□ Xu Jin [Case] Party A sued for settlement on the grounds that Party B failed to repay the loan on time, and submitted an iou signed by Party B (printed in the main text). During the trial, Party B denied that the signature on the IOU was written by itself, which caused controversy, and who should start the authentication procedure became the focus of the case. [Analysis] The distribution of the burden of proof, the essence of which is what facts the parties to the case should advocate, so as to bear the burden of proof for the facts. In view of this case, if the defendant claims that the loan has been returned, it shall be proved by disproof. But now I just argue that the plaintiff's evidence is not true. According to the above rules, the defendant has no corresponding burden of proof, but if the defendant does not admit it, the plaintiff should prove the authenticity of the IOU provided by him. At the same time, Article 25 of the Evidence Regulations stipulates that "the party who bears the burden of proof for matters that need to be identified fails to apply for identification, or fails to pay the identification fee in advance without justifiable reasons or refuses to provide relevant materials within the time limit specified by the people's court, resulting in the fact that the disputed facts in the case cannot be identified through the identification conclusion, it shall bear the legal consequences that cannot prove the facts." Although it is not clear who should apply for the appraisal, generally speaking, in this case, the plaintiff has the obligation to prove the authenticity of the loan. When the defendant denies it, the plaintiff belongs to the category of "the party that bears the burden of proof for the matters that need to be identified" and should apply for identification. However, Article 2 of the Jiangsu Higher People's Court's "Application of Relevant Issues Should Be Paid Attention to" places the obligation to provide relevant handwriting on the negative party. Thus, the burden of proof that the relevant signature is signed by the negative party should be borne by the positive party. Therefore, the plaintiff should bear the burden of proof to prove the authenticity of the signature in this case.