A while ago, "A man was forced by his girlfriend to write a million yuan loan note but has not been sued" went viral: Chen forced his ex boyfriend Zhao to write a one million yuan loan note, but after breaking up, he sued the court for recovery... One party wants to break up, and the other party wants compensation, using the promissory note as evidence for the "breakup fee". Can this money be obtained? The People's Court of Wanning City, Hainan Province, has tried this private lending dispute case and answered this question. The court found that Chen and Zhao were once boyfriend and girlfriend, but broke up due to family conflicts, personality differences, and other reasons. Chen wanted to obtain monetary compensation from Zhao and repeatedly demanded that Zhao write IOUs as evidence, even resorting to death threats. Helpless, Zhao and Chen signed a loan agreement, which stated that Zhao borrowed 1 million yuan from Chen. However, Zhao did not actually make any payments thereafter. After the breakup, Chen filed a lawsuit with the court using a promissory note, demanding that Zhao repay the "debt". The People's Court of Wanning City held that the plaintiff Chen requested the defendant Zhao to pay a loan of 1 million yuan based on the "Loan Agreement" signed by the two parties. During the trial, both parties acknowledged that the agreement was a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff to pay a compensation of 1 million yuan in order to break up. Although the agreement was used as a "loan", it was not a normal loan relationship between the two parties, but a conditional gift, that is, the defendant established a gift contract based on the condition that the plaintiff broke up with them. The court believes that according to Article 679 of the Civil Code of China, which states that "a loan contract between natural persons shall come into effect from the time the lender provides the loan", there is no borrowing fact between the two parties, and the loan agreement therefore has no legal effect. Therefore, there is no real and effective legal relationship of loan between the plaintiff Chen and the defendant Zhao. Based on this, the court ruled in accordance with the law to dismiss all of the plaintiff Chen's claims. The emotional and legal drama of using "IOUs" as a means of coercion to prove one's own illegality not only tears open the scars of "trust sneak attacks" in intimate relationships, but also exposes the chaos of emotional extortion under the guise of "breakup fees". So, how does the law define the boundary between morality and contract, how should couples be wary of the "IOU trap", and how can they grasp the emotional game rules in a rule of law society? The presiding judge stated that in this case, the purpose of the loan agreement was to harm social good customs, violate the principle of public order and good customs, and should be considered an invalid legal act. The defendant's act of reneging and not paying the amount falls within the scope of social morality, and it is not appropriate to demand payment through the current legal system. Delivery without funds has no legal effect. Because to determine the existence of private lending, it is not only necessary to have external forms such as promissory notes, IOUs, and promissory notes that can indicate the mutual agreement of both parties on borrowing, but also to have actual delivery behavior. In this case, the "breakup fee" agreed upon by both parties in the form of a loan agreement is a false loan derived from "emotional debt", and there is no agreement between the two parties regarding the loan, nor is there any actual delivery of the loan. According to Article 8 of the Civil Code of China, civil subjects engaged in civil activities shall not violate the law or public order and good customs. Although the agreement is called "loan", it is actually a gift promise made by Zhao with the condition of breaking up. However, the gift contract can be revoked before the transfer of property, and in this case, the gift conditions violate public order and good customs. Zhao has the right to refuse to perform according to law. In recent years, there have been frequent demands for "breakup fees" and "youth compensation fees", and some parties have attempted to monetize emotional losses through IOUs and IOUs. However, such agreements often become "legal IOUs" due to their lack of legality, and even lead to criminal risks such as extortion. In this case, Chen's use of suicide as a threat reflects the psychological tendency of some people to gain control through extreme means when their emotions are broken. Psychological experts have pointed out that emotional extortionists often exploit the other party's sense of guilt or fear to achieve their goals, but such behavior is never tolerated by the law. In daily life, many people believe that "black and white" has legal effect, which easily leads to the cognitive illusion of "winning with a promissory note" and ignores the core position of the borrowing fact. To this end, judicial authorities need to strengthen background checks on loan disputes and increase punishment for behaviors such as fictitious debts and coercion to sign contracts. Strengthen the promotion of legal knowledge, help parties clarify the boundaries of their rights and obligations, guide the public to handle emotional disputes rationally, and eliminate the cognitive misconception of "using money to compensate for emotions". After the case was exposed, it quickly went viral on various hot searches, and there were constant online discussions. Some people said: Love is not buying or selling! The law has finally put the brakes on 'emotional blackmail'. Some people also questioned: the woman was clearly extorting, why not pursue criminal responsibility? There are also rational analysts who argue that regardless of gender, the use of emotions to seek wealth should be resisted. The value of this case lies in further clarifying that 'public order and good customs' take priority over private remedies, providing a model for similar disputes. ”Wang Hao, a lawyer from Beijing Yingke (Haikou) Law Firm, believes that the "million loan note" case in Wanning has torn apart the most unbearable aspect of intimate relationships: when love becomes a calculation, when vows become IOUs, and the rule of law becomes the last barrier to protect the bottom line of human nature. There are two lessons to be learned from this case: firstly, if the promissory note is detached from the real transaction background, it may actually become evidence of its own illegality. Secondly, a truly civilized society should not only respect emotional freedom, but also use the power of the law to curb the evil of human nature. Only by returning to the essence of integrity in every agreement and leaving room for dignity in every breakup, can we build a healthy emotional ethics and legal ecology, and make the rule of law the "anchor" of the emotional world. (New Society)