Discussing the Allocation of Burden of Proof in a Case of IOU

[Case Introduction]

The plaintiff Liu claims: The plaintiff and the defendant had business dealings, and the defendant issued two IOUs on January 26 and March 10, 2006, owing the plaintiff a total of 276,300 yuan. After multiple demands from the plaintiff, the defendant still did not pay. Therefore, the plaintiff is suing to request the court to order the defendant to immediately repay the debt of 276,300 yuan.

The defendant Zhang argues: The plaintiff intentionally distorts the truth, and there is no legal creditor-debtor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; they did not have business dealings, nor is there any debt. The defendant is not a proper party in this case; even if the defendant owes money, it is only 13,300 yuan, and the repayment period has not yet expired, so the plaintiff currently has no right to file a lawsuit. Therefore, the court should dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit.

After hearing, it was found that the defendant is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. The defendant issued an IOU to the plaintiff on January 26, 2006, stating: "Temporarily owed settlement amount: 263,000 yuan. Debtor: Zhang. Date: 2006.1.26," and noted below the IOU: "Supervised by Zhang (Zhang's sister) to repay (settle before the end of 2006)." On March 10, 2006, the defendant issued another IOU to the plaintiff, stating: "Settlement of the owed amount: 13,300 yuan. (13300). Debtor: Zhang. Date: 06.3.10."

[Case Analysis]

During the trial of this case, there were two different opinions on how to handle it: one opinion holds that the plaintiff, as the holder of the IOUs, has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant is legally obligated to repay the plaintiff's debt. According to the principle of "he who asserts must prove," the plaintiff's burden of proof has been fulfilled, and the court should rule in favor of the plaintiff's claim. The other opinion believes that the plaintiff has not yet fulfilled the burden of proof regarding whether a legal creditor-debtor relationship was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

[Commentary]

This case involves the issue of the distribution of the burden of proof in civil litigation in our country. The burden of proof in civil litigation refers to the responsibility of the parties to provide evidence to prove their claims. It specifically includes two meanings: the burden of proof in terms of actions and the burden of proof in terms of results. Defining the connotation of the burden of proof from both action and result perspectives is of great significance for improving the quality and efficiency of civil trials and promoting the reform of civil trial methods.

There has always been a distinction between substantial standards and formal standards in the theory of burden of proof distribution. The substantial standard is a form of burden of proof distribution based on the interest relationship between the object of proof and the subject of proof, mainly adopted by countries in the Anglo-American legal system; the formal standard is a form of burden of proof distribution based on current legal provisions, mainly adopted by countries in the civil law system. The author believes that our country should adopt the legal element classification theory as the principle of burden of proof distribution. The reason is: first, from the perspective of the structure of substantive law, the structure of our substantive law is basically the same as that of the civil law system, and various legal elements are also relatively clear, distinguishing between rights occurrence norms and rights extinction norms, and applying them in judicial practice is conditional. Second, in the current judicial environment, using the legal element classification theory to distribute the burden of proof is more acceptable to the parties than having judges decide the distribution of the burden of proof based on interest assessment and the difficulty of proof, thus avoiding parties directing their dissatisfaction at the judges. The legal element classification theory can absorb a large amount of criticism and dissatisfaction from parties regarding the distribution of the burden of proof. Finally, the shortcomings of the legal element classification theory can be corrected through legal provisions or relevant judicial interpretations, or modified through exceptional provisions. Especially for some special tort cases, the burden of proof can be reversed to make the distribution of the burden of proof more in line with the standards and requirements of fairness and justice.

In this case, the focus of the dispute between the parties is: Did a legal creditor-debtor relationship form between the plaintiff and the defendant? Has the plaintiff fulfilled the burden of proof in this case?

Regarding the focus of the dispute, although the plaintiff provided two IOUs issued by the defendant on January 26 and March 10, 2006, to prove that the debt arose from business dealings in medical equipment, the defendant did not dispute the authenticity of the two IOUs but raised objections to their legality and relevance, arguing that there were no business dealings in medical equipment between the plaintiff and the defendant. The fact is that the plaintiff and the defendant's husband were partners in the medical equipment business, and during the partnership, conflicts arose. To avoid a bloody incident between the two brothers-in-law, the defendant issued the IOU without authorization from her husband after settling accounts with the plaintiff. The defendant's actions can at most be recognized as apparent agency. After two settlements, the amount still owed to the plaintiff is 13,300 yuan, and according to the agreement, the final payment deadline has not yet arrived. The defendant provided some evidence to prove her claims, showing that the plaintiff and her husband were partners in the medical equipment business and that 13,300 yuan was still owed. However, the plaintiff did not provide evidence to refute this and claimed not to know what business occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant. Due to the plaintiff's inconsistent statements regarding the formation of the debt, the court clarified and required the plaintiff to state the facts regarding the formation of the debt from the IOU, but the plaintiff still claimed to be "unclear."

According to Article 84 of the General Principles of Civil Law of our country, a debt is a specific rights and obligations relationship arising between parties according to the agreement of the contract or the provisions of the law. The law protects legal creditor-debtor relationships. Additionally, according to Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "Parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims," and Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's provisions on evidence in civil litigation states, "Parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or to refute the facts on which the opposing party's claims are based. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the party's factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences." This means that parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based, which is also the principle of "he who asserts must prove." This is the legal element classification theory adopted in our country as the principle of burden of proof distribution.

In this case, the plaintiff's lawsuit requesting the defendant to bear the obligation to repay the debt should provide sufficient evidence to prove the facts that a legal creditor-debtor relationship was formed between the two parties. Initially, the plaintiff claimed that the creditor-debtor relationship arose from business dealings in medical equipment, but after the defendant's cross-examination, the plaintiff denied this. After the court's full explanation, the plaintiff still refused to state the facts regarding the formation of the debt from the IOU, claiming to be "unclear." Therefore, the court believes that although the plaintiff provided the IOUs, due to the plaintiff's refusal to state the facts regarding the formation of the debt, this is insufficient to prove that a legal creditor-debtor relationship has been formed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has not fulfilled all the burden of proof required for his claim in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim lacks corresponding factual basis. Thus, the court's judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Liu's claim is correct.

In summary, the author agrees with the latter opinion.

[Case Result]

The court believes that a debt is a specific relationship of rights and obligations arising between the parties according to the provisions of the contract or the law, and that legitimate creditor-debtor relationships are protected by law. Although the plaintiff provided an IOU, their refusal to state the facts that formed the debt is insufficient to prove that a legitimate creditor-debtor relationship has been established between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff's litigation request lacks corresponding factual basis, therefore the court dismisses the litigation request of the plaintiff Liu.

[Relevant Regulations]

There has always been a distinction between substantial standards and formal standards in the theory of burden of proof distribution. The substantial standard is a form of burden of proof distribution based on the interest relationship between the object of proof and the subject of proof, mainly adopted by countries in the Anglo-American legal system; the formal standard is a form of burden of proof distribution based on current legal provisions, mainly adopted by countries in the civil law system. The author believes that our country should adopt the legal element classification theory as the principle of burden of proof distribution. The reason is: first, from the perspective of the structure of substantive law, the structure of our substantive law is basically the same as that of the civil law system, and various legal elements are also relatively clear, distinguishing between rights occurrence norms and rights extinction norms, and applying them in judicial practice is conditional. Second, in the current judicial environment, using the legal element classification theory to distribute the burden of proof is more acceptable to the parties than having judges decide the distribution of the burden of proof based on interest assessment and the difficulty of proof, thus avoiding parties directing their dissatisfaction at the judges. The legal element classification theory can absorb a large amount of criticism and dissatisfaction from parties regarding the distribution of the burden of proof. Finally, the shortcomings of the legal element classification theory can be corrected through legal provisions or relevant judicial interpretations, or modified through exceptional provisions. Especially for some special tort cases, the burden of proof can be reversed to make the distribution of the burden of proof more in line with the standards and requirements of fairness and justice.

According to Article 84 of the General Principles of Civil Law of our country, a debt is a specific rights and obligations relationship arising between parties according to the agreement of the contract or the provisions of the law. The law protects legal creditor-debtor relationships. Additionally, according to Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "Parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims," and Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's provisions on evidence in civil litigation states, "Parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or to refute the facts on which the opposing party's claims are based. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the party's factual claims, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences." This means that parties have the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based, which is also the principle of "he who asserts must prove." This is the legal element classification theory adopted in our country as the principle of burden of proof distribution.