1. Basic case
He and Wu are husband and wife. In 2020, he met Huang, who performed in the studio through the Douyin platform, and "bought" virtual items for Huang while watching Huang's live Douyin performance. During the period from August 2020 to February 2022, he transferred a total of 12 transfers totaling 5041 yuan to Huang through the Wechat program, and a considerable number of Wechat chat records of the two men implied approval of extramarital affairs and sexual implications. From February 1, 2020 to October 31, 2022, the Douyin account used by he rewarded the Douyin account used by Huang with a virtual gift worth 1267316 Douyin coins, equivalent to 126731.6 yuan (1267316 / 10). According to the proportion of the live broadcast platform and the anchor, Huang's profit from he's reward amount is 63365.8 yuan (126731.6 yuan × 50%). After Wu knew about it, he sued and asked Huang to return all the income.
2. Referee result
The Intermediate people's Court of Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province ruled: first, Huang should return 5041 yuan of Wechat transfer received by Wu within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment; second, reject Wu's other litigation claims. After the trial, the higher people's Court of Jiangxi Province held that the legal relationship between the audience and the anchorman cannot be generalized, and that the live broadcast service, reward method, gift amount and other factors of the case should be comprehensively analyzed and determined. In this case, he and Huang met on the Tik Tok platform. After that, Huang established an one-on-one relationship with he and continued to interact with him. A considerable number of Wechat chat records meant to approve extramarital affairs and sexual cues. Therefore, he's behavior of rewarding Huang Douyuan on the Tik Tok platform is not simply based on appreciating Huang's live performance, but on the basis of a private affair between the two. He and Wu are husband and wife, and he gave Huang without Wu's consent, which constitutes no right to dispose of him. Therefore, Huang's acceptance of he's reward constitutes unjust enrichment and his benefits should be returned. Change the judgment of Huang to return the profit share of the live broadcast.
3 、typical significance
In recent years, live broadcast reward has become a hot topic in the field of online consumption, and disputes caused by live broadcast reward emerge in endlessly. In judicial practice, the legal relationship of the audience to broadcast live broadcast reward can not be generalized, but should reflect the differential characteristics of the case facts. For acts that have gone beyond the usual relationship between viewers and anchors and are rewarded for the purpose of maintaining the improper relationship between the two parties, Article 8 of the Civil Code of the people's Republic of China shall apply as a violation of public order and good customs. This case finds that he's behavior of "buying coins and rewarding" to Huang on the Douyin platform is essentially a gift to maintain a private ambiguous relationship between the two, and the large donation of husband and wife's common property without authorization violates public order and good customs, and its effect shall not be determined, and Huang shall be judged to return his income. The judgment embodies the socialist core values of fairness and harmony, plays a positive role in cracking down on improper extramarital relations and safeguarding the legitimate property rights and interests of husband and wife, and has a certain reference significance for the handling of such cases.
