with the first-instance judgment and disagreed with the appeal request. He pointed out that Wang * had issued debt certificates in the name of the company before the company was established and established a lending relationship with Lan *. After the company was established, Lan * claimed that Wang * should bear legal responsibility. The appellant's claim that the money had not been delivered contradicted Wang *'s statement about the use of the money, and there was no reasonable explanation for the issuance of the IOU and the amount stated therein, nor did the appellant submit effective evidence of repayment.

IV. Outcome of the case

The appellate court held that the appeal request of Shanxi XX Company was unfounded and should be dismissed; the first-instance judgment determined the facts clearly and applied the law correctly, and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court decided to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment. The second-instance case acceptance fee of 1,800 yuan shall be borne by Shanxi XX Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. This judgment is final and binding.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Wang XinruiThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202111290829, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. For cash loans, it is necessary to keep evidence such as promissory notes, chat records, and delivery details. The creditor-debtor team of Beijing Henglu Law Firm is skilled at solving the "difficulty in providing evidence of cash delivery" and safeguarding the lender's rights and interests with solid evidence.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Protecting Rights in Private Lending

  1. Q: If I lend out cash without a transfer record, can I get it back?
    A:Yes. The promissory note, WeChat chats, and delivery details can form a chain of evidence to prove the lending agreement and the delivery of the loan.
  2. Q: If the other party appeals, saying that they haven't received the money, what should I do?
    A:Based on the IOUs, chat records, and the other party's self-admission and refutation, the court pointed out that their statements were contradictory, and therefore upheld the original judgment in most cases.
  3. Q: Is it valid if the IOU is stamped with the company's official seal and signed by an individual?
    A:The legal representative issues debt certificates in the name of the company, and the company must assume the responsibility of repayment after its establishment.
  4. Q: What should I do if the other party says that the partnership funds don't count as a loan?
    A:It is required that they provide a reasonable explanation for the IOU, and those who are unable to provide an explanation will still be deemed to have engaged in lending activities.
  5. Q: Can the second instance still uphold the judgment of the first instance?
    A:If the facts are clear and the applicable law is correct, the second-instance court will dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment, which will be the final judgment.