杨金诉称，其起诉时已将利息计算方式调整为按一年期贷款市场报价利率标准四倍计算，张斯的借 款时间明显已超过借条约定的还款期限，因此，张斯此前已偿还的1万元是逾期利息，13.93万元本金及 剩余的逾期利息并未偿还。 张斯辩称，其与杨金原先签订的借款合同未约定还款顺序，所以，其偿还的这1万元应当算为本 金。 双方各执己见，最终法院应如何判决？ 法院：先息后本，法律有明确规定 桂平法院经审理认为，根据双方当事人的陈述及提交的证据，足以认定张斯与杨金之间的借贷关系 依法成立并受法律保护。双方在借条中约定了还款期限、利率，但未约定还款顺序。张斯未在约定期限 内履行还款义务，构成违约，应当承担相应的违约责任。 民间借贷中，在出借人和借款人没有约定的情况下，借款人偿还的借款不足以清偿全部本金和利息 时，该笔还款是算作偿还本金还是利息？近日，广西壮族自治区桂平市人民法院审结了这样一起民间借 贷纠纷案件。 还了1万元，是本金还是利息？ 张斯（化名）与杨金（化名）系同学关系。2022年4月，张斯因做生意紧缺资金，找杨金借了13.93 万元，并承诺连本带息还钱。杨金看在多年同窗的情分上，通过银行转账的方式，先后多次将借款汇至 张斯的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of emotional extortion disguised as financial agreements, emphasizing that such agreements lack legal validity when they violate public order and morals [4][5][6] Group 1: Legal Findings - The court determined that the agreement between the parties was not a legitimate loan but rather a conditional gift, as it was made under the pressure of a breakup [2][4] - The court ruled that there was no actual lending relationship, and thus the loan agreement lacked legal effect [2][3] - The court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims reinforces the principle that agreements violating public morals are invalid [4][6] Group 2: Social Implications - The case reflects a growing trend of individuals attempting to monetize emotional losses through legal agreements, which often leads to legal and ethical complications [5] - Emotional extortion tactics, such as threats of self-harm, reveal deeper psychological issues and the need for legal systems to address such behaviors [5][6] - The case serves as a reminder that legal documents must be grounded in genuine transactions to be enforceable, and that emotional disputes should not be commodified [5][6]