Basic case

    In 2017, Xu Mou and Cheng Mou Xiang partnership to operate a night snack shop, and signed a partnership agreement, agreed on the way to contribute and other terms. After the night snack shop closed due to loss, the partnership contract between the two parties was terminated and terminated, after negotiation between the two parties, Cheng mou Xiang issued an IOU to Xu mou, the content of Cheng mou Xiang owed Xu mou night snack shop loss fee of 35,000 yuan, noted Cheng mou Xiang ID number, signed Cheng mou strong. 

    After the IOU was issued, Cheng Mouxiang only repaid Xu 1,000 yuan on January 21, 2023, and the rest of the arrears have not been returned. In October 2024, Xu filed a lawsuit with the Lukou District People's Court of Zhuzhou City, asking Cheng to pay 34,000 yuan in arrears.

    Cheng Mou Xiang argued that the IOU was not issued by it, should be submitted by the IOU Xu to the court to apply for handwriting identification, and bear the legal consequences of not applying for handwriting identification, Xu said Cheng mou Xiang is untrue, the responsibility for applying for identification should be borne by Cheng Mou Xiang.

Court decision

    After examination, the court held that in general, the authenticity of private document evidence, by the claim of private document evidence to prove the facts of the case by the parties bear the burden of proof. However, if there is a deletion, alteration, addition or other form of defects on the private document certificate, the people's court shall judge its probative power based on the specific circumstances of the case. 

    In this case, there is a word difference between the name in the IOU submitted by Xu and the name of Cheng, which can be regarded as "other forms of defects". Combined with the specific circumstances of the case, the "strong" of Mandarin and the "xiang" of Zhuzhou dialect are very similar in pronunciation, if Xu has not looked at Cheng's ID card, Xu thinks that Cheng is called "Cheng strong" is reasonable. In addition, Xu not only submitted the IOU, but also provided wechat payment chat records and transfer vouchers, and the IOU submitted is not an isolated proof.

     In the course of the trial, the court explained to Cheng Mou Xiang and his agent AD litre, if it does not recognize the IOU issued by it, it should apply to the court for handwriting identification of the contents of the IOU, otherwise it will bear the legal consequences of adverse evidence, Cheng Mou Xiang applied for identification in court, and withdrew the application for identification after the court.

     The court held that the IOU submitted by Xu mou issued by Cheng mou Xiang has a high degree of probability, the court confirmed the proof of the IOU, and the final judgment Cheng Mou Xiang paid Xu mou 34,000 yuan. After the judgment of the first instance, both parties did not appeal, and the judgment of this case has taken legal effect.

Judge's statement

    As an important basis for creditor's rights and debts, the use of dialect homophonic names to lend funds has certain risks. Citizens shall abide by the principle of good faith when writing IOU, IOU and other important creditor's rights documents, and shall not resort to fraud.

    The lender should be careful to verify the borrower's name or name, ID number, loan amount, loan term, repayment method, interest and other important information, IOU is best written by the borrower, signed should have the borrower's autograph, and stamped with the handprint, so as not to "strong" and "auspicious" silly indistdistinguish, to ensure the smooth realization of claims.

    This article is transferred from the "Shandong High Law" wechat public number, thank you!