Brief Description of the Case

      Blue sky company claimed: on 22 December 2020, blue sky company due to operational errors, through bank transfer to xia mu transfer 11,000 yuan, blue sky company reconciliation found that the sum belongs to the wrong transfer, the sum belongs to xia mu belongs to the unjustified enrichment, so the demand for xia mu return 11,000 yuan.

       XiaMu argued: blue sky company claimed 11,000 yuan is the blue sky company legal representative of the thunder to the repayment of XiaMu. In the case of civil loan disputes between XiaMu and LeiMing, the two sides, including the case of 11,000 yuan, including the flow of reconciliation, due to the two sides of the frequent financial transactions, both sides of the part of the amount of concessions reached mediation agreement, and by the court to make a mediation has been resolved. The Blue Sky Company claimed that the return of the money occurred on 22 December 2020, which is now beyond the statute of limitations.

Court Hearing

        The court heard that the dispute in this case is whether the disputed amount of RMB 11,000 has been dealt with together in the civil loan case between Xia Mu and Lei Ming. The existing evidence shows that, firstly, Xia Mu provided two Project Financing Agreements signed between Xia Mu and Blue Sky on 21 November 2017 and 30 December 2017, which initially reflected that the two parties had economic relations, and Blue Sky acknowledged the Project Financing Agreement signed on 21 November 2017 with its seal and acknowledged that the amount under the agreement was dealt with in the case of private lending, and the court did not dispute this. The court did not object to this; the court did not accept the opinion that the Project Financing Agreement signed on 30 December 2017, which was only signed by Lei Ming, the legal representative of Blue Sky, was not in force. It can be seen that Xia Mu and Blue Sky Company on the 21 November 2017 ‘Project Financing Agreement’ under the amount of money in the name of its legal representative Lei Ming on the debt, Lei Ming as the only shareholder and legal representative of Blue Sky Company, the parties actually have economic relations, the Court does not accept the Blue Sky Company's claim that there is no economic relationship between the two parties.

      Secondly, Xia Mu had transferred 11,000 yuan to Lei Ming on 15 December 2020; on 22 December 2020, Blue Sky transferred 11,000 yuan to Xia Mu. The two money exchanges were made at similar times and in the same amount. Blue sky company through the enterprise network banking way to transfer money, thunder to blue sky company to provide Xia Mu clear account information to transfer money successfully, considering thunder is the legal representative of blue sky company and the only shareholders, economic transactions in the company's legal representative to instruct the company to pay for the situation is not contrary to the public perception and the daily rule of thumb, so the blue sky company without legal basis for transferring the fact of common sense, the court does not accept.

       Blue sky company does not recognise the money in the private loan case, said blue sky company 11,000 yuan transfer records have not appeared in the private loan case. Xia Mu recognised the private loan case file provided by the blue sky company to transfer 11,000 yuan transfer records, the transcript is not clearly recorded. XiaMu claim civil loan case in court when the LeiMing show blue sky company transfer 11,000 yuan of evidence, civil loan case in XiaMu litigation claim the amount owed 117817 yuan, the two sides mediation agreement confirms the amount owed 92,817 yuan, the difference of 25,000 yuan, so the two sides backed down to reach a mediation.

       On the above civil loan case trial and mediation process, the court held that, in the process of civil cases, the parties have the right to dispose of its entity rights, the parties through mediation to solve the dispute between the two sides face the interests of the trade-offs and the two sides agreed to the same considerations often make the right to make concessions or compromises, XiaMu said that the two sides to concede to reach a mediation explanation in line with the daily rule of thumb presumption of fact. The court asked the blue sky company also did not provide rebuttal evidence to prove that the two sides reached mediation in the process of reconciliation amount excluded the blue sky company case 11,000 yuan transfer of evidence, so the court on the blue sky company claim is not admissible. In conclusion, according to the evidence provided by both parties and the parties to the court statement, Xia Mu claim that the case of 11,000 yuan has been dealt with in the case of private loan defence, the court shall be admitted.

       On the other hand, Xia Mu that the case of 11,000 yuan transfer time occurred on 22 December 2020, blue sky company claimed that the return of money has exceeded the statute of limitations. Blue Sky argued that it was aware of the infringement of its rights in December 2023, and provided WeChat chat records between Lei Ming and the outsider. The court held that, taking into account the company's corporate internet banking transfer method and the company's one-person company, the WeChat chat records did not directly reflect the content of the 11,000 yuan transfer claim, so the company failed to prove that it was aware of the infringement of the time. However, taking into account Lei Ming in the private lending case has reached a consensus with Xia Mu mediation, so there is no statute of limitations, the court for Xia Mu on the statute of limitations of the defence is not adopted.

       Eventually, the blue sky company requested xia mu return the money 11,000 yuan, no factual and legal basis, the court did not support.

Judge's Statement

       Requesting the return of the undue benefit. If a profiteer obtains an undue benefit without a legal basis, the person who has suffered a loss may request the profiteer to return the benefit obtained, except in one of the following cases:

(i) A payment made in fulfilment of a moral obligation;

(ii) Payment of a debt before it becomes due;

(iii) Settlement of a debt knowing that there is no obligation to pay.

      In order to facilitate the financing of micro and small enterprises, the legal representative may obtain cash through debt financing to maintain the normal operation of the enterprise. However, issues such as the enterprise's management of cash flow and unclear boundaries between the legal representative and the enterprise's property have also become points of risk in the development of micro and small enterprises. In this case, the legal representative for the business operation of foreign debt after the occurrence of overdue repayment has been resolved through mediation, the enterprise and the claim for unjustified enrichment creditors to return the money before the transfer of the money, the sum of money why turn? There is no statutory or agreed basis? Become the focus of the dispute. XiaMu provide ‘project financing agreement’ and the civil lending case facts with LeiMing, LeiMing will be XiaMu account information provided to the blue sky company, blue sky company to public transfer transfer, there is a transfer of money operation error possibility is low. Lei Ming and Xia Mu mediation case, although there is no 11,000 yuan transfer records, but through the transcript of the debt amount and the mediation process of all parties to retreat to reach a mediation agreement and other evidence reflected in the facts, also in line with the daily rule of thumb presumption of fact, so the case of 11,000 yuan in the case of civil loan cases in the processing of the possibility of lei ming and Xia Mu has reached a high degree of probability standard, the court finally confirmed that the amount has been processed, and rejected all of Blue Sky's requests for litigation.

        Question 1: There was no record of the transfer of 11,000 RMB in the civil loan case, so why did it not support the plaintiff's litigation request?

      According to Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China: the parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which they base their own litigation claims or the facts on which they rebut the other party's litigation claims, except as otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual claims before a judgement is rendered, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

      According to Article 108 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if the people's court is convinced that the existence of the fact to be proved has a high degree of likelihood after examining the evidence provided by the party who bears the burden of proof and combining it with the relevant facts, the people's court shall determine that the fact exists. If the people's court, after examining the evidence provided by a party to refute the facts claimed by the party who bears the burden of proof, and taking into account the relevant facts, is of the opinion that the truth of the facts to be proved is not clear, it shall find that the facts do not exist. Where the law provides otherwise with regard to the standard of proof to be achieved for the facts to be proved, it shall follow its provisions.

     Evidence is one of the means of reflecting the facts of a case, and reflecting the facts of a case is only the first step in resolving the issue of making a judgement. If in accordance with the provisions of the law, the defendant to provide rebuttal evidence of private lending file material also no 11,000 yuan transfer records or transcripts related to the money, the defendant can not prove the facts of the case through the evidence should bear adverse consequences. Although the evidence provided by the defendant did not directly refute the plaintiff's request, but after the defendant's reasonable explanation, that is, the amount of court transcripts contained in the process of calculating the mediation process of both parties to the rights of the disposal of the considerations, at this time the defendant's rebuttal has reached the degree of high probability of shaking the plaintiff said the fact that the occurrence of the degree of the need for the plaintiff to provide complementary evidence to enhance the strength of its evidence. But the plaintiff did not provide new supplementary evidence or reasonable explanation, the facts of the comprehensive transfer process and the two sides once existed the fact of debt financing, the plaintiff claimed that the fact of unjust enrichment is not yet reached a high degree of cover, it does not support.

      Question 2: Under what circumstances can an inference without evidence be accepted by the court?

     According to the supreme people's court on the application of the civil procedure law of the People's Republic of China on the interpretation of article 93: the following facts, the party does not need to prove: (c) according to the provisions of the law of the presumption of fact; (d) according to the known facts and daily life rules of thumb presumption of another fact.

     Presumptions are not free of evidence and may be admissible in court if they fulfil the requirement of no proof. The inference in this case is based on both sides of the facts and evidence has been reflected in the facts, such as the blue sky company to the public transfer mode transfer necessarily require clear information about the payee, the mediation process parties to facilitate the mediation of the disposal of rights to make concessions or compromises, the legal representative for the business operation of lending and borrowing, through the known facts and daily life rules of thumb presumption of fact. This presumption is not a direct substitute for the evidence of the basic facts of the case, such presumptive facts without proof of evidence often occurs in the parties to the evidence is not sufficient, insufficient circumstances, the presumption of the facts should be in line with the rules of thumb of daily life.

This article is reprinted from weibo public number ‘Beijing Haidian court’, with thanks!