Only when there is no debit note in the transfer record can you sue the other party for repayment, but only one record is difficult to win the case, and other supporting evidence is needed to win the case with confidence. If there are not only transfer records but also transfer exchange records between the two parties, the existence of loan relationship can be clearly defined from the chat records.

Legal analysis

Under normal circumstances, the evidence of loan is based on written forms such as IOUs and loan contracts, and the court mainly refers to some written evidence in the process of hearing cases. If there is no IOU or loan contract for the money lent, it is generally very unfavorable to the lender, but this does not mean that the money lent must be wasted. According to the law, the plaintiff only filed a private lending lawsuit based on the transfer voucher of financial institutions, and the defendant argued that the transfer was to repay the previous loans or other debts of both parties, and the defendant should provide evidence to prove his claim. After the defendant provides corresponding evidence to prove his claim, the plaintiff should still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship. This means that if the borrower does not admit that the money is borrowed, it must provide relevant evidence to defend it. For a simple example, if A lends B 654.38+ 10,000 yuan to B and B refuses to repay it, then A will bring a lawsuit to the court. If B wants the support of the court, it must provide sufficient evidence to defend itself, such as providing debt evidence to prove that the money is used by A for repayment, or providing a purchase and sale contract to prove that the money is used by A for purchasing related goods or services. If B can't provide valid evidence to defend, then in general, the court will support A and think that A's creditor's rights are established. Similar cases often occur in reality.

legal ground

Article 188 of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) requests the people's court to protect civil rights, and the limitation of action is three years. Where there are other provisions in the law, those provisions shall prevail. The limitation period of action shall be counted from the date when the creditor knows or should know that the right is damaged and the debtor knows it. Where there are other provisions in the law, those provisions shall prevail. However, the people's court shall not protect the rights that have been damaged for more than 20 years. Under special circumstances, the people's court may decide to extend the time according to the application of the obligee.