Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Rani Prameswari asks the Court to order Fajar Wibowo to repay Rp3,000,000. She says she transferred that amount for a washing machine and that Fajar promised to repay her after receiving his bonus. Fajar accepts that he received the transfer and bought the machine, but says Rani contributed toward a shared household need and that he did not promise repayment. 2. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their accounts and respond to the other’s position. They have both stated that no message or independent witness is available to establish the conversation about repayment. The Court therefore decides the claim on the record presented, without assuming facts that the records do not show. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Rani has proved that Fajar agreed to repay the Rp3,000,000. The transfer and purchase are not materially disputed. The requested repayment depends on proof of the alleged agreement, not merely proof that money changed hands. 4. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the facts that justify it. Rani therefore bears the burden of proving the repayment agreement. Rule 2 directs the Court to give weight to reliable records while recognizing that a record may prove some facts but not others. Submissions of the parties 5. Rani says she transferred the money for the washing machine and understood Fajar to promise repayment after his bonus. She acknowledges that the bank record proves the transfer and its stated purpose, but not the promise. She has no signed agreement, message, or independent witness confirming what Fajar said. She asks for repayment of the amount transferred and no more. 6. Fajar says he understood the transfer as Rani’s contribution to a household purchase, particularly because he had paid other household bills that month. He acknowledges using the phrase “settling up,” but says he meant balancing shared expenses, not repaying a personal loan. He agrees that the transfer occurred and that he bought the washing machine the next day. He asks that the repayment claim be rejected because the promise has not been established. Evidence and findings 7. The bank transfer confirmation, presented as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated in later submissions, shows a transfer of Rp3,000,000 from Rani to Fajar on 8 January 2025, with the note “washing machine.” Fajar expressly accepts the transfer. The Court finds that Rani transferred Rp3,000,000 to Fajar for the stated washing-machine purpose. 8. The washing-machine receipt, exhibit-6-e2 and exhibit-9-e2, records a purchase for Rp3,000,000 on 9 January 2025. The receipt supports Fajar’s account that the money was used to buy a washing machine. It does not state who owned the machine, whether the purchase was a household contribution, or whether Fajar promised to repay Rani. 9. On the alleged promise, Rani’s submissions provide a consistent, direct account: she says Fajar promised repayment after his bonus. Her account is evidence the Court has considered, not a fact automatically established by the fact that she asserts it. Rani also candidly acknowledges the limits of the bank record and the absence of independent confirmation. 10. Fajar directly denies promising repayment and gives a different explanation of the transfer and his later phrase “settling up.” His explanation is also an account by a party and is not independently confirmed. The Court does not treat the absence of a message or witness as proof that his version is true. Nor does the Court treat the transfer note or receipt as proof of his explanation about the parties’ agreement. Reasons 11. The transfer and receipt establish a payment and a closely related purchase. They do not resolve whether the parties agreed that Fajar would return the money. The transfer note identifies the purpose as a washing machine, but it does not describe the payment as a loan or a contribution. The receipt confirms the purchase and amount, but says nothing about repayment. These records are reliable for the events they record, not for the disputed conversation. 12. The Court has weighed Rani’s direct and consistent account against Fajar’s denial and explanation. Rani’s account is relevant and has not been contradicted by a written record. But Fajar disputes it, and the record contains no independent evidence that distinguishes a repayment promise from a household contribution. Fajar’s account likewise lacks independent confirmation; however, Rani bears the burden of proving the promise. The Court cannot shift that burden to Fajar by requiring him to prove that no promise occurred. 13. The Court therefore finds that the repayment agreement is not proven. This finding does not mean the Court has established that the transfer was a gift or that Fajar’s household-contribution account is conclusively true. It means only that the evidence available does not sufficiently establish the fact on which Rani’s requested repayment depends. 14. Rani’s request is limited to the amount transferred, which is proportionate to the payment she proves. But a measured request cannot substitute for proof of the obligation to repay. Because the agreement is not established, the Court cannot order repayment under the supplied rules. No separate, proven basis for monetary relief is presented in this record. Final order 15. The Court finds that Rani transferred Rp3,000,000 to Fajar for a washing-machine purchase and that a washing machine was bought for that amount the following day. The Court finds that Rani has not proven that Fajar agreed to repay the transfer. 16. Rani’s claim for repayment of Rp3,000,000 is denied. No payment is ordered from Fajar to Rani, and no payment is ordered from Rani to Fajar. This judgment decides only the repayment claim on the evidence presented; it does not determine ownership of the washing machine or any broader division of household property.