"We asked the defendant to double the 'deposit' of 60000 yuan paid by the plaintiff." The plaintiff's claim was rejected by the judge in court. The plaintiff paid for the goods according to the agreement, and the transaction failed because the defendant breached the contract. But why can't the court support the plaintiff's claim for double return of the deposit? The plaintiff Li and the defendant Ge met through a friend introduction. At the beginning of 2020, Li contacted Ge through WeChat to discuss the purchase of masks. On February 10, 2020, both parties agreed that the plaintiff, Mr. Li, would buy 100000 masks from the defendant, Mr. Ge, at a price of 3.1 yuan per piece, and that they would be transported by logistics the next day. On February 10, Mr. Li transferred a total of 310000 yuan to the defendant Mr. Ge in six transactions through WeChat, Alipay, online banking and other forms, of which the first transfer of 30000 yuan was noted as "deposit". After receiving the payment from the plaintiff, Mr. Ge failed to pay the goods as agreed and did not return the payment after being urged by Mr. Li. Therefore, Mr. Li sued Mr. Ge to the People's Court of Panji District, Huainan City, Anhui Province, demanding that Mr. Ge return the payment of 280000 yuan and double the "deposit" of 30000 yuan. The defendant Ge Mou, who was summoned by the court, did not appear in court to participate in the proceedings without justified reasons, and the court was absent from the trial according to law. After inquiring the chat records and transfer records of both parties, the handling judge believed that Li claimed that Ge should return the payment of 310000 yuan for goods. The facts were clear and the reasons were justified, and the court supported it. As for the double return of the deposit, it can be seen that when the two sides discussed the purchase of masks, not only did they not form a written contract to agree on the deposit, but also did not reach an agreement on the deposit orally. The plaintiff claimed that the first transfer of 30000 yuan was "deposit", and it can be clearly seen from the transfer notes that the remarks were "deposit" rather than "deposit". "Down payment" and "down payment" look similar, but there is a word difference between them. In fact, there are great differences in legal basis between them. Facing the confusion of the parties, the judge explained, Article 115 of the Contract Law stipulates that "the parties may pay a deposit to the other party as security for the creditor's rights in accordance with the provisions of the Security Law. After the debtor performs his obligations, the deposit shall be set off against the price or recovered. If the party who pays the deposit fails to perform the agreed obligations, it shall not be entitled to demand the return of the deposit; if the party who receives the deposit fails to perform the agreed obligations, it shall return the deposit in double." Therefore, in this case, The "deposit" of 30000 yuan transferred by Mr. Li is not a "deposit" in the legal concept. The court did not support his claim for double return of 60000 yuan. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Ge returned the 280000 yuan of goods and 30000 yuan of "deposit" transferred by Li, totaling 310000 yuan. Judges popularize the law: The deposit refers to the way that both parties agree in writing to pay a certain amount of money in advance to the other party as a guarantee for the realization of the creditor's rights under the guarantee contract. When signing the contract, the deposit must be agreed in writing, and the amount and delivery period of the deposit should also be agreed. If the party paying the deposit fails to perform its obligations, it has no right to require the other party to return the deposit; If the party accepting the deposit fails to fulfill its obligations, it shall return the deposit in double to the other party. After the debtor performs the debt, the deposit shall be set off against the price or recovered according to the agreement. The deposit is strictly an idiom, not a law