Perspective | Part 2: Theoretical and Practical Research on the Rules for Returning Gifts and "Three Golds" (Practical Part)

Given the length of this article, it is divided into two parts: the upper part is the theoretical part, focusing on theoretical research, mainly analyzing the legal nature of betrothal gifts and "three golds", the applicable laws and judicial opinions for their return; the lower part is the practical part, focusing on practical research, mainly combining typical cases in judicial practice for in-depth analysis, and providing feasible practical suggestions.

The theoretical aspects have been analyzed in the first part of this article. Below, several representative judicial cases are selected, and combined with the case facts and the court's trial approach, an in-depth analysis of the trial approach for the return of betrothal gifts and three golds is provided in practice.

Case Summary:

Plaintiff Chen (male) and Defendant Yin (female) met through an introduction and soon got engaged according to rural customs and held a wedding ceremony, but they did not register their marriage. During the engagement and wedding, Chen gave Yin and her family a large betrothal gift, including a meeting gift of 10,100 yuan, a gift of 88,000 yuan, a "housekeeping fee" of 20,000 yuan, a "changing mouth fee" of 5,200 yuan, and "three golds" jewelry such as a diamond ring (worth 14,380 yuan), a gold necklace and bracelet (worth 16,340 yuan), and a gold pendant (1,310 yuan), with more than ten types of betrothal gifts totaling hundreds of thousands of yuan. After the wedding, the two began to live together. However, after only a few months, the two had constant arguments due to personality conflicts, and their relationship deteriorated sharply. Yin refused to register their marriage, and they eventually parted ways. Chen then sued the Suxian People's Court of Anhui Province, requesting that Yin return all the betrothal gifts she had received. Yin argued that they had held a wedding ceremony and had a marital relationship according to local customs, and that she had fulfilled her obligations as a "wife", so the betrothal gift should not be returned; and that a considerable part of the betrothal gift had been used for wedding expenses and their life together, and could not be returned.

Points of Dispute:

(1) In the absence of a marriage registration, the two parties have married according to custom and cohabited; should the betrothal gift be returned? Should the return be full or partial? (2) Can all types of payments, including gifts, meeting gifts, and three golds, be considered betrothal gifts? Which ones should not be returned?

Court Findings:

The court first confirmed that the two parties did not register their marriage, and the engagement had been terminated, which meets the statutory conditions for the return of betrothal gifts in the case of "no marriage registration." Regarding the nature of the betrothal gift, the court considered that the money and goods given by Chen according to custom were all gifts given with the purpose of marriage, including cash and jewelry, all of which belong to the category of betrothal gifts, and their legal nature is not changed by different names. Therefore, Yin's defense that the betrothal gift was her rightful property is untenable. Regarding the scope of the return, the court considered that: on the one hand, the two parties only lived together for a few months, did not register their marriage, and the termination of the engagement means that the purpose of the betrothal gift was not achieved, and it should be returned; on the other hand, the two parties did hold a wedding ceremony and lived together for a period of time, and some of the property may have been consumed or difficult to return completely. Considering the irretrievability of wedding expenses in local customs, the court made the following judgment: Yin should return most of the betrothal gift except for some consumption expenses. Specifically, it was ordered that: 90,000 yuan in cash betrothal gifts and several pieces of gold jewelry (necklace, bracelet, ring, etc.) be returned to Chen; for a small number of red envelopes and wedding expenses that had been paid to Yin's relatives, because they were not directly obtained by Yin, and the wedding had actually been held, the court did not support their return. The comprehensive result of the judgment is that Yin needs to return about 80% of the total betrothal gift.

Reasons for the Judgment:

In the judgment, the court pointed out that the core of this case lies in balancing the relationship between traditional customs and legal provisions. Although the two parties completed the "wedding" according to folk customs, the legal marriage relationship was not established, and Yin was not a spouse in the legal sense, and had no right to permanently possess the large amount of property received with the purpose of marriage. The betrothal gift, as a conditional gift, should have its gift effect terminated when the engagement is terminated. Yin's defense of not returning the betrothal gift merely on the grounds of cohabitation and the wedding lacks legal basis. Given the huge amount of the betrothal gift, exceeding the capacity of the male party's family, not returning it would make Chen's family life difficult, which also meets the "difficult living conditions" stipulated in the judicial interpretation. At the same time, the court also considered that some of the betrothal gift had indeed been used for wedding banquets and other consumption, and it would be factually difficult and unreasonable to return it completely, so it deducted this part of the expenses, to be borne by the male party. The court particularly emphasized that freedom of marriage should include the freedom to terminate an engagement, but in terms of property, it should be avoided that one party unduly benefits. Yin received a large betrothal gift and then broke up without getting married; if it is not returned, it will constitute unfairness to the male party, and it is also easy to encourage the bad custom of sky-high betrothal gifts and marriage for sale. This judgment supports the return of most of the betrothal gift in accordance with the law and regulations, reflecting both the adherence to the provisions of the Civil Code and the rationality of local customs and the specific circumstances of the case.

Case Analysis:

This case is a typical case of a betrothal gift dispute involving a broken engagement before marriage. The court strictly followed the statutory standards to determine the liability for return, highlighting the objective node of "no marriage certificate" as sufficient grounds for supporting the return. At the same time, through the analysis of the composition and use of the betrothal gift, a balanced adjustment was made to the amount of the return. It is worth noting that the court included all the property given under the context of the engagement (including the "three golds") in the scope of the betrothal gift, and did not exclude it because the "three golds" were jewelry and were worn and used by the female party. This once again confirms the principle of "substance over form" in judicial practice: the key to judging whether property is a betrothal gift is whether it was given with the purpose of marriage, not the type of property. The judgment in this case has guiding significance for similar disputes: for large betrothal gifts in cases of breakup before marriage registration, the principle should be return, with non-return being the exception; even if it is reduced appropriately, there should be sufficient reasons (such as reasonable expenses actually used for cohabitation). From this case, we can see that: it is necessary to be cautious when giving betrothal gifts before marriage, and large betrothal gifts cannot guarantee a stable marriage, but may face legal recourse when the engagement is terminated. From a legal perspective, engagement does not constitute an absolute right to obtain the betrothal gift; marriage registration is the key.

Case Summary:

Both Wang (male) and Deng (female), both over thirty, met through an introduction and got married in October 2023 after knowing each other for just over a month. Before the marriage, Wang paid a gift of 88,000 yuan in cash as agreed upon by both families, and gave Deng a diamond necklace, a diamond ring, and other jewelry as "three golds," along with other payments such as a meeting gift. After a simple wedding ceremony, Deng moved into Wang's home. Unexpectedly, after only a week of living together, frequent arguments over family matters led to escalating conflicts. Deng angrily returned to her parents' home and refused to return to her husband's home. In May 2024, Wang sued for divorce in the Xinzhu District People's Court of Wuhan City, Hubei Province, and demanded that Deng return the gift money and jewelry totaling approximately 110,000 yuan. Deng agreed to the divorce but disagreed with returning the gift money, arguing that they had obtained a marriage certificate and lived together, and that "the gift money was agreed upon by both families, and it shouldn't be returned now that they are divorcing." Wang insisted that their time living together after marriage was extremely short, and that Deng had fraudulent intentions, demanding a full refund of the gift money. The case went to trial after mediation failed in the first instance.

Points of Dispute:

(1) The marriage lasted a very short time, but they did get a marriage certificate and cohabitated; can the gift money still be returned? (2) If it is returned, should it be a full refund or a partial refund? What factors are considered in the judgment? (3) Did Deng have "fault" that would affect the proportion of her obligation to return the gift money?

Court Findings:

The Xinzhu District Court of Wuhan City, after hearing the case, found that the plaintiff and defendant lacked sufficient understanding before marriage, and the foundation of their marriage was weak; they lived together for only one week after marriage before separating, and did not establish a stable marital relationship. This shows that although there was a marriage in form, the marital relationship was essentially non-existent. Therefore, granting the divorce is in accordance with the law. Regarding the return of the gift money, the court found that: generally speaking, when both parties have registered their marriage and lived together, the gift money should not be returned upon divorce. However, the special circumstances of this case are that the cohabitation time was extremely short and the amount of the gift money was relatively high. Wang's family paid a high price for this marriage, and the marriage lasted only a very short time; if the return is not considered at all, it would be clearly unfair. At the same time, it was found that the couple did not have children, and Deng quickly lost the desire to live with Wang after marriage, and Deng was also partly to blame for the frequent conflicts after marriage. In summary, the court decided to partially support Wang's request for the return of the gift money. Specific judgment: while dissolving the marriage, Deng should return 70,000 yuan of the gift money to Wang, and return the diamond necklace and diamond ring purchased and gifted by Wang before the marriage. The court did not support the return of the remaining part of the gift money and other expenses (such as meeting gifts, small gifts, etc.), considering them as voluntary gifts and wedding expenses by Wang. After the judgment, Deng appealed. During the second instance trial, the court mediated between the parties, and finally reached a mediation agreement: the divorce was upheld, Deng voluntarily returned 50,000 yuan of the gift money and the above-mentioned jewelry, and the dispute was settled once and for all.

Reasons for the Judgment:

In the judgment, the first-instance court detailed the reasons for applying the new judicial interpretation: the duration of the marriage is an important factor in determining the return of the gift money. In this case, the marriage lasted only a few days, which is a typical case of "short cohabitation time." At the same time, the gift money of nearly 90,000 yuan far exceeds the per capita disposable income of urban and rural residents in the area, constituting a significant economic burden. Therefore, it meets the conditions for exceptional consideration of return as stipulated by the Supreme Court. The court further comprehensively considered the use of the gift money (mainly for the female party and her family, the male party did not benefit), the dowry situation (the female party had almost no dowry, little property to offset), the situation of marriage and childbirth (no children), and the fault of both parties (the female party also bears responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage), etc., to determine the amount of return. The reason for not ordering a full refund, but leaving about 20,000 yuan to the female party, is that, firstly, the parties did hold a wedding ceremony and cohabitated, and the female party also invested some emotion and energy in the marriage, so she should be given appropriate compensation; secondly, some small gifts were given to the female party's relatives or used for the wedding ceremony, and the original objects are difficult to return, and the amount is not large, and the male party also has the responsibility to bear the cost of the customs. The court emphasized that the new judicial interpretation grants discretionary power to return the gift money in cases where "the cohabitation time is short and the gift money is excessive," in order to prevent the phenomenon of using marriage to obtain money, and to balance the economic interests of both parties in the divorce. Although Deng claimed that the gift money should not be returned, the court, based on the principle of fairness and good faith, determined that appropriate return is reasonable and justifiable. This responds to the legislative intention of prohibiting the use of marriage to obtain money, and also guides society to establish a healthy and rational view of marriage. The mediation result in the second instance is a slight adjustment based on the judgment, reflecting the court's further efforts to work with the parties and achieve a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

Case Analysis:

This case is a typical example of a flash marriage and divorce gift money dispute. The court did not mechanically apply the old idea of "no return of gift money if the couple lived together after marriage," but focused on the exceptional conditions of short time and high amount, helping the male party recover significant economic losses. The judgment of this case highlights the following: First, it thoroughly investigated the factual basis of the duration of the marriage, using the specific data of one week of cohabitation to prove that "a true marital relationship was not established," making the request for return legally sound; second, it strictly analyzed the factors listed in the new judicial interpretation, and the judgment is well-reasoned and well-supported; third, the determination of the amount of return is reasonable, that is, returning most of the gift money and jewelry, but not all of it, to some extent taking into account the female party's face and reasonable expectations. This judgment is easier for both parties to accept, and it also conforms to the public's intuitive sense of justice—flash marriage to obtain money should be punished, but since a short marriage did exist, the female party should not be left with nothing. It can be said that this case provides a direction for courts nationwide in handling similar "short marriage gift money disputes": upholding the principle (short marriage can be returned) + comprehensive balance (determining the proportion). Through this case, it also warns those who attempt to obtain property through marriage in a short period of time that the law will not allow "marriage transactions," and even if they get the gift money for a while, it may eventually be recovered. At the same time, this case also reminds people to be cautious about marriage, and avoid hasty marriages that cause both emotional and material harm.

Case Summary:

Plaintiff Zhang Mouwen (male) and Defendant Song Mouxin (female) met through an introduction in October 2020 and registered their marriage at the end of the year after a brief courtship. Before the marriage, Zhang Mouwen, according to custom, gave Song Mouxin a betrothal gift of 86,000 yuan. Shortly after the marriage, Zhang Mouwen sued for divorce on the grounds of marital breakdown and requested that Song Mouxin return the entire betrothal gift. In the lawsuit, Zhang Mouwen claimed that Song Mouxin separated from him soon after the marriage, lived at her parents' home for a long time, and that while they were nominally husband and wife, they did not live together in substance. Zhang Mouwen further presented significant clues: Song Mouxin had been involved in two other divorce lawsuits in the past four years, each marriage lasting a very short time, and each time receiving a large betrothal gift from the male party. Zhang Mouwen suspected that Song Mouxin was using marriage as a pretext to repeatedly defraud others of their money and requested that the court thoroughly investigate. Song Mouxin argued that her previous marriages were all due to normal marital discord, denied any intention to defraud, and believed that she and Zhang Mouwen had lived together for nearly a year in this case, and that according to the law, the betrothal gift should not be returned.

Points of Dispute:

Does Song Mouxin's behavior constitute "obtaining property under the guise of a betrothal gift and marriage"? If so, how is her subjective malice determined and the request for the return of the betrothal gift handled?

The court found:

The court in charge legally retrieved the materials from Song Mouxin's previous marriage lawsuits. The results showed that Song Mouxin had indeed had two marriages and divorces in the past four years. In each marriage, Song Mouxin received a large amount of betrothal gifts from the male party, and soon after the marriage, she separated from the male party and returned to her parents' home. When the divorce occurred, the male party claimed that there was "no marital substance" after the marriage, and the circumstances were highly similar to this case. Even worse, Song Mouxin could not provide evidence to prove that she had made efforts to maintain the family and fulfilled her wifely duties in these marriages. Based on this evidence, the court determined that Song Mouxin had the illegal purpose of obtaining property through marriage. In other words, Song Mouxin's behavior pattern has gone beyond the scope of normal marital unhappiness and shows a tendency to repeatedly obtain others' property through marriage, suspected of obtaining money through marriage.

Judgment:

In view of the special circumstances found above, the court ruled in the judgment that the marriage between Zhang Mouwen and Song Mouxin broke down due to a lack of a genuine emotional foundation, and supported the divorce of both parties. At the same time, the court ordered Song Mouxin to return the full amount of the betrothal gift of 86,000 yuan paid by Zhang Mouwen. That is to say, Song Mouxin was not only deprived of her right to retain the betrothal gift, but the judgment also included a condemnatory evaluation of her behavior, clearly stating that she violated the principles of honesty and credit, and was suspected of marriage fraud. Song Mouxin appealed but was not supported, and the judgment finally came into legal effect.

Reasons for the Judgment:

The focus of this case is whether Song Mouxin subjectively intended to defraud. If it is just an ordinary short-lived failed marriage, and according to the general rule, they have lived together and there are no special circumstances, the betrothal gift should not be returned. However, by investigating and comparing Song Mouxin's multiple marriage experiences, it is confirmed that her behavior is not accidental but has obvious patterned characteristics: quick marriage, receiving betrothal gifts, short-term separation, and filing for divorce. This repeatedly occurring pattern is sufficient to overturn Song Mouxin's defense of no malice and prove her subjective intention to use marriage to obtain money. The court determined that Song Mouxin's behavior touched the legal "red line" of prohibiting the acquisition of property through marriage. According to the spirit of the new rules issued by the Supreme People's Court, such fraudulent marriage behavior should be "resolutely denied" its legal effect and seriously dealt with. Therefore, Song Mouxin has no right to possess the betrothal gift paid by Zhang Mouwen according to the general rules of marital relations, and the judgment that she should return the full amount is justified. Song Mouxin's behavior violates public interests, violates the principles of honesty and credit and public order and good customs in the general principles of the Civil Code, and should be corrected. It is worth noting that the judgment in this case focuses on the nature of marriage fraud. This reflects the court's "zero tolerance" attitude towards illegal and disciplinary violations and is a powerful deterrent to those who intend to take advantage of marriage. The trial process of this case also shows that in judicial practice, when determining continuous marriage fraud, it is possible to break through the scope of a single case and comprehensively examine the trajectory of the parties' behavior to prevent insufficient evidence in individual cases from leading to the condoning of illegal acts.

Case Analysis:

This case is a marriage fraud-type betrothal gift dispute and is a typical example of the people's court using new regulations to resolutely crack down on "marriage fraud." From this case, we can see that although marriage freedom respects the parties' right to divorce, marriage cannot be misused for illegal purposes. In terms of evidence, accumulated similar behaviors have become the key to proving malicious marriage fraud. The court also linked Song Mouxin's series of behaviors together to depict her subjective intentions, thus legally determining that she constituted obtaining money through marriage. The judgment result of this case—the full return of the betrothal gift—is far stricter than the partial return in general cases of flash divorces. This is based on the judgment of the defendant's malicious degree. This case also reminds parties who encounter similar situations in practice: if they suspect that the other party is committing marriage fraud, they should pay attention to preserving and collecting evidence such as the other party's previous marriage history and consistent behavior patterns. Once it can be proved that the other party has the intention of marriage fraud, the court will not only support the return of the betrothal gift but may even treat it as fraudulent behavior, and if the property loss is huge, there is also the possibility of pursuing criminal responsibility. From the perspective of maintaining a credible marriage and love environment, this type of judgment has a positive guiding significance: marriage is not a child's play, nor is it a tool for making money. Everyone's behavior in marriage should uphold honesty and credit; otherwise, they will suffer the consequences and bear the corresponding legal consequences.

Case Summary:

Plaintiff Wu Mou (male) and Defendant Wang Mou (female) met through a marriage introduction agency and began a long-distance relationship. During their relationship, Wu Mou repeatedly gave Wang Mou money through WeChat and bank transfers, totaling approximately 40,000 yuan; he also purchased a car worth more than 210,000 yuan at Wang Mou's request, registered in Wang Mou's name, and paid 29,000 yuan for Wang Mou's daughter's tuition. Both occasionally mentioned plans to marry, but they never held an engagement ceremony or registered their marriage. Later, they broke up due to personality differences. Wu Mou sued the Nanchang City Xihu District People's Court, requesting that Wang Mou return the money and vehicle he had given her, on the grounds that these payments were "betrothal gifts" and conditional gifts based on marriage, and should be returned now that the marriage did not take place. Wang Mou argued that Wu Mou's giving of money and buying a car was purely voluntary, a normal gift during their relationship, not a betrothal gift; they never formally got engaged, and she never promised to marry Wu Mou, so there is no issue of return.

Points of Dispute:

Can the large amount of property given by Wu Mou to Wang Mou during their relationship be considered a betrothal gift? If it does not fall under the category of betrothal gifts, what is the legal basis for Wu Mou's request for return?

The court found:

The court, after hearing the case, found that although Wu and Wang had discussed marriage, they did not establish a clear marriage contract, nor did they perform any betrothal customs or ceremonies. Wu's wire transfers occurred throughout their relationship; Wang did not always request money under the pretense of "marriage," but mostly for daily financial support. Regarding the car purchase, evidence shows that Wu took the initiative to buy it for Wang's use, and they did not agree that the car would serve as a betrothal gift or marital property. Considering their relationship pattern, emotional foundation, and financial transactions, the court determined that the money and vehicle Wu gave Wang were primarily gifts within their relationship, not strictly betrothal gifts. They did not genuinely reach a marriage agreement; therefore, the legal nature of these assets falls under the categories of gifts and contracts, not marital property disputes. Based on this, the court found that Wu's claim for the return of betrothal gifts lacked basis. The court ultimately dismissed Wu's lawsuit requesting the return of 40,000 yuan and the vehicle. Wu therefore failed to recover the assets given during the relationship.

Reasons for the Judgment:

The difference between betrothal gifts and general gifts lies in the fact that betrothal gifts must have a clear purpose of marriage and are generally given during engagement or the establishment of a marriage contract. In this case, Wu and Wang did not formally discuss marriage; Wu's giving of assets is more consistent with the typical situation of someone actively gifting their girlfriend during a relationship. Although Wu later claimed it was conditional on marriage, there was no concrete marriage promise between them to confirm this. Evidence shows Wang repeatedly refused Wu's calls and delayed marriage, indicating an unstable relationship. Wu's actions were largely one-sided attempts to please and hope, not a conditional agreement. The court further pointed out that regarding the car payment, Wu and Wang actually formed a sales contract or a contract for purchasing a car in another's name—Wu provided the funds to buy a car for Wang's use, which can be considered as a completed gift contract or an investment expenditure, not a traditional betrothal gift. Legally, gifts are generally irrevocable after the transfer of property, let alone general gifts during a relationship, which have no legal basis for mandatory return. Therefore, Wu's request for return has no basis. The court cited civil law provisions on gifts and contracts, emphasizing that relationships are not subject to marriage law; property disputes should be handled according to general civil law. In this case, Wu failed to prove the existence of a marriage contract or that the woman intentionally defrauded him. Therefore, regarding Wu's losses, the "assumption of risk" principle unfortunately applies—investment in a relationship is a risk investment; the law cannot help him recover without a special agreement.

Case Analysis:

This case serves as a negative reminder to the public that not all financial contributions in relationships can be applied to the "return of betrothal gifts" rule. The court's handling emphasizes the importance of strictly distinguishing between betrothal gifts and general gifts. For men, if they want to link payments to marriage promises, it is best to have a clear marriage contract or conditional gift agreement; otherwise, they will face difficulties in providing evidence. Like Wu in this case, lacking written agreements or third-party proof that the gift was conditional on marriage, the court could only treat it as an ordinary gift, resulting in property loss. This case also reminds legal practice: case classification determines the outcome. Once classified as a marital property dispute, there are judicial interpretations to cite; classified as a general civil gift, the general provisions of the Civil Code's contract and property rights sections apply, and gifted property is usually not recoverable. In this case, the court found no marriage contract, thus no need to apply the judicial interpretation on the return of betrothal gifts, and directly handled the case as a gift contract, legally and reasonably dismissing the plaintiff's request. This also reflects the only way to prevent people from abusing the concept of betrothal gifts—strict evidentiary standards. Not all financial disputes in relationships should fall under the "return of betrothal gifts," otherwise it would contradict the legislative intent and unfairly interfere with normal financial interactions during a relationship. Honesty and credit also apply here: if the woman did not defraud but the relationship failed, requiring her to return all gifts would violate honesty and credit. The law protects those truly defrauded, not those whose pursuits have failed. Therefore, the court's judgment achieves a unity of law and reason and has a demonstrative effect on clarifying the scope of betrothal gifts. For the public, this case also suggests that financial contributions in relationships should be treated rationally, clarifying the relationship's position, and, if necessary, specifying the purpose of large sums of money to avoid future disputes and inability to claim rights.

When facing disputes over the return of betrothal gifts and three golds (gold jewelry), parties should be well-prepared, understand the key points and strategies of evidence, and improve the support rate of litigation claims. Based on the above analysis and judicial practice experience, the following practical suggestions are proposed:

In betrothal gift disputes, evidence often directly determines the outcome. Parties, especially men, should retain relevant vouchers when giving betrothal gifts, such as receipts, bank transfer records, WeChat chat records, and witness testimonies, to prove the fact of payment and its purpose. If the betrothal gift is delivered in the presence of relatives and friends, witnesses can be asked to testify in court or provide written statements. For three golds jewelry, it is best to keep purchase invoices, item lists, photos, or videos to prove their value and existence in litigation. Also, clarify the nature of the payment: as in the previous case four, the man lacked evidence to prove that the money was given conditionally on marriage, leading to treatment as a general gift and inability to return it. Therefore, if possible, it is recommended that both parties sign a simple written agreement when engaged or clearly mention in chats that "certain money or jewelry is a betrothal gift," and keeping such records will help the court determine that the property is marital property. Conversely, if the woman claims that some payments were not betrothal gifts but purely gifts during the relationship, she should provide evidence to prove that no marriage contract was attached at the time of payment or provide evidence showing that the man knowingly gave the gifts without a marriage contract, thus ensuring that the relevant funds are not included in the return.

As mentioned earlier, distinguishing between marital property disputes and ordinary civil disputes is crucial. When filing a lawsuit, the correct case type should be chosen based on the actual situation: if it is indeed a betrothal gift dispute, it should be filed as a marital property dispute and heard by the marriage and family case trial court; if it is a gift during a relationship, it should be handled as a general civil debt or unjust enrichment case. In the complaint and court statements, the customary and conditional nature of the betrothal gift should be described so that the judge understands that this is a marital property case, thus applying special rules in marriage and family matters. If the case type is chosen incorrectly, it may lead to different applicable laws or even jurisdictional issues. For example, in case four, the man chose the marital property dispute case type, but the court found no marriage relationship and dismissed it as an ordinary gift. Therefore, the initial litigation positioning should match the evidence and facts. If there is insufficient evidence to prove a marriage relationship, it is better to change the approach, such as claiming unjust enrichment or revoking the gift contract. Of course, unjust enrichment is rarely used in betrothal gift disputes because judicial interpretations have clear provisions, but in some cases where parents pay betrothal gifts for their children, parents as plaintiffs can sue for the return of the money based on unjust enrichment, which is a viable approach.

In lawsuits, the male party often hopes to recover the betrothal gift in full. However, according to the aforementioned legal provisions, a full refund has strict conditions and should be considered based on the actual situation. For example, if the couple breaks up before marriage, a full refund of the betrothal gift and three golds can be requested, which is also the legal imperative. If it is a short-lived marriage ending in divorce, it is best to request a refund of the majority of the betrothal gift rather than the entirety. A specific amount or percentage can be stated in the lawsuit, such as 70% of the betrothal gift or a specific amount, along with a request for the return of specific jewelry. This makes the claim more reasonable and helps the judge in their decision. For couples who have lived together for a longer period or have children, even if the male party insists on a refund, it should be anticipated that the court may not support it or may only support a partial refund.

In cases involving the return of betrothal gifts in divorce, although the law does not explicitly stipulate the principle of "the at-fault party returning the betrothal gift," the new regulations mention that the fault of both parties can be considered. Therefore, if the male party believes that the female party has committed a significant fault leading to the breakdown of the marriage, including but not limited to concealing marital history, infidelity, or abuse, they should actively provide evidence. If the female party's serious fault can be proven, the court may be inclined to return more of the betrothal gift to the male party when making its judgment. Similarly, if the female party claims that the male party is at fault, such as the male party's infidelity or violence leading to the broken engagement, evidence can be provided to reduce her responsibility for the return. As in the third case mentioned earlier, the male party revealed the female party's fraudulent marriage through investigation, leading the court to determine that the female party had malicious intent, resulting in a full refund of the betrothal gift. In other cases, if the female party proves that the male party concealed his infertility and maliciously evicted her after marriage, the court may also consider not allowing the male party to recover the betrothal gift. It should be noted that fault is not a decisive factor, but it can play a supporting role in discretionary refunds. The parties should collect evidence relevant to the reasons for the breakdown of the marriage (chat records, audio and video recordings, witness testimony, etc.) and explain in court how the other party's fault made it impossible to continue the marriage, making the return of the betrothal gift more equitable. For malicious intent such as using marriage to obtain money, it is necessary to boldly expose it and provide clues, and if necessary, request the court to investigate and collect evidence to uncover the other party's disguise and provide a basis for the judgment.

Betrothal gifts often involve the property of both parents, and the subject of the lawsuit may not entirely correspond to the individuals of the male and female parties. For example, if the betrothal gift was paid by the male party's parents and they want to recover it through a lawsuit, it is best for the parents who paid the gift to be joint plaintiffs, or to clarify the source of the betrothal gift in court, so that the court can consider returning it to the actual payer. The Supreme Court's new regulations specifically regulate the issue of the subject of the lawsuit, clarifying the handling principles when the payer is the parents and they claim a refund from the child's party. In practice, if the male party's parents come forward to claim the betrothal gift, they need to prove that the betrothal gift was indeed paid by them and that the gift was intended for the other party's family, so the court may order the other party to return it to the parents. For example, in some cases, the male party's parents sued the female party's parents in their own names to request the return of part of the betrothal gift, and the court supported the reasonable request for the return to the parents. On the other hand, if the betrothal gift was directly paid to the female party's parents, they should also be listed as defendants or third parties in the lawsuit. This can avoid difficulties in enforcement after the judgment becomes effective, because the actual possessor is the parents, not the female party herself. In terms of enforcement, if the female party fails to fulfill her obligation to return the gift, the male party can apply for compulsory enforcement, including seizing and freezing the female party's property and wages, or requesting the court to forcibly return the jewelry. Of course, it is more ideal to reach a settlement before or during the trial. In betrothal gift disputes, the success rate of mediation is relatively high, because both parties often hope to quickly resolve the grievances and start life anew. During mediation, solutions such as installment payments or bartering can be negotiated to make the return process smoother.

For the male party and his family, it is important to establish correct views on marriage and property. Betrothal gifts should be given according to one's ability, and risk assessment should be done: the nature of a betrothal gift is a gift to the female party's family, and if the marriage fails, a lawsuit may be needed for a refund, which is time-consuming, laborious, and the outcome is uncertain. Therefore, high-priced betrothal gifts should be approached cautiously to avoid future dilemmas. Once a dispute occurs, rational rights protection should be pursued through legal channels. For the female party and her family, it should also be recognized that refusing to return unjustly obtained money will eventually be subject to legal prosecution, and the wrong idea that "once the betrothal gift is received, it is one's own" should be abandoned. If the relationship truly cannot continue, the betrothal gift should be returned appropriately based on the principle of honesty and credit, otherwise, once sued in court, a forced judgment to return the gift will often cost more and may also damage reputation. In terms of litigation strategy, if the female party has no chance of winning, it is better to take the initiative to request mediation instead of insisting on not returning the gift, such as agreeing to return a certain percentage of the betrothal gift in exchange for the male party withdrawing the lawsuit, showing goodwill, and striving to reach a settlement to avoid a lose-lose situation.