案情:去年7月份,原告苑春林拿着被告张义军和董明德签名的欠条向法院起诉,要求判令两被告以共同购货人的身份偿付所欠货款11300元。对此,被告张义军答辩,欠原告货款是事实,但董明德是证明人,不是共同购货人。被告董明德答辩,货是张义军所购,他本人是作为证明人在张义军出具的欠条上签名,不应该成为本案被告。那么,货款到底是谁欠的呢?法院查明,2001年8月13日,被告张义军购买原告苑春 Case: In July last year, plaintiff Yuan Chunlin filed a suit with the defendant Zhang Yi-jun and Dong Ming-de to pay a court order alleging that the two defendants paid 11,300 yuan as the co-purchaser. In response, the defendant Zhang Yi-jun defenses, the plaintiff owed money is a fact, but Dong Mingde is proof, not a co-purchaser. The defendant, Dong Mingde, pleaded in the defense that the goods were purchased by Zhang Yijun and that he himself signed as a witness on the IOU issued by Zhang Yijun and should not become the defendant in this case. So, who owed money in the end it? The court found that on August 13, 2001, the defendant Zhang Yi-jun to buy plaintiff Court spring