The man falsely accused his third-year-old son, Krypton, of seeking a refund! The court sentenced him to a false suit and a $10,000 fine.

In recent days, the Guangzhou Internet Court has published a typical case involving the fact that parents falsely claim the value of a minor in return for a refund, which was ultimately found to be false. This case not only reveals the abuse of the right to litigation by some parents, but also provides an important reference to the judicial practice of Internet games as a full-fledged dispute.

The plaintiff, Da Li (the father of Xiao Li), sued his son, Li, for a cumulative full value of $21382 over a period of seven months through a certain game account without the consent of his guardian, requiring the game company to refund the full amount of the charge. After the case was admitted, the Guangzhou Internet Court conducted a detailed investigation and found that the value of the game account in question occurred between the ages of 2 and 11 months and 3 years and 7 months. In particular, Li was only 2 years and 11 months at the time of the first charge and 3 years and 7 months at the last. The court, taking into account Li ‘ s age, capacity and record of value, found that it did not have the capacity to operate the game independently and to complete the value.

It was further established that the full value of the account in question was actually performed by Dae Li or his relatives and that part of the full value record was directly related to his payment account. The court held that the fact that Da Li had invented the fact that Li was independent and was trying to obtain an improper refund through litigation was consistent with the definition of a false action in the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, that “the parties fabricate facts, forge evidence, induce the court to make erroneous judgements, harm the legitimate interests of others or disturb the order of justice”.

The Guangzhou Internet Court decided to reject all of his claims and found that his actions constituted a false suit. The Court noted that Li lacked the capacity to perform complex network operations and payments independently, owing to his young age, and that it was clear that the conduct was performed by adults. As guardian, Da Li has not only failed to prove that his independence is being fulfilled, but instead has seriously abused his right to litigation by filing a suit through fictional facts with the intention of obtaining undue benefits.

In addition, pursuant to article 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court issued a warning to Da Li for the false action, ordered him to pay a fine of $10,000 within the deadline and reserved the right to pursue further legal liability. The judgement emphasizes the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of minorsIt is an important principle of the administration of justice, but parents may not sue in the name of minors in bad faith and disturb the order of justice.

According to statistics, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of disputes over the refund of the value of play by minors, with some parents making malicious claims under the “unreasonable consumption of minors” clause, adding to the burden of justice and business. The judgement in this case provides judicial guidance in similar cases, warns parents not to abuse the policy of protection of minors, and reminds the gaming companies to strengthen the system of certification of names and protection against fascination and to reduce the incidence of disputes.