After borrowing money from A, he returned it to A s father, who was framed for legal recourse 20

Normally, A takes your IOU and asks you for money, and you have to pay it back.

However, you can also claim to the court that Father A has unjust enrichment for you and that he must return the receipt written to you by Father A.

A and father A are two subjects, although they are father and son, but the relationship with your creditor's rights and debts is indeed independent, you don't want to be confused, who should be repaid, who should be repaid, who you ask for who takes your money. Receipts and IOUs are serious and must be taken seriously.

Supplement Your supplementary question is interesting: "A is dead, saying that he can't." In any case, if A dies and you pay him back, of course his father and wife want it, and the money you pay back is divided between A's father, A's wife and other heirs as A's inheritance. It also depends on whether A has a will, if so, according to the will distribution, if not, according to the legal inheritance, to see how many heirs he has, and distribute it equally.

If the court rules that you must pay another 110,000 yuan, you can sue Father A to repay the 110,000 yuan you have already paid, because Father A cannot produce an IOU, there is no debt between you and him, and the money he took from you is "unjust enrichment" and should be returned.

From the perspective of criminal law, A and A's father attempt to illegally take possession of your property by deception, and the amount is huge, and they are already suspected of fraud, you can report to the public security organs.

A does not constitute an offence.

A lends money to B, B issues an IOU, and a private lending relationship is formed between A and B.

A is the creditor and B is the debtor.

B has repaid the money one after another, indicating that the private loans of both parties have been fulfilled and the creditor's rights and debts have disappeared.

At this time, A should return the IOU, and if the IOU cannot be found for a while, A should issue a receipt that has repaid the loan, and state that the original IOU issued by A is invalid.

Now A sues B for repayment, B can provide evidence of his repayment, and the judge will dismiss A's claim in accordance with the law.

It is a civil dispute between A and B, and if the statement of the problem is verified to be true, A will be fined or administratively detained, which will not constitute a crime. This is because China's criminal law does not explicitly stipulate that this act is a crime.

A suing B is a civil action, not a criminal action. If there is conclusive evidence that B has repaid the loan in full, then the court will rule against A.

First, for the debt between A and B, since A has already repaid to C, the amount owed by C belongs to B, so C should repay it to B.

Secondly, for the debt between A and C, A has not repaid the corresponding amount owed to C, so C can claim repayment from A.

Only A can sue you, no one else can sue you.

If someone else sues you, you can state the situation, and the court will support your point of view and may dismiss the other person's lawsuit.

Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Private Lending Cases stipulates that: When a lender files a lawsuit with the people's court, it shall provide proof of creditor's rights such as IOUs, receipts, IOUs, and other evidence that can prove the existence of a legal relationship between loans and loans.

Where the creditor's rights vouchers such as IOUs, receipts, and IOUs held by the parties do not indicate the creditor, and the parties holding the creditor's rights vouchers file a private lending lawsuit, the people's court shall accept it. Where the defendant raises a factual defense against the plaintiff's creditor qualifications, and the people's court finds that the plaintiff does not have the creditor qualifications after trial, it rules to dismiss the lawsuit.

1. Who borrowed the money, did A and B borrow money, or did A and C borrow money from B?

2. If A and C borrow money from B on the IOU, if there is no agreement on the repayment date, it can only be said that A and C are jointly and severally liable. C's claim that nothing was written on the IOU has no evidence at all!

If A admits the account, the three re-sign the relevant agreement; If A does not admit the account, the applicant A is a third party. If no relevant evidence can be found to prove that C is not involved in the matter, C should be liable, because C, as a person with civil capacity, should be able to foresee the risk of signing an IOU with no contents, and be responsible for it.