Case Review

Zhang was listed as a dishonest person by the court due to his inability to repay bank debts, and his WeChat and Alipay accounts were also frozen by the court. So Zhang asked his father to apply for a WeChat account with his real name and bound one of his father's bank cards. Afterwards, Zhang contacted his friend Li through WeChat and proposed to borrow 50000 yuan from Li for a period of three months. Three months later, Li repeatedly urged for a loan on WeChat, but Zhang evaded for various reasons and told Li that this WeChat belongs to my father, so go find him. Under helplessness, Li sued Zhang and his father for jointly repaying a loan of 50000 yuan and interest.

Lawyer analysis

The establishment of a private lending relationship must meet two requirements: one is the agreement of the loan, and the other is the delivery of the funds. The court hears such cases, focusing on examining the loan agreement, restoring the true intentions of the borrower and lender, and making a judgment based on the statements and relevant evidence of both parties.

According to the provisions of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Lending Cases", when a lender brings a civil lending lawsuit to the people's court, it shall provide debt certificates such as promissory notes, receipts, IOUs, and other evidence that can prove the existence of the legal relationship of the lending. Therefore, Li should provide relevant evidence to prove that there is a loan agreement between him and Zhang, as well as Zhang's father, and that the funds have been paid.

In this case, on the one hand, after examination, it was found that Li provided chat records with the WeChat account and knew that the person he contacted for the loan was Zhang. Li repeatedly urged and pursued payments from Zhang, and it was Zhang who confirmed the amount of the debt and promised repayment time to Li. On the other hand, although the WeChat was registered using Zhang's father's ID card, Zhang's father has never used the WeChat. The WeChat is actually controlled by Zhang, who is the actual user of the WeChat. Li doesn't know Zhang's father. Therefore, the court believes that a loan agreement has been formed between Li and Zhang, and the loan relationship between the two parties is established; However, there is no loan agreement between Li and Zhang's father, and their loan agreement is not valid.

In determining the existence of mutual agreement between the borrower and lender, the court needs to further examine whether the loan amount has actually been paid. In this case, the court further examined and, based on the transfer and payment records provided by Li on WeChat, after questioning Zhang, confirmed that Li had already delivered the loan. After receiving the loan, Zhang did not transfer it to his father's bank card, but used it for his own consumption, and his father did not control the loan.

Based on the comprehensive trial situation, the court believes that the evidence provided by Li can prove the existence of a loan relationship between him and Zhang, but it is not sufficient to prove the existence of a loan relationship between him and Zhang's father.
In this case, Zhang's father's registered WeChat account was controlled, used, and borrowed by Zhang, and Li regarded him as a joint debtor of the debt. Although the court did not recognize Zhang's father as a joint borrower after trial, Zhang's father also faces legal risks of being sued as a result. Reminder: In daily life, individuals must keep their personal accounts safe and not easily lend out their verified accounts. If it is discovered that someone is borrowing from one's own verified account for borrowing, immediate measures should be taken to prevent legal action or joint repayment liability.