No gambling? The defendant Beijing is so understanding, but why the court was sentenced
Poker 75 thousand once owed by the other party to court, Wang said "I owe the debt, do not need", but provide no evidence, no evidence, not to apply for access to the evidence, not for witnesses. Tongzhou court verdict: money!
In this case the plaintiff Wu said that the loan in 2014. He and the defendant Wang from 2011 onwards on the understanding, often playing cards. In May 2014, Wang said he would open a restaurant, money is tight, want to borrow some money. Wu and Wang lent 7.5 million yuan in cash. Because Wang did not agree on the date of repayment, Wu also let him issued an IOU, stating "this Wu owed 75000 yuan, promised by the end of 2016 (before December 30th) to pay off." But until Wu sued each other or didn't have the money.
Wang in court when shouted: "this money is simply gambling!" he said, he often in a chess room and Wu et al was playing mahjong, chess room boss fee a lure, playing golden fried. Soon lost all his money, borrow money from relatives, credit card cash, to get a total of three yuan, eventually still owed 75 thousand yuan wu. Wang said, he later determined to gambling, but Wu and a fee to find their own company, in order to avoid the adverse effects on their work, but to fight the ious. Because the money is not gambling, so he agreed to repay.
In the trial, the plaintiff stated the specific time, place, loan payment, and submit the relevant witnesses and evidence and other evidence to the court. In accordance with the law, if the parties themselves put forward a claim, you have to provide evidence that. If only that their views and requirements, but not for the court to submit evidence, it says. The trial, Wang has said that the money is under duress and gambling, IOU signed, but did not provide evidence in court repeatedly that do not provide evidence of the consequences of the case, Wang did not provide evidence to the court, does not apply to obtain evidence and clues for witnesses in court, the court cannot believe him what has been said. The reason, the plaintiffs involved in the formation of the loan payment delivery time and place, credit vouchers after the formation, lending ability made, and provide bank card transaction details to prove, so the court finds that the loan relationship was established, according to the judgment of Wang also money, and pay the corresponding interest.