Study On Practice Of Burden Of Proof In Private Lending

Private lending can be traced back to more than 3,000 years ago in China,and it came into being after the emergence of private property.Strictly studied,private lending as an "unconventional" private financing behavior,its emergence is mainly to meet the needs of wealth adjustment without changing the ownership of property.As a common economic phenomenon,private lending has realized the effective allocation of financial resources.The loose economic policy has injected fresh blood into it and sparked new vitality,which has made private lending develop at a speed of blowout and has become a powerful means for natural people to spend money.It is precisely because of the booming development of the lending market that the fact that private lending has proved difficult makes the fact that the facts are in an unidentified state often occurs.In the civil lending dispute,the use of proof of responsibility is both theoretical and practical.Legislation presents a state of diversification,and there is often a phenomenon in the judiciary that "the same case is different." However,this does not mean that the burden of proof and its related theories themselves are flawed,but the result of the dual role of legal provisions and judicial practice in private lending.The “Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Case of Private Lending Cases” are all related to such problems as the proof of the loan and the proof of the loan,and the proof of the delivery of the loan.It seems to be a good medicine,but in fact it is a logical defect and terminology.The problems used have been criticized,so that new confusion has formed in judicial practice,which ultimately leads to the failure to fully demonstrate its inherent value in civil lending disputes.Through the analysis of the status quo of private lending,this paper expounds the importance of the proof of responsibility in private lending,and combines the gaps in the practice of civil lending and borrowing to illustrate the existence of a series of problems,and finally puts forward its own perfection.It is recommended to solve these problems.The full text is divided into four parts.The first part is mainly to outline the private lending,determine the concept of private lending and explain the development status at this stage.From this analysis,the facts of private lending cases are complicated and the evidence is insufficient.The fact that the facts of such cases are unclear is often the case,which reflects the importance of the proper application of the burden of proof in private lending disputes.The second part makes a systematic inductive analysis of the burden of proof and its distribution theory,and explores the distribution status of the burden of proof in private lending disputes and its existing problems.In the judiciary,there is often a phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case." This does not mean that the burden of proof and its related theory itself are flawed,but the result of the dual role of legal provisions and judicial practice in private lending.The third part analyzes the misuse of the burden of proof in private lending disputes from the perspective of judicial practice by searching a large number of jurisprudence,especially the tenth in the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Private Lending Cases.Articles 16 and 17 on the reimbursement of the certificate,the proof of the loan and the proof of the borrowing and the actual occurrence of the loan behavior are more difficult problems,the transfer of subjective proof responsibility,the difference between denial and defense,the use of indirect counter-evidence,there are misuses in such problems.The fourth part puts forward perfect suggestions on the application of the burden of proof in private lending disputes.The author mainly corrects the accurate application of the evidence,the distribution of the burden of proof in the civil lending,and the reasonable application of the judge's discretion,in order to better solve the complicated civil loan disputes in the judicial practice and provide for the trial.Guiding opinions and strengthening judicial credibility.