On The Burden Of Proof In Private Lending Disputes Under Single Evidence

Since the promulgation of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Questions of Law Applicable to the Trial of Civil Lending Cases in 2015(hereinafter referred to as "Judicial Interpretation of Civil Lending"),although it has alleviated the inconsistent judgments and judicial confusion caused by the excessive discretion of judges in the local courts before the implementation of this interpretation,the civil society under the single evidence has been tried.In cases of debit and credit disputes,borrowers usually can only provide creditor's rights certificates such as debit slips or transfer vouchers and other financial institutions'vouchers,without other corresponding evidence.If local courts fail to reasonably distribute the burden of proof between the plaintiff and the defendant,unfair judgments will arise.Therefore,in the process of handling cases,judges are required to properly resolve disputes,comprehensively balance the interests of all parties,correctly and appropriately exercise judicial discretion,and reasonably distribute the three stages of hearing civil debit disputes,namely,the establishment of loan agreement,lending behavior and proof of repayment behavior,in accordance with the legal provisions and principles among the parties.First of all,because the plaintiff is the party advocating the right,according to the principle of burden of proof distribution,whether it is for loan agreement or payment,the standard of proof should meet the standard of "high probability".The degree of the burden of proof of the defendant should be determined according to the proof power of a single type of evidence.If the plaintiff provides a debit clause and prosecutes(Judicial Interpretation of Civil Lending)?Article 16)Because the documentary evidence borrowed from this article is naturally strong in proof,the defendant's refutation is to make a real sense of the defense of his claim,which requires specific explanation of the evidence.While the transfer voucher has certain proof power for the delivery of money,it is weak for both parties to prove whether they are willing to borrow or not.Therefore,the defendant's proof degree only needs to put forward reasonable reasons for denial,which is essentially lower than that of "giving evidence" and "defending".Secondly,if the defendant's proof is established,which shakes the judge's inner conviction,the plaintiff needs to further prove his claim.The standard of proof is applicable to the principle of"superior evidence" and no longer to "high probability",which is decided after many evidence confrontations between the two sides.Finally,when both sides exhausted the evidence they could provide and made the case fall into the unknown,in principle,the plaintiff should bear the adverse consequences of losing the lawsuit,and the follow-up parties should have other evidence and prosecute separately.It should be pointed out that at any stage of the three stages.after one party has reached the standard of proof,the burden of proof is transferred to the other party.If the party can not prove his or her defense or his or her proof can not negate the other party's claim,the other party's claim is valid;if the party's proof of his or her defense reaches the level of negation of the other party's claim,the other party should.The party concerned should put forward new propositions of evidence supplement and improvement,otherwise the factual proposition of the party's defense is established.In a word,we should pay attention to the distribution of the burden of proof between the plaintiff and the defendant at the controversial points that the facts of the case are constantly changing in order to make a fair judgment in the trial of private lending disputes under single evidence.