The assignment of the burden of proof stipulated in Articles 16 and 17 of the Regulations on Private Lending is inconsistent with the interpretation of the Civil Litigation Law, which confuses the subjective burden of proof with the objective burden of proof, plea with denial, evidence with counter-evidence, leading to an improper assignment of the burden of proof. It is necessary to clarify the fact-finding problems in private lending lawsuits based only on IOUs, receipts, credit notes, and other claims evidence obtained and based only on the transfer vouchers of financial institutions, and to specify the plaintiff’s burden of proof of the loan relationship under the framework of the burden of proof based on the proof of essential facts, so that the guiding role of the civil law as the norm of conduct can be brought to play and the plaintiff’s sense of self-responsibility for retaining evidence can be improved. In addition, the determination of facts in a lending relationship often requires expert appraisal. Relying solely on the assignment of the burden of proof does not clarify the responsibility for applying for appraisal of claims evidence obtained. Therefore, taking into account the standard of proof and the degree of the judge’s mental impressions, the decision on who should apply for the appraisal should be made based on the transfer of the subjective burden of proof.