Summary of the Judgment:
Given that the loan in question was proposed by defendant Gu** to the plaintiff, and both defendants Gu** and Gu# confirm that defendant Gu# did not use the loan, and that the plaintiff and defendant Gu# have no agreement regarding the loan, and defendants Gu** and Gu# have already provided reasonable explanations regarding the delivery and repayment of the loan using Gu#'s bank account, the existing evidence cannot prove that defendant Gu# borrowed from the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for defendant Gu# to bear repayment responsibility is insufficient, and this court does not support this view.
Lawyer's Commentary:
This case is represented by my attorney.
The case is actually quite simple: the father used his son's bank account as the receiving account for the loan and used this account to repay part of the loan. After the debt was overdue and unpaid, the creditors made the father and son defendants, demanding that the son bear joint and several liability for repayment.
Should the father's debts be repaid by the son?
The key point of this case lies in determining the nature of the act of lending bank accounts.
The "Supreme People's Court's Reply on Whether Parties Bearing Civil Liability for Lending Bank Accounts" points out that lending bank accounts is an illegal act that violates financial management regulations. In addition to lawfully confiscating illegal gains from the lending account and imposing fines according to relevant regulations, the people's court should also pursue corresponding civil liability for the lender according to different circumstances.
Lending accounts is illegal and should bear civil liability. But should the person lending the account bear joint and several liability for repaying the debt?
The main criteria for judgment are as follows:
- Whether the lender has the consent to borrow the loan;
- Whether the lender enjoys the loan benefit;
- Whether the borrowing accountant's assets have been mixed with the loan funds.
