Should such money be repaid? Do you have to pay legal liability?

I can tell you clearly that you must pay it back, otherwise you will have to bear the more serious consequences, such as the other party suing, as well as legal costs, etc. This is legally called "unjust enrichment", which means that the benefits that should not be obtained by you should be returned. This is provided for in Article 92 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, and at the same time, we have also adjudicated in judicial practice.

So, I suggest you advise your friends to quit.

First of all, I found that the landlord's problem was a bit wrong, and it should be: "I mistakenly entered the transfer of 50 yuan into 500 yuan", so that my friend's son had the logic of taking an extra 450 yuan. Such a case is a bit similar to the recent case of a very popular bank ATM malfunctioning and desperately spitting out money.

The beneficiary bank customer argued that it was equivalent to me picking up money on the side of the road, and that it was my moral choice not to return it to the owner, and it did not involve a legal level. The bank said that if you pick up hundreds of thousands or even millions on the side of the road and you don't pay it, you are embezzling public property! More money and less money is just a quantity, and the key is to establish a principled norm for future reference.

Based on the existing cases, the judge will rule that this is the bank's mistake and the possibility that the customer has a bad motive to embezzle the illegal income, and the customer should return the 450 yuan to the bank.

You're talking about this possibility.

Since your friend can't confirm whether the money is his.

Let's see if the bank will ask for the 450 yuan for no reason, if it is not caused by operational error, so many people every day, will the bank find your friend through the transaction?

I think the money was the result of a bank error, but the $450 should be repaid.

The bank should apologize for the inconvenience caused.

If the criminal act causes damage to the victim's property, and the victim demands compensation, the criminal suspect has the obligation to make compensation, and he must still bear civil liability for compensation after being sentenced. ，

It depends on the specific situation, and there may be civil compensation attached to criminal cases.

1. According to what you said: C is the creditor, B is the debtor, and A is the guarantor.

2. A denies the guarantee, and C has a great difficulty in proving that 1 is a fact, so it is difficult to pursue A's guarantee liability for the debt.

3. However, there is a bank payment voucher between C and A, which can prove that C transferred 1 million yuan to A through bank transfer. C can sue A for unjust enrichment, unless A can explain the ** of this paragraph and the legal facts contained therein, A still has to return C1 million yuan. In this way, A will be forced to admit that 1 is a legal fact.

4. For C, the best way is to sue A for unjust enrichment!

In short, with the bank's payment voucher, A's legal liability cannot be escaped.

Hello, from the whole thing, C is the creditor, B is the debtor, and A is the guarantor, but since B is running away now, according to the general legal theory, A should bear the guarantee liability. However, from the perspective of legal practice, it is more difficult for A to prove the fact that there is a loan between them, and if A refuses to admit it, it is difficult to pursue his guarantee liability for the debt.

Hello, I am a lawyer at Henan (Zhengzhou) Hui Zhiyuan Ce Law Firm, and I will answer you as follows:

This is a traffic accident caused by drunk driving, and for such a case, the organizer and the main person who advised the alcohol should bear the main responsibility, and the other participants should bear a certain amount of compensation or compensation liability within the scope of their responsibility. In this case, in addition to the responsibility of the organizer and the drinker, if the car owner lends the car to others without permission, resulting in a traffic accident, the car owner and the driver shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation, and your liability is relatively small, and you only need to bear a small part of the compensation or compensation liability. Since the car owner lends the car to someone who has drunk alcohol to drive it, the loss of the car is borne by the car owner and the driver, and you do not need to compensate.

However, how to bear the proportion of responsibility of the specific parties still needs to be determined by the court in light of the specific facts of the case.

Disclaimer: In view of the limitations of online consultation, lawyers can only make preliminary analysis and judgment on the issues of consultation without a comprehensive understanding of the facts of the case and a review of the relevant evidence materials of the case. This lawyer's opinion is for reference only and is not used as the basis for the parties to handle the case, and the consequences of the parties' handling of the case in accordance with this opinion have nothing to do with the lawyer.

If you need further legal help, please call our lawyer directly or bring relevant evidence to our lawyer's office for an interview.

Hello, your father, as the lessor, is not jointly and severally liable for any unilateral acts of the lessee.

If the lessee carries out construction on the leased land, if the interests of the lessor are endangered or the construction is not allowed by the lessor's prior agreement, the lessor has the right to require it to stop the construction or restore the original state, but any expenses incurred by the lessor shall not be borne by the lessee.

Therefore, your father is not liable and if the tenant fails to demolish his structure on time at the end of the lease period, your father can do so himself.