Abstract: The principle of distribution of burden of proof presupposes that the holder shall bear the risk of losing the lawsuit if the facts of the document are unclear. In order to avoid this risk, the holder should proactively prove that the document is true. However,due to the biased choice of the value of the basic relationship of negotiable instruments,the unclear understanding of the legal nature of right to claim for reinstating interest for loss in theory and practice, and the misunderstanding of the use of defense by the drawer or acceptor, the bearer fully assumes the burden of proof that the drawer or acceptor obtains additional benefits. The court presumes that the drawer or acceptor has an interest equal to the amount of the bill, which unreasonably aggravates the burden of proof for the presumptive disadvantageous party to refute the presumption. In order to guarantee the fairness between the parties, the distribution of burden of proof in the right to claim for reinstating interest for loss needs to be rationally allocated. The basic idea is that the holder must bear the burden of proof in three important facts:the existence of right to the instrument,the loss of right to the instrument due to the limitation of time or defects in specified particulars,and the obligor of the instrument gains additional benefits. The holder does not bear the burden of proof of the existence of the basic relation of the instrument except for the fact that the three elements of substantive law regulated. The drawer or the acceptor will bear the burden of proof for the facts that no additional benefits have been obtained, but will not presume the burden of proof by the holder for the benefit equal to the amount of the instrument.

Key words: right to claim for reinstating interest for loss, basic relation, essential fact, defense cause, distribution of burden of proof