The lawsuit is based on facts.
On the surface, you have a loan relationship, but according to your story, it is actually a free gift relationship, and there is no real loan relationship. As long as it can be proved that this is a gift relationship, even if the gift obligation is not fulfilled, the donee will not get the support of the court when he brings a lawsuit to the court.
Therefore, you should actively look for evidence of false IOUs.
For example: 1. Where did that woman get the money to lend you 90 thousand cash? You have to have a record of withdrawing money from the bank to withdraw money, right? If the money raised by others is lent to you, then others should also have a record or action of cash flow of 90,000 yuan (or withdrawal record in the bank)? Let her prove the source of the cash.
Suppose you lent him 90,000 yuan, what was the reason you said at that time (you can't let her know some evidence or reasons you think of now, otherwise she will forge something against you)? In other words, what do you do with the woman's 90 thousand yuan? In fact, before and after you wrote the IOU, did you use about 90 thousand? If you just borrowed it to gamble and lost, there must be evidence that the person who won your money took your 90 thousand yuan.
So as long as you have proof that you didn't need money at that time, that is, you didn't spend 90 thousand and the woman didn't have 90 thousand cash, I think you can still prove that you didn't give her 90 thousand. This IOU is fake. You should actively fight this lawsuit.
Let me give you two cases for your reference:
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Why did this case lose when it was in debt?
Can I win the lawsuit if I owe you an iou? In judicial practice, this has once become a controversial topic, and the conclusion is that if there are IOUs, the lawsuit will still lose. For example, losing the right to win the case because of the limitation of action, pretending to be a lawsuit without the obligee, and so on. However, in the case of IOUs, whether the obligee should lose the case, as a judge, should be very cautious when dealing with such cases. The following is the author's opinion on a private lending case that lost due to IOUs for discussion: the plaintiff sued Li for borrowing money and gave Shimou an IOUs on July 10, 2002, with the following contents: RMB 4,000 is currently owed to Shimou (name) and Li (name). There is no agreed repayment time. On July 29 of the same year, Shimou sued the court for this debt, claiming that Li had borrowed 4,000 yuan and asked the court to order Li to repay it. The defendant argued that Li should not be sent back for retrial. Li argued that the plaintiff's complaint was untrue and he wrote the IOU. I don't owe him money The truth is: In May and June of 2002, the plaintiff came to my house many times, saying that one of his relatives took him a project in Yantai, and he came to me and asked me to bring 10 or 20 technicians who could build walls and plaster to Yantai for construction. Because I didn't know the plaintiff before, I said I didn't associate with you. What if I take someone to work without a project? You should pay some wages to the people I bring in advance. The plaintiff also promised never to lie and so on. On July 10, the plaintiff took 4000 yuan to my house and said that everyone who went to Yantai paid 300 yuan in advance. If there is no project in Yantai, you turn around and leave, and the round-trip ticket is also counted, and the prepaid 4000 yuan is also invalid; If there is a project, use this 4000 yuan to offset the salary. At that time, I told the plaintiff that the money was yours and should be distributed to everyone. The plaintiff disagreed, insisted on giving it to me, asked me to give him an iou, and said that when I arrived at the construction site, I would give him the payer's flower bill to offset the 4000 yuan. So, I typed this iou as the plaintiff said. On July 20th, I went to Yantai with other workers and the plaintiff. I didn't know I was cheated until I arrived. There was no project at all. I asked the plaintiff for an iou. The plaintiff said that the IOU was left at home, so I asked him to write me a written explanation. But if he didn't write it, I would quarrel with him. Later he promised that he would never ask me for money again. On July 16, eleven of us had no food in Yantai, so we couldn't live. The plaintiff didn't look back, didn't know where to go, and didn't care whether he lived or died. Desperate, I had to sell a jade Buddha I was wearing and try my best to take ten people back to my hometown. To sum up, the plaintiff cheated us and caused us great losses, and his 4000 yuan was also taken away by our people who went to Yantai. Therefore, there is no factual and legal basis for the plaintiff to sue me, requesting the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim according to law. The defendant showed the roster of construction workers who went to Yantai to ask for money and applied for ten witnesses to testify in court. The court of first instance, which tried the case that the plaintiff lost the case, confirmed the defendant's argument that although the debt issued by the defendant Li for the plaintiff Shimou was 4,000 yuan, there was no loan relationship between the original and the defendant, and the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to recruit more than ten workers to Yantai for construction. This sum should be regarded as the salary and travel expenses paid by the plaintiff for the people who went to Yantai, and this sum has actually been withdrawn by more than ten people who went to Yantai for construction. However, the plaintiff did not commit to the construction project in Yantai, and the defendant was not at fault. There is no factual and legal basis for the plaintiff to ask the defendant to pay back the money, and his claim should not be supported. Subsequently, the judgment rejected the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff refused to accept the appeal. The plaintiff appealed that Li borrowed 4,000 yuan from the appellant due to family financial difficulties, which was evidenced by the loan. The witness has an interest relationship with the appellee, and the testimony cannot overturn the original documentary evidence. He asked the court of second instance to annul the original judgment according to law and change the judgment to support his claim according to law. Maintain the judgment of second instance. The court of second instance found that in July 2002, Shimou asked Li to bring people to Yantai for construction through others' introduction, and Li agreed and asked Shimou to pay the toll first. On July 10, Shi went to the Li family to hand over 4,000 yuan to Li, and Li Xian wrote a receipt to Shi, which read: "Yantai engineering history (name) paid wages in advance (4,000 yuan), payee Li (name), No.2000.10/7", but Shi refused to write it. An iou numbered 10/7 ". On that day, Li paid 4000 yuan to 10 workers. On July 0, Li led 10 workers to Yantai. Only after I arrived in Yantai did I know that there were no projects in history, and no projects were found in Yantai since then. On July 17, Li et al. 1 1 people returned to their hometown. On July 29, 2002, Shimou sued the court and asked Li to repay the arrears of 4,000 yuan. As a result, the court of first instance decided to dismiss the lawsuit. After trial, the court of second instance held that Shimou paid Li 4,000 yuan at 438+00 on July 65, 2002, and Li gave him a receipt for the advance salary of Yantai project. Shi disagreed and asked Li to give him an iou. Li issued an iou for him according to historical requirements and paid 4000 yuan to the person who went to Yantai. There are 1 1 workers' payment records, testimonies and receipts issued by Li, and Shimou also recognizes the fact that Li was asked to take people to Yantai for construction. Now Shimou is based on the loan issued by Li, and the reason for asking Li to repay the arrears is insufficient. The money collected by Li from somewhere in Shishi has also been paid to the workers who went with him. Therefore, Li should not return Shimou 4000 yuan. Shimou' s appeal reason was not established, so the appeal was dismissed according to law and the original judgment was upheld. Comments: The focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case is the nature of the case, that is, whether this case is a loan dispute, a prepayment refund dispute, or other disputes. According to the plaintiff's statement and evidence, the two parties are in a loan relationship or a debt relationship; According to the defendant's statement and evidence, the two parties are based on the advance payment dispute of the labor contract. The author believes that the original defendants are all persons with full capacity for civil conduct and should know the consequences of their actions. From the defendant's defense, it can be proved that the defendant's IOU was not made under the coercion or threat of the plaintiff. Regarding the qualitative issue of this case, the courts of first and second instance both ruled on the loan dispute, but the court of first instance found that the two parties did not belong to the loan relationship. From its analysis, it shows that it should be an advance payment dispute between the two parties. In view of the fact that the advance payment has been received by the workers and the plaintiff has breached the contract, that is, the plaintiff has not provided the project to the defendant, so the plaintiff's request for refund has no factual and legal basis, so the judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claim. During the trial, the court of second instance found out that the defendant didn't write the IOU until the plaintiff refused, but the plaintiff didn't owe the defendant money before, and the plaintiff made it clear that he wanted to write the IOU when giving the defendant money. In my opinion, this is enough to prove the loan relationship between the two parties in this case. Regarding the construction problems raised by the defendant, the plaintiff did not deny that he had found someone to take the lead in the construction, but from the point of appeal, he did not admit that he agreed to let the defendant distribute the loan to others. Judging from the statement that the defendant asked the plaintiff to distribute the money to the workers, the plaintiff disagreed, which also showed that the plaintiff was unwilling to have business relations with others. Therefore, even if the defendant pays the plaintiff's money to the workers who go to the construction with him, it is only the payment behavior between the defendant and other workers based on the employment relationship (the person the defendant is looking for). This should not be the reason why the defendant refused to repay the loan. To say the least, this case is not a loan relationship, but a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant on the return of advance payment based on the labor contract. Then, after the plaintiff did not provide the project to the defendant for construction, the economic losses caused to the defendant can be deducted from the advance payment. If there is surplus, it shall be returned to the plaintiff. If it is not enough to make up for the loss, the defendant may also ask the plaintiff for compensation. From the first and second trials of this case, it was found that the defendant did not find out the amount of losses suffered by the plaintiff in breach of contract, but generally believed that the plaintiff had breached the contract and the money had been distributed to the workers and should not be returned again, so the plaintiff's request was rejected. I think this is inappropriate. If the advance payment is 6,543,800 yuan instead of 4,000 yuan, the payment has been divided based on the plaintiff's breach of contract. Is it wrong to ask for a refund? Judging from the provisions of the Contract Law on the legal consequences of breach of contract, the breaching party should only compensate the losses caused to the counterpart by breach of contract, and the amount of such losses needs to be proved by valid and legal evidence. As far as this case is concerned, the losses suffered by the defendant should be the loss of transportation, accommodation and lost time. It is not clear whether these losses are equal to or more than 4,000 yuan. In fact, the actual loss of the defendant and others is less than 4000 yuan, and the defendant should at least return the balance other than the deduction of losses to the plaintiff.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
The loan was not fake, but the lawsuit was lost.
The People's Court of Tonglu County, Zhejiang Province recently concluded a private lending dispute. The plaintiff held an IOU in his hand, and the defendant also recognized that the IOU was written by him, but in the end, the court decided to reject the plaintiff's claim.
Case introduction:
In May 2006, the plaintiff Wang sued the defendant Hong, demanding that he repay the loan of 10000 yuan. According to the original report, in 2006 1 October 3rd, 5438+0,1,Hongmou borrowed 20,000 yuan from him. In 2003, Hongmou compensated Wang with a discount of 1 10,000 yuan for a house to be demolished in the reservoir area of Fenshui Town, Tonglu County, and the balance was 1 10,000 yuan. Hongmou issued the IOU 438+0 on June 65, 2003. After that, Hongmou did not repay. During the trial, the plaintiff Wang provided an iou issued by the defendant Hong.
Defendant Hongmou had no objection to the iou being written by himself, but argued that he borrowed 1 10,000 yuan from Wang on June 65, 2003. In 2004, it compensated Wang for a house in the reservoir area at a discount of 6,543,800 yuan, and the debt was actually offset. Only when he asked Wang to return the loan, Wang said that the loan would stay at home and be destroyed when he returned it, because the two sides were still relatives at that time (Hong's sister and Wang's younger brother were husband and wife and now divorced), so they did not insist on asking Wang to return the loan. Now that the two sides are not relatives, Wang took this iou to sue. In fact, the defendant did not owe Wang a loan and asked the court to reject Wang's claim. Hongmou provided two pieces of evidence: first, the witness testified in court, proving that Hongmou gave the house to Wang at the price of 1 0,000 yuan; 2. A certificate from the management committee of Fenshuijiang Water Control Project in Tonglu County, which proves that the house of Hongmou compensated Wang was demolished on June 15, 2004.
During the trial of the case, two views were formed:
The first opinion is that the plaintiff's request should be rejected. The reason is that although the plaintiff holds the iou, the defendant has relevant evidence to prove that the house was converted into the plaintiff's loan repayment of 10000 yuan in 2004. The plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove the fact that the defendant borrowed 20,000 yuan from him. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim lacks factual basis and should be rejected.
The second opinion is that the plaintiff's claim should be supported. The reason is that the iou held by the plaintiff is true, but because both parties have an oral agreement when handling the house payment, it is not certain that the house payment occurred after the iou, so the plaintiff's claim should be supported.
Jurisprudence analysis:
According to the legal provisions of our country, the author tends to the first opinion for the following reasons:
1. There are two controversial issues in this case: First, whether Hongmou 200 1 borrows 20,000 yuan from Wang; 2. On June 1 2003, whether the defendant's IOU was the proof of the remaining debt after deducting the house compensation issued by the plaintiff.
2. If the plaintiff provides evidence to prove the fact that the defendant Hongmou borrowed 20,000 yuan from him during the period of 200 1, the defendant Hongmou still has more than 654.38+0,000 yuan outstanding after borrowing 1 10,000 yuan from his house. However, the plaintiff could not provide conclusive evidence in the trial.
3. The evidence provided by the defendant confirmed that the house was repaid in 2004, while the plaintiff claimed that the loan on June 1 2003 was issued after the house was repaid, but there was no corresponding evidence to support it.
Therefore, the author thinks that the plaintiff's claim should be rejected on the grounds that according to the rules of evidence, the principle of "whoever advocates gives evidence" is adopted in civil and commercial cases. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the fact of borrowing 20,000 yuan should be proved by the plaintiff, but he did not provide evidence to prove it; In addition, the debit note issued by the defendant claimed by the plaintiff was issued after the housing compensation, which was different from the housing compensation, but no evidence was provided to prove it. Therefore, the court denied the facts claimed by the plaintiff.
Finally, according to the provisions of laws and regulations, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim according to law. After the verdict was pronounced, neither the defendant nor the defendant appealed.