De Shan Xin Yi Law Firm

Recently, the property dispute lawsuit filed by Sun Yuchen against Jing Tian and her parents has sparked heated discussion across the internet. As lengthy exposé posts spread on social platforms, various gossip details have circulated widely. It should be specially noted that at this stage, only case filing and property preservation have been completed. The defendants have raised a jurisdictional objection, and no substantive court hearing has been held. No effective judgment has been rendered yet. Most of the widely circulated online accounts are merely one‑sided statements and cannot be equated with legal facts. Putting aside entertainment gossip, this article sorts out the legal issues behind the case with reference to the Civil Code and the judicial interpretations on marriage and family.

I. Overview of Objective Facts of the Incident (Only publicly available judicial information is adopted)

According to the public statement by the counsel of the plaintiff: Sun Yuchen filed a civil lawsuit with the people’s court against Jing and her parents on the grounds of a property dispute. The amount in controversy exceeds 30 million yuan. The court has accepted the case, and the plaintiff applied for property preservation measures. The defendants filed a jurisdictional objection, which is still under review by the court. The substantive dispute of the case has not been heard, and no judgment has been issued.

The plaintiff claims that the funds in question constitute a betrothal gift. However, the content of the lengthy exposé posts published on social media is not included in the complaint and does not fall within the scope of the plaintiff’s claims. Jing Tian and her studio responded that they trust the law, refuse to be coerced by public opinion, and will leave everything to the judicial process.

Lawyer’s Reminder: Viral online stories ≠ legal facts. Courts base rulings solely on evidence rather than social media “long posts”. One‑sided narratives, circulated chat screenshots and hearsay exposés cannot be directly recognized as case facts without presentation and cross‑examination in court.

II. Hot Question 1: Must the full betrothal gift be returned if the parties have not registered for marriage?

Legal Basis: Article 5 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China concerning the Marriage and Family Part: Where a party requests the return of a betrothal gift given in accordance with customs, the people’s court shall support such a request if it finds any of the following circumstances:

(1) The two parties have not completed marriage registration formalities;

(2) The two parties have completed marriage registration formalities but have not actually lived together;

(3) The payment before marriage causes the payer to live in hardship.

The application of items (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph shall be subject to the condition of divorce between the two parties.

Many netizens hold a misunderstanding: as long as the marriage registration is not completed, the full betrothal gift must be returned in full. Judicial practice does not mechanically impose full restitution in all cases. When hearing disputes over the return of betrothal gifts, courts will consider multiple factors comprehensively: the background of payment — whether the payment was made for the purpose of entering into marriage; the nature of funds, i.e., whether it is a betrothal gift, a gift, joint consumption during the romantic relationship, or a loan, which is the primary focus of the trial; the length of the relationship, whether the parties cohabited; the actual amount of the betrothal gift, the flow of funds, and whether the money was delivered to the woman’s parents. The defendants in this case include Jing Tian and her parents, which indicates the plaintiff alleges part of the funds were transferred to the woman’s parents; the reasons for the breakup and fault of each party; local customs, and the consumption of the property.

If the court determines the payment is a betrothal gift, it may order full or partial restitution based on the above factors. If the evidence is insufficient to classify it as a betrothal gift and the payment is deemed a gratuitous gift made during courtship, the plaintiff’s claim risks being dismissed. The final outcome of this case depends on complete evidence submitted by both parties, such as transfer records and chat logs, pending the substantive hearing by the court.

III. Hot Question 2: Can a person avoid liability by marking “Fictional” on lengthy online exposés after a dispute arises?

Another major controversy in this case: a party published a thousands‑word post on social media disclosing extensive private details of the romantic relationship, with the note “This article is purely fictional” at the end, yet all the details point to specific natural persons. Under the Personality Rights Part of the Civil Code, natural persons enjoy the right to privacy and the right to reputation. Details of romantic relationships, private emotional experiences and personal life plans all qualify as legally protected private information.

Two core criteria determine whether an online exposé constitutes an infringement of personality rights: ordinary members of the public can accurately identify the specific natural person described in the article; and the content involves disclosure of privacy, insult, defamation, or fabrication of false facts that damage the person’s social reputation.

👉 Key Practical Conclusion: Labelling content as “purely fictional” does not automatically exempt the author from tort liability. Even with such a fictional disclaimer, if readers can clearly identify a specific real individual and the article discloses substantial private information of that person, it may still constitute an infringement of the right to privacy. If false derogatory facts are fabricated, it may also constitute reputational infringement.

Lawyer’s Reminder: Civil property disputes shall be resolved through litigation, evidence presentation and court hearings. One cannot safeguard one’s own rights at the cost of infringing the other party’s personality rights. Even as the plaintiff in a property dispute, no one has the right to publicly spread the other party’s private information online. Otherwise, the other party may file a separate lawsuit, demanding removal of the content, a public apology and compensation for mental damages.

IV. Hot Question 3: Why are the parents also listed as defendants in a property dispute?

Many netizens wonder why the woman’s parents are named as defendants alongside her in a property dispute. In judicial practice for betrothal gift disputes, if the betrothal money is actually received and kept by the woman’s parents, the plaintiff may sue both the woman and her parents as co‑defendants and claim joint liability for restitution. Whether the parents ultimately bear the repayment obligation will be determined by the court based on evidence proving they actually received the disputed betrothal funds. Being sued does not automatically mean they must repay the money.

V. Practical Advice from Lawyers for Individuals in Romantic Relationships

Clarify the nature of large‑value transfers: For large capital transfers during courtship, specify the purpose of payment in transfer remarks to distinguish gifts, loans and betrothal gifts. For large sums given for marriage preparation, retain transfer vouchers and chat records to avoid conflicting statements later.

When disputes over emotions and property emerge, resort to judicial channels first. Do not publish long posts online exposing the other party’s privacy, or you may face personality rights tort litigation while failing to protect your rights.

When subjected to online harassment via “long posts” from others, preserve evidence (webpage notarization, screen recordings). You may send a lawyer’s letter or file a personality rights lawsuit to protect your legitimate rights and interests.

You may follow entertainment hot topics, yet legal judgments rest on evidence. Whether public figures or ordinary citizens, anyone facing romantic and property disputes should protect their rights through legal channels. Never pursue rights by infringing upon others’ personality rights.

This article serves only for legal popularization and discussion and shall not be regarded as case litigation legal opinions.