Appeal request dismissed prosecution ruling (1) Appellant xx County Guancun Rural Credit Cooperative. Address: Renmin Middle Road, the county seat of xx County.
Legal representative Zhao xx, director.
Appellee Wang xx, male, 50 years old, Han nationality, lives in Shenhe Village, xx Town, Baofeng County.
Appellee Song xx, male, 40 years old, Han nationality, lives in Gu Duo Village, xx Town, Baofeng County.
Appeal request:
1. Revoke the civil ruling (2004)x Minchuzi No.216 according to law and send it back to xx County People's Court for retrial;
2. All litigation costs in this case shall be borne by the two appellants.
Facts and reasons:
The appellant refuses to accept the civil ruling of xx County People's Court (2004)x Min No.216, and now appeals. The specific facts and reasons of the appeal are as follows:
1. The court of first instance rejected the appellant's prosecution, which did not conform to the provisions of Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law.
In this case, the appellee Wang xx borrowed money and Song xx provided guarantee. In addition to the signatures of Wang xx and Song xx, the borrower also stamped the official seal of the ceramic factory in xx Town, xx County. The court dismissed the prosecution on the grounds that Wang xx was listed as the defendant and obviously violated the law.
The appellant believes that there are some defects in the loan collection agreement supported by the loan receipt, loan contract and other materials provided by the credit union, which is not enough to affect the determination of the facts of the case; Moreover, the second defendant in this case was absent, did not give evidence, and gave up the right to state and defend. In the case that the defendant gives up the defense and proof, the court should make an unfavorable judgment against the defendant in accordance with the lawsuit of the credit union!
In addition, article 108 of the civil procedure law requires the conditions for prosecution. There is a clear defendant? In the absence of a qualified defendant, the appellee's list in the appellant's lawsuit is very clear. As for whether the defendant is qualified, it is a matter of entity review rather than procedural review. The result of the defendant's disqualification can only be to dismiss the lawsuit, not to dismiss it!
Two, the court of first instance to determine the amount of the case acceptance fee is wrong.
In his reply to the Higher People's Court of Henan Province, the Supreme People's Court clearly stipulated that if he refuses to accept the prosecution or rejects the case of objection to jurisdiction, the acceptance fee will be charged according to the non-property case. According to the regulations of Henan Higher People's Court, the acceptance fee for such cases is 50 yuan. The court of first instance found that the case acceptance fee of 826 yuan was borne by the appellant, which violated the above provisions!
To sum up, the court of first instance ruled that the dismissal of the appellant's prosecution did not comply with the law, and it was wrong to determine the litigation acceptance fee!
I am here to convey
Xxx intermediate people's court
Appeal to dismiss the ruling of prosecution (II) Appellant: Wang Moumou, male, Han nationality, 19? Month? Date of birth, address: Wuhua District, Kunming, ID number: 530? Tel:15812137587.
Authorized Agent: Cai Ya, specially authorized, lawyer of Yunnan Mingding Law Firm.
Appellee: Yan Moumou, male, Han nationality, 19? Month? Date of birth, address: jianyang city, Sichuan, address: jianyang city, Sichuan? , ID number: 5 1 1027, Tel:
Claims
1. Request to cancel the civil ruling of Guandu District People's Court (20 16) Yun 011,and send it back to Guandu District People's Court for retrial.
2. Request the Appellee to bear all the litigation costs of this case.
Facts and reasons
The case of Appellant v Appellee was accepted by Guandu District People's Court on July 6, 20 16, and a civil ruling (20117040) was made on July 6, 2065438. The Guandu District People's Court held that the appellant had repeatedly sued. The appellant refused to accept the ruling of Guandu District People's Court, and the facts were unclear and the ruling was wrong for the following reasons:
First, the parties after the lawsuit and before the lawsuit are not the same. The defendant in the latter lawsuit is Yan Moumou, and the defendant in the former lawsuit is Kunming? Company. Although the appellant sued Kunming Company and Yan Moumou, the actual responsible person of the court decision was Kunming Company.
Second, the object of the latter lawsuit is different from the object of the former lawsuit. The object of the latter lawsuit is 50,000 yuan and interest on overdue payment, while the object of the former lawsuit is 167075.6 yuan. The appellant was injured while working in the Kunming company contracted by the appellee, and the Guandu District People's Court (20 13) made a civil judgment No.492, ordering Kunming company to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 105640 yuan. The appellant Kunming Company and the appellee reached a settlement agreement on the judgment. Agreement? Party C shall compensate Party A for the economic loss of RMB 50,000.00 Yuan, and Party C shall pay the compensation to Party A in three installments, with the first installment being 17000.00 Yuan before February 30, 1965, and the second installment being paid to Party A before February 30, 1965. But after the expiration, the appellee refused to pay, and the appellee was forced to bring a lawsuit to the court according to the settlement agreement.
Third, the post-litigation and pre-litigation claims are not the same, and the post-litigation claims do not substantially deny the pre-litigation judgment results. The right of claim after litigation is based on the judgment of previous litigation. According to the settlement agreement, the appellee is required to pay the plaintiff compensation of 50,000 yuan, and pay the overdue repayment interest according to the bank loan interest rate for the same period. The former lawsuit was based on the claim that Kunming Company and Yan Moumou jointly compensated 167075.6 yuan, and the Guandu District People's Court made a civil judgment of (2013) No.492.
4. After the judgment of Guandu District People's Court, the appellant and the appellee reached a settlement agreement with Kunming Company, and the new situation should be accepted by our hospital. According to article 248 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of Civil Procedure Law? After the judgment becomes legally effective, the people's court shall accept the new facts and bring a lawsuit again. ? Although the Guandu District People's Court made a judgment on the case of the victim providing labor services, after the court's judgment, the appellant and the appellee reached a settlement agreement with Kunming Company, which is a new fact and should be accepted by the court.
To sum up, the latter is different from the former litigants, the latter is different from the former litigants, and the latter is different from the former litigants, which does not substantially deny the former verdict. Does not conform to the provisions of Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Civil Procedure Law. According to article 248, the court shall accept any new situation. The court of first instance ruled that the dismissal of the appellant's lawsuit did not comply with the law. Request your hospital to cancel (2065438+June) Mincai ZiNo.. Yun 0 1 1 1 7040 at the beginning of the Republic of China, supporting the appellant's claim.
Zhezhi
Kunming Intermediate People's Court