What is it that a man regrets buying a house for 89,000 female nannies?

Wu, 6 1 year-old from Hangzhou, cannot take care of himself due to illness. In June 5438+10, he hired Sister Wang as a domestic nanny through a domestic service department in Hangzhou, and the three parties signed a service agreement. Five days after Sister Wang went to work at Uncle Wu's house, Uncle Wu transferred 89,000 yuan to Sister Wang's bank account.

Now because of this money, there is a dispute between the two sides. Wu sued Sister Wang to the West Lake Court and demanded that Sister Wang return 89,000 yuan and interest.

But why did Wu transfer this large sum of money to Sister Wang five days after he met her? At this point, the two sides held their own words and argued fiercely in the trial. Sister Wang of Wu Shuo is unjust enrichment. Sister Wang said that this money was given to her by Wu.

Wu's agent said that during the period of providing domestic service, Sister Wang told Wu Shuo, "My economy is relatively difficult. I hope you can help me. " Sister Wang promised to marry Uncle Wu. Wu sympathized with Sister Wang's experience and looked forward to marrying Sister Wang, so he borrowed money from relatives to help Sister Wang.

But one night in March this year, Wu was sent to the hospital for emergency treatment because of illness, but Sister Wang took the opportunity to slip away in the early morning of the next day. In this case, Wu believes that this sister Wang is taking advantage of others' danger to gain his trust and expectation by fraudulent means. "The money she defrauded belongs to unjust enrichment and should be returned to me in full and compensate me for my economic losses."

However, Sister Wang does not agree with this statement. She replied, "Besides taking care of Wu's daily life, I also help Wu with some affairs. Because I did a good job, I got Wu's trust. "

She said that during their chat, Wu learned that she was in financial difficulties-the purchase price was still more than 89,000 yuan, so Wu expressed her willingness to pay the money for her. "What I didn't agree with at first was that I received the money at the strong request of Uncle Wu."

However, in March this year, Wu and his lawyer asked Sister Wang to either marry Wu or write an iou, otherwise they could only meet in court. Sister Wang thinks the money should be a gift. She neither agreed to get married nor wrote IOUs.

Only the transfer voucher, no other evidence. The court ruled against my uncle.

The West Lake Court found through trial that in June of this year, 5438+ 10, Wu did transfer 89,000 yuan to Sister Wang, and Sister Wang paid more than 70,000 yuan to a real estate company in Hangzhou the next day after receiving the money.

Now Uncle Wu is suing Sister Wang for unjust enrichment. According to Article 92 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, if there is no legal basis to obtain improper benefits and cause losses to others, the improper benefits obtained shall be returned to the person who suffered losses.

The court held that Wu sued for the return of the money on the grounds of unjust enrichment and should bear the burden of proof that Sister Wang had no legal basis for obtaining the money.

In this case, both Wu and Sister Wang recognized that the 89,000 yuan was the economic help provided by Wu to Sister Wang. It can be seen that the money paid by Wu to Sister Wang is not a real right change without legal basis.

For Wu's claim, Wang Jie cheated on the premise of marriage, and she did not submit evidence to prove it. Wang Jie refused to recognize it, so the court refused to accept this article.

In addition, Wu only provided bank vouchers to prove the fact that he paid 89,000 yuan to Sister Wang, and did not provide further evidence to prove that Sister Wang had no legal basis for obtaining the money, so Wu should bear the adverse consequences of not providing evidence. Therefore, Wu's claim cannot be established, and our court does not support it.

In the end, the court ruled that Wu's claim was rejected.