According to jiangsu High Court, Li is an online host on a social media platform with 2 million followers. Wang is one of Li’s fans on the platform and often gives li gifts worth more than 10,000 yuan while watching the live broadcast.Wang and Li got to know each other through the social networking platform. They added friends to each other on wechat and met offline three times.In May 2020, li mou in the circle of friends send the information needed the money, how much do you need to take the initiative to contact li mou ask wang mou, li mou answered that need 50000 yuan, wang mou by bank transfer to li mou make a remittance of 50000 yuan, a week after contact wang li mou, citing urgent need money again to borrow 250000, wang mou and contract monthly pay interest, wang mou by mobile phone bank transfer 250000 to li mou.After loan expires wang mou urges repayment to Li mou for many times, Li Mou did not return, Wang Mou then appeals to the court.Li mou argues that oneself and wang mou is the host to interact with fans, the relationship is not familiar to the level of borrowing, they do not have to borrow, wang mou is wang mou transfer to actively, this transfer is exceptional rather than borrowing, if borrowing, shall have a ious, or agreement, have specific purposes such as agreement, but without evidence, wang mouThe chat records wang provided were incomplete and selective screenshots of the conversation.The trial of debentures such as iou, receipt and IOU is an important evidence to prove the establishment of the private loan relationship, but not the only evidence. Other evidence can also prove the existence of the private loan relationship between the two parties.Although in this case, the plaintiff sued has failed to provide the ious, receipts, ious, such as creditor’s rights certificate, but the plaintiff to the defendant to transfer 300000, the defendant to be recognized, the defendant to the plaintiff have the repayment, the plaintiff proof chats between the two sides, set forth the interest on loans, for a year, monthly statement and other relevant folk lending, the content of the relationships between the original, the defendant set up private lending,Qinhuai court ordered the defendant to return the plaintiff’s loan principal and interest.The judge said that in the case of private lending, the borrower should bear the burden of proof for the loan agreement, payment delivery and other important facts.When a lender brings a civil loan lawsuit to the people’s court, it shall mainly provide creditor’s right certificates such as ious, receipts and ious, as well as other evidences that can prove the existence of legal relationship of loan.Debentures such as ious, receipts and IOUS are important evidences to prove the establishment of the private loan relationship, but they are not the only evidences. Other evidences can also prove the existence of the private loan relationship between the two parties, such as transfer records and chat records in this case.Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in hearing Private Lending Cases stipulates:If the plaintiff brings a private loan lawsuit only on the basis of the transfer voucher of the financial institution, and the defendant defends that the transfer is to repay the previous loans or other debts of both parties, the defendant shall provide evidence to prove its claim, and after the defendant provides relevant evidence to prove its claim, the plaintiff shall still bear the burden of proof for the establishment of the loan relationship.For lack of loan contract case, the plaintiff with transfer vouchers filed a lawsuit, the defendant denied borrowing fact propositions put forward by the plaintiff, in such a case, the defendant’s plea, actually has created a new position, namely the parties still exist between the plaintiff argued loan relationship outside of the rights and obligations, in accordance with the principle of “who advocate who proof”,The defendant shall bear the corresponding burden of proof for the facts of other creditor’s rights and obligations claimed by him, and shall provide evidence to prove it.In this case, the defendant to the plaintiff iou, iou, such as creditor’s rights certificate, issued by the defendant argues that the transfer is based on the host exceptional of collecting payments, gifts and other legal relationship, the defendant shall provide evidence of legal relation of its proposed, and a high standard possibility, otherwise legal relationship is established between using the non-government loan.Platform service agreement, at the same time, the network platform is only to provide users with information sharing, transfer and access to services, the user is responsible for all actions under your account, platform privately contact behavior risk, shall be borne by users themselves, using the transfer behavior between the outside of the platform, is not a live broadcast of the play in the process of behavior.The defendant in this case did not provide evidence to prove the existence of other legal relations, and the court did not accept its claim that the transfer was a reward or gift.