Crossing the threshold of 18
Having more rights
Also bearing more responsibilities
...
Part 1
In 2023, Chen met Lu, who called himself "Zhang", on a short video platform. The two hit off online, and Lu
continued to use this fake name while interacting with Chen. From November 2023 to June 2024, Lu frequently
borrowed money from under various pretexts. Out of trust, Chen transferred a total of 8,350 yuan to Lu via
WeChat.
The truth eventually came out. In June 024, Lu finally confessed to Chen that his name was not "Zhang" and
that he had been impersonating someone else all along. He verbally promised to repay the money but Chen
waited and waited, urging him over and over again, yet the money never appeared. Out of desperation, Chen
sued Lu and his parents in the Wuming District People' Court of Nanning City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous
Region, demanding that the three of them jointly repay the loan.
During the trial, the defendant Lu, summoned by the courts subpoena, refused to appear in court without a
justifiable reason, but submitted a written defense to the court. In the defense, Lu admitted to all the loan
facts and stated that had just started working with a monthly salary of only 3,000 yuan, hoping the court
would allow him to pay in installments. Meanwhile, Lu's parents never up from beginning to end, nor did they
submit any defense opinions.
The court also found that when the defendant Lu borrowed money from the plaintiff Chen, he was under 1
years old and was a person with limited civil capacity. It was only after the case was accepted that he turned
18 and became a person with full civil capacity. To prove loan facts, Chen submitted to the court WeChat
real-name information, complete transfer records, loan chat records, evidence of Lu admitting to the
deception and promising to repay, and subsequent debt collection records. These pieces of evidence
corroborated each other, forming a complete chain of evidence.
Part 2
The court holds that，Regarding the issue of the validity of the loan behavior in this case,When Lu borrowed money from Chen, Lu was a person with limited civil capacity. The act of borrowing 8,350 yuan clearly exceeded the scope to Lu's age and mental capacity, and the act was not a civil legal act that purely brought benefits. At the same time, there is no evidence to prove that Lus parents ratified the borrowing act at that time. Therefore, according to the provisions of Articles 19 and 145 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic China, the borrowing act between Chen and Lu shall be void.
Regarding the issue of liability assumption after the invalidation of a civil legal act,Article 157 of the Civil Code explicitly stipulates that after a civil legal act is void, revoked, or determined to be ineffective, the property by the actor due to such act shall be returned. Although Lu was a minor when the loan act was performed, by the time the plaintiff in this case filed the lawsuit, Lu already reached the age of 18 and possessed full capacity for civil conduct. As the actual recipient of the loan, Lu shall bear the corresponding responsibility for the return of the property from the void civil legal act.
Regarding the issue of the responsibility of Lu's parents,
Since Lu's parents were unaware of the loan in question and did not ratify it afterwards, and Lu had reached adulthood,
was employed, and had stable source of income at the time of the lawsuit, possessing the capacity to independently
bear civil liability, his parents are not required to bear the responsibility of repaying the loan.
Finally, the court rendered a judgment in accordance with the law, ordering the defendant Lu to return the loan of 8,350
yuan to the plaintiff Chen after the judgment takes effect.
Part 3
Reaching the age of 18 not only means possessing full civil rights, but also means taking responsibility for one's past actions with an independent legal personality In this case,Although Lu's loan contract was void because he was a person with limited civil capacity at the time of borrowing, he cannot thereby evade the statutory obligation to return property acquired through the void act.Now that he has a stable job and income, and possesses full capacity for civil conduct, he should be responsible for repaying this debt himself. Such a not only strictly adheres to the spirit of the law, but also aligns with everyone's simple understanding of fairness and justice.
In this case, Lu's parents are not liable to repay the loan. This clarifies the legal boundaries of parental
responsibility and breaks the ingrained of "parents paying for their children's debts." If parents are unaware of
their minor child's loan, do not ratify it afterwards, and the child has reached adulthood and the independent
ability to repay the debt during the litigation process, then the parents are not required to bear the repayment
responsibility for their child.
We would like to remind everyone to keep records that can prove the correspondence between "person, event,
and funds" in online economic transactions, specify the nature of the funds when transferring, clearly state the
loan amount and repayment in chats, and properly keep the other party's real-name information. In this case,
although Chen did not hold a written IOU, he formed a complete chain of based on WeChat real-name
information, transfer records, and chat content in which the other party admitted to the loan and promised to
repay, ultimately safeguarding his own rights and interests in with the law.
This article is reprinted from the WeChat public account "Shandong High Court", and we express our gratitude
here!