民事判决书翻译[5篇]

第一篇：民事判决书翻译

上海法院知识产权裁判文书精选

民事判决书范本中英文对照

中华人民共和国吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书

（2003）吉民三终字第20号

上诉人（原审被告）：诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（原浙江省诸暨市飞达实业公司）。住所：浙江省诸暨市城关镇浣东北路60号。

法定代表人：宗光培，该公司总经理。

委托代理人：田大原，吉林衡丰律师事务所律师。

被上诉人（原审原告）：珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组。住所：珲春市。

代表人：金龙华，该清算小组组长。

被上诉人（原审原告）：韩国KOMARA农产会社。住所：韩国釜山广城市莲提区莲山千洞586－15.法定代表人：姜大建，该社社长。

委托代理人：王文君，吉林由正律师事务所律师。

上诉人诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（以下简称飞达公司）与被上诉人珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组（以下简称清算组）、韩国KOMARA农产会社（以下简称农产会社）购销手套机合同纠纷一案，不服中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。上诉人飞达公司委托代理人田大原，被上诉人清算组代表人金龙华，农产会社委托代理人王文君到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

原审法院查明：

（一）1999年7月5日，珲春江南实业有限公司（以下简称江南公司）因未参加年检被珲春市工商行政管理局吊销营业执照，并被告知企业的债权债务由企业自行处理。珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局于2001年6月1日下发珲经发（2001）53号文件，决定江南公司成立清算小组。珲春市公安局治安科出具证明：证明清算组的公章已依法备案。江南公司原法定代表人姜南春于2000年6月8日出具书面说明：

1、江南公司由其提议并同意成立清算小组，其委托宋明男为清算小组组长，金龙华任副组长，吕相基、李顺子、金昌浩为成员；

2、其同意由金龙华负责清算工作及一切法律实施事宜。因此，清算组成立的程序合法，应负责江南公司的债权债务清理工作，具有作为诉讼原告的主体资格。

（二）1998年5月6日，江南公司、农产会社共同作为乙方与作为甲方的飞达公司签订了全自动手套机购销合同。合同约定：甲方向乙方订购日产“松国”牌或“刀金”牌F7型－F10型全自动手套机680台（具体供应计划凭韩方传真件为准）；交货时间从1998年5月8日起至1999年1月8日止；价格按FOB图们火车站交货价每台17，000元人民币；交货地点为图们火车站；付款方式机器运抵图们火车站后付清全部货款；运输方法及费用负担，铁路运费由甲方负担；违约责任，如单方违约，违约方必须向对方赔偿标准为未执行部分合同总额的20％的违约金。该合同由甲方飞达公司加盖单位公章，法定代表人宗光培签名，乙方江南公司代理人金龙华签名，农产会社加盖单位公章、代表人姜大建签名。合同签订后，原告方按约定给被告发运了价值为793，573元的全自动手套机及部分配件。飞达公司陆续给付了原告手套机款471，266元，现尚欠原告方手套机款322，307元未付。珲春海关进口关税专用缴款书及珲春边境贸易公司代理进口证明能够证明：1998年8月10日，由珲春边境贸易公司代江南公司从韩国进口57台手套编织机，江南公司于1998年8月12日向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了7，700元的进口手套机的代理费、办证费、商检费、口岸费等。在合同履行期间，飞达公司的法定代表人宗光培与江南公司的委托代理人金龙华的多次往来信件证明，按照上述购销合同，双方已实际履行。故由二原告与被告签订的此全自动手套机购销合同系双方当事人真实意思表示，该合同为有效合同。另外，为履行合同，江南公司为飞达公司发运手套编织机已垫付运费4，841.32元。

（三）1998年12月18日，飞达公司作为甲方与作为乙方的江南公司签订和解协议。协议称：兹有甲方于97年7月24日向乙方购买乙方合资企业使用全套织袜机设备，98年5月6日签订购买乙方与韩国釜山KOMARA农产会社合资经营的进口韩产全自动手套机，两份合同在履行期间，由于种种原因，使合同不能按约履行，双方在有关问题上出现意见分岐，导致乙方向吉林省延边州中级人民法院提起诉讼。现经双方法人代表友好协商，一致达成和解协议如下：

1、袜机总款按935，000元计算，除已付给乙方货款及甲方在销售期间垫付的有关费用外，甲方一次性再付给乙方袜机款18万元；

2、手套机、卷边机及配件总额按845，308元计算，除甲方已付给乙方手套机、卷边机及配件款765，308元外，甲方一次性再付给乙方人民币80，000元（捌万元整）；

3、以上二项总计甲方需付给乙方一次性人民币贰拾陆万元整（260，000元）；

4、乙方在签订本协议时，必须立即办理法院撤诉手续及有关财产解冻手续，同时将吉林省延边州中级人民法院的撤诉裁定书传真给诸暨市人民法院代为送达，并将原件用特快专递邮寄甲方；

5、本协议经甲、乙双方法人代表签字即生效，生效后双方都不得用任何理由和借口向对方提出异议，今后双方互不追究任何责任；

6、协议签订后，甲方凭延边州中级人民法院撤诉裁定书一次性付给乙方全部货款计 260，000元（贰拾陆万元整）。该协议由飞达公司法定代表人宗光培签名并加盖公章，江南公司法定代表人姜南春签名并加盖公章。1998年12月22日，姜南春给飞达公司出具收条“今收到飞达公司袜子机及手套机款共计24.5万元，至此与飞达公司的两机款全部收完，合同从此终止，款已结清”，姜南春在收条上签名并加盖了江南公司的公章。上述协议及收条的形成，没有原手套机购销合同的另一方农产会社的参与，农产会社也不知情，未同意、未授权。此和解协议及收条系江南公司与飞达公司擅自达成的，侵害了购销合同一方农产会社的利益，故该协议属单方行为，为无效协议。江南公司因无效协议所取得的24.5万元人民币应返还给飞达公司。因江南公司与飞达公司对和解协议的达成均存在过错，由此因和解无效存在的损失由协议双方各自承担相应的责任。

（四）因农产会社未发运的40台手套机是农产会社个人行为，与飞达公司不直接发生关系，全自动手套机购销合同中对此也未约定，飞达公司并不知农产会社对手套机进行管理等情况，况且农产会社没有足够的证据证明627，250元人民币损失的由来，故农产会社的此项诉讼请求不予支持。

原审法院认为：二原告与被告所签订的全自动手套机购销合同为有效合同，被告方应给付拖欠的货款并承担违约责任。二原告要求被告给付322，307元及违约金64，461元，运费4，841.32元的主张本院予以支持；原告农产会社要求被告赔偿627，250元人民币损失的主张无事实依据，本院不予支持。被告方提出的原告无诉讼主体资格，1998年12月18日双方已达成和解协议对手套机、袜子机款已结清，应驳回原告诉讼请求的主张不成立，不予支持。依照《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第六条、第二十九条第一款、第三十一条、第三十二条、《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条、第六十一条第一款之规定，判决：

一、飞达公司于本判决生效之日起十日内偿付清算组、农产会社全自动手套编织机及配件款322，307元，运费 4，841.32元，并支付违约金64，461元，合计391，609.32元；

二、清算组于本判决生效之日起十日内返还飞达公司24.5万元人民币。案件受理费20，666元，由被告负担8，384元，由原告农产会社负担11，282元。

飞达公司上诉称：

1、清算组在一审中始终未提交其依法成立的有效证据，而所谓的珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局的文件又无法律效力，故清算组作为原告的诉讼主体错误；

2、农产会社与飞达公司1998年5月 6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同无效。理由是：（1）根据最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款“订立合同的我国当事人未经国家主管机关批准授予对外经营权的，合同无效”的规定，因飞达公司无对外贸易经营权，故该合同无效。（2）根据《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》第九条的规定，上诉人飞达公司未经国务院对外经济贸易主管部门许可，且无明确的对外贸易经营范围，故双方所签合同因违反国家法律强制性规定而无效。（3）根据最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释》

（一）第十条“当事人超越经营范围订立合同，人民法院不因此认定合同无效。但违反国家限制经营、特许经营以及法律、行政法规禁止经营规定的除外”的规定，对外贸易属国家授权特许经营，故上诉人与农产会社所签的合同无效。

3、江南公司与飞达公司1998年5月6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同有效，该合同缔约方应排除农产会社，合同项下的内容应该受到法律保护。

4、本案事实上的买卖关系，系江南公司自农产会社买入手套机之后卖给飞达公司，故一审法院在事实认定上是错误的。

5、飞达公司与江南公司签订的和解协议合法有效，飞达公司已因该协议付出了履行此合同的全部对价，付款责任应予解除。

6、原审程序违法，二被上诉人在原审时只是缓交诉讼费，缓交日期截止到2002年11月12日之前，而二被上诉人到目前为止仍未交纳诉讼费，原审法院在没有收到诉讼费的情况下作出的判决是违法的。

7、原审对清算组和农产会社之间的具体权利义务关系没有审理清楚。

8、原审判决对本案争议数额认定不清。

清算组答辩称：

1、清算组的成立是经董事会研究决定，以合法的程序向珲春市工商行政管理局外事科、珲春边境经济合作区经济发展局、珲春市公安局治安科申报批准的，目的是清算清理债权债务。

2、根据1998年5月6日三方签订的全自动手套机购销合同第四条、第五条、第六条、第七条的约定，飞达公司不需要外经贸部批准的进、出口营业执照，故1998年5月6日三方签订的合同是一般的国内购销合同，不是进出口购销合同，应认定有效。

3、1998年12月18日，江南公司法人代表姜南春与飞达公司签订的和解协议属无效协议。

农产会社答辩称：一审判决认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，请求二审法院驳回上诉，维持原判。

综合上诉人的上诉及被上诉人的答辩，并征询各方当事人的意见，本案争议的焦点问题是：

1、清算组是否具备本案的诉讼主体资格？

2、三方当事人在1998年5月6日签订的全自动手套机购销合同是否有效？

3、江南公司和飞达公司1998年12月18日签订的和解协议是否有效？

4、原审法院是否存在程序违法之处？各方当事人在二审中所举的证据与一审完全相同，均没有新证据提供，故本院二审查明的事实与一审相同。针对上述焦点问题，本院综合评判如下：

（一）清算组是否具备本案的诉讼主体资格？

被上诉人清算组认为其成立是合法的，故具备本案的诉讼主体资格，并提供了珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局珲经发[2001]53号“关于珲春江南实业有限公司成立清算小组的批复”，证明清算组是经过国家对外经济贸易主管部门批准后成立的。

上诉人飞达公司对清算组提供的珲经发[2001]53号文件的真实性没有异议，但认为江南公司是私营企业，应由董事会成立清算小组，并提供了珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局珲经发[1993]125号“关于珲春江南实业开发公司与韩国唯一纤维会社在边境经济合作区兴建珲春江南实业有限公司的申请批复”和江南公司董事会名单，证明江南公司是私营企业，故清算组不具备本案的诉讼主体资格，应由董事会成员作为本案的诉讼主体参加诉讼。

被上诉人清算组质证称，对上诉人提供的珲经发[1993]125号文件和江南公司董事会名单的真实性没有异议，但江南公司是中外合资企业，而不是上诉人所说的私营企业，珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局有权成立清算小组。

本院认为：江南公司是由中国珲春江南实业开发公司与韩国唯一纤维会社合资成立的，根据上诉人提供的珲经发[1993]125号文件和被上诉人清算组一审时提供的江南公司的企业法人营业执照，足以证明江南公司是中外合资经营企业，而非上诉人飞达公司所称的私营企业。根据《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法》第三条及《外商投资企业清算办法》第二条、第三条第二款的规定，珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局作为国家对外经济贸易主管部门，有权决定中外合资企业江南公司成立清算小组。综上，清算组的成立符合法律规定，具备本案的诉讼主体资格，故上诉人飞达公司主张清算组不具备本案诉讼主体资格的上诉理由不能成立。

（二）江南公司、农产会社和飞达公司于1998年5月6日签订的《全自动手套机购销合同》是否有效？

上诉人飞达公司认为，本案事实上的买卖关系，是江南公司自农产会社买入手套机后卖与飞达公司，飞达公司的买入价和江南公司买入价之间存在差异，因飞达公司未经国家对外经济贸易主管部门许可，没有对外经营权，故其同农产会社签订的合同因违反国家法律的强制性规定而无效，但并不影响飞达公司同江南公司之间买卖合同的效力，该合同的缔约方应排除农产会社，从而认定江南公司同飞达公司间的买卖合同合法有效，合同项下的内容应受到法律保护，并提供了珲春海关进出口关税专用缴款书、珲春边境贸易公司代江南公司从韩国进口57台手套编织机的证明以及江南公司向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了进口手套机的代理费、办证费、商检费、口岸费、海关关税等税费的证据。

被上诉人农产会社和清算组认为本案中涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》是江南公司、农产会社、飞达公司三方协商签订的，其中所约定的交货和验货地点均在中国境内，故该合同不应视为涉外经济合同，而是一般的国内购销合同，故应为有效合同。

本院认为：飞达公司作为甲方同乙方农产全社、江南公司于1998年5月6日签订的《全自动手套机购销合同》中约定的标的物“全自动手套机”是由作为合同一方主体的韩国企业农产会社提供的，虽然合同中约定的交货和验货地点均在中国境内，但并不能以此将该合同认定为“一般的国内购销合同”，而应按照合同的主体及客体认定该合同为进出口购销合同，由该合同所产生的纠纷应适用《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》及相关的司法解释。根据最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款“订立合同的我国当事人未经国家主管机关批准授予对外经营权的，该合同应当确认无效”以及《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》第十三条“没有对外贸易经营许可的组织或者个人，可以在国内委托对外贸易经营者在其经营范围内代为办理其对外贸易业务”的规定，由于飞达公司和江南公司均不具有对外贸易经营权，不能与外商直接签订有关货物买卖合同，故本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》因合同主体不合格而无效。

（三）江南公司和飞达公司于1998年12月18日签订的和解协议是否有效？

上诉人飞达公司认为本案争议的全自动手套编织机是由江南公司向农产会社买进后再卖给飞达公司的，上诉人飞达公司与江南公司间存在直接的买卖关系，而和农产会社间没有直接的买卖关系，故江南公司同飞达公司间签订的和解协议合法有效。

被上诉人清算组和农产会社均主张飞达公司同江南公司1998年12月18日签订的和解协议无效，理由是该协议没有《全自动手套机购销合同》的一方主体农产会社参加。

本院认为：江南公司与飞达公司于1998年12月18日签订的“和解协议”中共涉及两个方面的法律关系，一个是江南公司同飞达公司就双方间因买卖织袜机而拖欠的袜机款所达成的和解协议；另一个是江南公司同飞达公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》而产生的纠纷所达成的和解协议。由于本案处理的是飞达公司同江南公司、农产会社间因买卖全自动手套机而产生的纠纷，故飞达公司同江南公司在“和解协议”中关于“飞达公司应给付江南公司袜机款18万元”的约定，因属另一法律关系，与本案无关，对此条款的效力，本院不予评判：“和解协议”中关于“飞达公司应给付江南公司手套机、卷边机及配件款8万元”的约定，是江南公司同飞达公司就履行本案中所涉及的《全自动手套机购销合同》而产生的纠纷所达成的和解协议，从《全自动手套机购销合同》的签订和履行情况来看，首先，《全自动手套机购销合同》中并未约定货款具体应给付江南公司还是农产会社，且江南公司和农产会社在二审中均主张货款只要给付了其中的一方，就应视为给付；其次，飞达公司不具有对外贸易经营权，实际上其亦未与农产会社发生直接的买卖关系，而是由江南公司委托了有对外贸易经营权的珲春边境贸易公司从韩国进口了57台手套机，并向珲春边境贸易公司交纳了相关的费用，然后再由江南公司卖给飞达公司，即使飞达公司没有全部给付货款，农产会社也只能依据外贸合同向珲春边境贸易公司和江南公司主张权利，而不能向飞达公司主张权利；而江南公司则可以依据其同飞达公司间实际发生的买卖关系向飞达公司主张权利。综上，由于江南公司对飞达公司拖欠的手套机款有处分的权利，而农产会社又没有直接向飞达公司主张货款的权利，因此，江南公司同飞达公司就手套机款所达成的和解协议，应认定有效。由于江南公司同飞达公司就拖欠的手套机款已达成和解协议，并已实际履行完毕，故江南公司再对此提起诉讼，没有法律依据。

（四）原审法院判决是否违反法定程序？

原审法院在未收取江南公司和农产会社诉讼费的情况下作出判决，虽有不妥之处，但不属于法定的程序违法，故上诉人以此主张原审判决程序违法的理由不能成立。

综上，清算组和农产会社请求飞达公司给付货款并赔偿损失的主张，没有法律依据，其诉讼请求无理，应予驳回。原审判决认定事实清楚，但适用法律有不当之处。根据《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第二条、最高人民法院《关于适用<涉外经济合同法>若干问题的解答》第三条第二款以及《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第（二）项之规定，判决如下：

一、撤销中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决；

二、驳回珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组、韩国KOMARA农产会社的诉讼请求。一、二审案件受理费41，332元，由珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组、韩国KOMARA农产会社负担。

本判决为终审判决。

审 判 长 王晓东

代理审判员 王东林

代理审判员 姜 涛

2003年6月10日

本件与原本核对无异

书 记 员 牛 锋

No.5 Intermediate People's Courts of Chongqing

Paper of Civil Judgment

(2012 Y.W.Z.F.M.Z.Z.No.515)

Appellant(original defendant): Chongqing Lixin Certified Public Accountants Co., LTD.The address is 11-1, A Tower of Longxinda, No.66 Meizhuangxiaojie, Shangqingsi, Yuzhong District, Chongqing;the organ code of this accounting firm is 20280712-8 Legal Representative of this Company: Xiao Qiquan, the director of this accounting firm.Entrusted Agent: Lai Dachuan, Lawyer from Chongqing Niannan Law Firm.Entrusted Agent: Xiao Jing, Lawyer from Chongqing Niannan Law Firm.Appellee(original plaintiff): Chen Zhijian, male, Han nationality, born on 1962-12-13, now is living in Fu 39, No.309 Nancheng Avenue, Nanan District, Chongqing;his ID number is ***012.Entrusted Agent: Sui Yijing, Lawyer from Chongqing Hengze Law Firm.The case about entrusted contract dispute between the appellant Chongqing Yongxin Certified Public Accountants and the appellee Chen Zhijian has been sentenced by People‟s Court of Yuzhong District of Chongqing on Sep.09, 2011, showed on the paper of Q.M.C.Z.No.00610.Now Chongqing Yonxin Certified Public appealed to the higher court against its sentence, after our court received this case, we gathered Collegiate Bench according to the law, and we tried this case.Hereby the trial results.Trial of first instance had found out that: due to the purpose of immigration, Chen Zhijian had signed the Auditing Business Agreement with Chongqing Yongxin Certified Public Accountants on Oct.26, 2005.The contents of this agreement including: Chen Zhijian entrusted Chongqing Yongxin Certified Public Accountants to do personal net assets auditing(including some financial documents about his personal net assets from 2002 to 2004).It is Chen Zhijian‟s responsibility to establish sound and effective internal accounting control system, preserve the safety and integrity of the assets, provide legal, authentic and integral accounting documents.Jilin Province Higher Peoples Court Of the People's Republic of China

Civil Judgment

（2003）Ji Min San Zhong Zi No.20

Appellant（defendant in the first instance）： Feida Industrial Co., Ltd.of Zhuji City（former Feida Industrial Company of Zhuji City, Zhejiang Province）, 60 Huandongbei Road, Cheng'guan Town, Zhuji City, Zhejiang Province.Legal representative： Zong Guangpei, general manager of the company.Attorney ： Tian Dayuan, lawyer of Jilin Hengfeng Lawyers Office.Appellee（plaintiff in the first instance）： Liquidating Group of Jiangnan Industrial Co., Ltd.of Hunchun City.Representative： Jin Longhua, leader of the Liquidating Group.Appellee（plaintiff in the first instance）： KOMARA Agricultural Industry Company of South Korea, 586-15 Lianshanqian Dong, Lianti District, Gangsoe City, Pusan, The Republic of.Legal representative： Jiang Dajian, president of the company.Attorney ： Wang Wenjun, lawyer of Jilin Youzheng Lawyers Office.Appellant Feida Industrial Co., Ltd.of Zhuji City（hereafter referred to as Feida Co.）refused to accept the（2000）Y.Z.J.C.Z.No.63 civil decision regarding the glove machine purchases and sales contract dispute between Feida Co and the appellees Liquidating Group of Jiangnan Industrial Co., Ltd.of Hunchun City（hereafter referred to as Liquidating Group）and KOMARA Agricultural Industry Company of The Republic of（hereafter referred to as KOMARA Co.）made by Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian, Jilin Province, the People's Republic of China as final and lodged an appeal to the Court.After accepting the case, the Court formed a collegial panel and opened a court session publicly.Attorney agent Tian Dayuan, authorized by the appellant Feida Co, Jin Longhua, representative of the appellee Liquidating Group and attorney agent Wang Wenjun, authorized by KOMARA Co., participated the court session and made their arguments.This case is decided now.The first instance court identified facts by trial as follows： On July 5, 1999, the business license of Jiangnan Company was revoked by Administration for Industry and Commerce of Hunchun City without participating in the annual examination and the company was informed that the credit and debt should be settled by itself.On June 1, 2001, Economic Development Bureau of Border Economic Cooperation Zone of Hunchun City issued the（2001）H.J.F.No.53 document that determined Jiangnan Company to form a liquidating group and define members of the group and their duties.Public Order Division of Public Security Bureau of Hunchun City issued a confirming documentation certifying that：the official seal of the Liquidating Group had been put on file according to law.Jiang Nanchun, former legal representative of Jiangnan Company, submitted a written document explaining that： 1.Jiangnan Company, proposed by him, consented to form the Liquidating Group and appointed Song Mingnan as leader of the group, Jin Longhua as deputy leader, Lu Xiangji, Li Shunzi and Jin Changhao as members of the group； 2.He agreed that Jin Longhua should be responsible for the liquidation work and all related legal affairs.Therefore, the Liquidating Group that was formed in accordance with the legal procedure and shall be responsible for settlement of the credit and debt of Jiangnan Company has the qualification of subject of action.⑵ Parties B Jiangnan Company and KOMARA Co.singed the fully automatic glove machine purchases and sales contract with Party A Feida Co.on May 6, 1998.The contract stipulated that： Party A shall order 680 sets of Songguo or Daojin brand F7-F10 type fully automatic glove machines made in Japan from Parties B（for the detailed plan of supply, refer to the fax from South Korea）； the time of delivery was from May 8, 1998 to January 8, 1999； RMB￥17000 per set F.O.R.Tumen Railway Station； place of delivery： Tumen Railway Station； full payment on delivery after arrival of the machines at Tumen Railway Station； the railway freight shall be borne by Party A； in case either party breaches the contract, the party breaching the contract shall compensate the other party with 20% of the total price of the part of the contract that is not performed as fine for breach of contract.The contract was sealed by Party A and signed by Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Party A, Jin Longhua, agent of Party B Jiangnan Company, sealed by KOMARA Co.and signed by Jiang Dajian, representative of KOMARA Co.After the contract was signed, the plaintiff delivered fully automatic glove machines and parts worth RMB￥793, 573 to the defendant.Feida Co.paid RMB￥471, 266 to the plaintiff for the glove machines and owes the plaintiff RMB￥322, 307.The special import duty pay-in warrant of Hunchun Customs and the agent import certificate of Hunchun Border Trade Company can certify that： Hunchun Border Trade Company which acted as an agent of Jiangnan Company imported 57 sets of glove knitting machines from South Korea on August 10, 1998 and Jiangnan Company paid Hunchun Border Trade Company RMB￥7700 for agency commission, certification, commodity inspection, port management and others.During performance of the contract, the correspondence between Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Feida Co.and Jin Longhua, authorized agent of Jiangnan Company, can certify that both parties have actually fulfilled the purchase and sales contract.Therefore, the fully automatic glove machines purchase and sales contract signed by and between the two plaintiffs and the defendant is the declaration of will of both parties and is a valid contract.In addition, to fulfill the contract, Jiangnan Company paid Feida Co.RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight in advance for the shipment of the glove machine.⑶ Party A Feida Co.and Party B Jiangnan Company signed a reconciliation agreement on December 18, 1998.The agreement stated that： the contract on Party A's purchase of the complete-set footwear machine used by Party B's joint venture from Party B was signed by and between both Party A and Party B on July 24, 1997 and the contract on purchase of the fully automatic glove machines imported from South Korea that were operated by the joint venture between Party B and KOMARA Co., Pusan, South Korea, was signed by and between both parties on May 6,1998.During execution of the two contracts, the contracts couldn't be performed for reasons.Both parties had a dispute about relevant issues.Then Party B filed a suit in Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian, Jilin Province.Now both parties came to a reconciliation agreement through friendly negotiation between legal representatives of both parties as follows： 1.The total price of the footwear machines is calculated as RMB￥935,000, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥180,000 in lump sum for the footwear machines in addition to the money paid to Party B and the money paid by Party A in advance during sales； 2.The total price of the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings is calculated as RMB￥845, 308, and Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥80, 000（eighty thousand yuan only）in lump sum in addition to RMB￥765, 308 paid by Party A for the glove machines, seaming machines and fittings； 3.Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥260, 000（two hundred and sixty thousand yuan only）in lump sum of the above two items； 4.Party B shall immediately go through the formalities of withdrawing the action and unblocking the assets after the agreement is signed and at the same time, fax the non-pros award of Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian to Peoples Court of Zhuji City and send the original via EMS to Party A； 5.The agreement shall come into force after it is signed by legal representatives of both parties.Neither party shall make an objection against the other party for any reason or in any excuse.Neither party shall affix the responsibility of the other party； 6.After the agreement is signed, Party A shall pay Party B RMB￥260, 000（two hundred and sixty thousand yuan only）in lump sum by the non-pros award of Intermediate Peoples Court of Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Yanbian.The agreement was signed by Zong Guangpei, legal representative of Feida Co., with the official seal of the company affixed to it, and signed by Jiang Nanchun, legal representative of Jiangnan Company, with the official seal of the company affixed to it.On December 22, 1998, Jiang Nanchun gave Feida Co a receipt that “ we received RMB￥245, 000 from Feida Co.for the footwear machines and glove machines.So far, all the money for the two kinds of machines has been received in full.The contract shall be terminated now, with the account settled.” Jiang Nanchun added his signature and affixed the official seal of Jiangnan Company to the receipt.KOMARA Co., the other party of the former glove machine purchases and sales contract, didn't participate in, know, consent to, or authorize the formation of the above agreement and receipt.The reconciliation agreement and receipt were reached by and between Jiangnan Company and Feida Co.without authorization, damaging the interest of KOMARA Co., the other party of the purchases and sales contract, so it was a unilateral act and the agreement was invalid.Jiangnan Company shall return RMB￥245, 000 received according to the invalid agreement to Feida Co.As both Jiangnan Company and Feida Co.had faults in reaching the reconciliation agreement, both parties shall take their respective responsibility for the losses arising from it.⑷ That KOMARA Co.didn't deliver 40 sets of the glove machines was the individual act of KOMARA Co., which didn't have a direct relation with Feida Co., or was not stipulated in the fully automatic glove machine purchases and sales contract.Feida Co.didn't know KOMARA Co.'s management of the glove machine and other related situations and KOMARA Co.didn't have enough evidence of the cause of the loss of RMB￥627, 250, so the claim of KOMARA Co.couldn't be supported.The first instance court concluded that: the fully automatic glove machines purchase and sales contract singed by and between the two plaintiffs and defendant was valid and the defendant shall pay the money owed for purchase the goods and take the liability for breach of contract.The two plaintiffs' claim that the defendant shall pay RMB￥322, 307, RMB￥64, 461 of fine for breach of contract and RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight is supported by the Court； the plaintiff KOMARA Co.'s claim for compensation of damages of RMB￥627, 250 on the defendant has no factual evidence, and cannot be supported by the Court.The claim made by the defendant that the plaintiffs' claim should be rejected, as they have no qualification of subject of action, and the, money for purchase of the glove machines and footwear machines had been settled in the reconciliation agreement reached by and between both parties on December 18, 1998, is untenable, and cannot be supported by the Court.In accordance with the stipulation of Article 6, Article 29 Section 3, Articles 31 and 32 of the Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the stipulation of Article 106 and Article 61 Section 1 of General Principles of the Civil Law of the Peoples Republic of China, it ordered as follows： 1.Feida Co.shall pay the Liquidating Group and KOMARA Co.RMB￥322, 307 for the fully automatic glove machines and fittings, RMB￥4, 841.32 of freight and RMB￥64, 461 of fine for breach of the contract, totaling RMB￥391, 609.32 within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the judgment； 2.The Liquidating Group shall return RMB￥245, 000 to Feida Co.within ten days from the date of effectiveness of the judgment.The total court acceptance fee is RMB￥20, 666, in which RMB￥8, 384 shall be borne by the defendant and RMB￥11, 282 by the plaintiff KOMARA Co……

In the appeal, Fei Da Company claims that：

1.In the first instance, all the while the reckoning group has never submitted/provided the legally established evidence.Yet the documents by the so-called Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Corporation District are not legally valid, either.Therefore, it is a major mistake of the lawsuit that the reckoning group has acted as being the main body of the plaintiff；

2.The all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract, which was signed by the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998, should be invalid.The reasons are that：（1）the contract should be invalid according to the 2nd item, Rule No.3 in “Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in „Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade' ”by the People's Supreme Court, which stipulates that “The contracts made by the parties of our country, who have no rights for the foreign trade business ratified and issued by the state branch in charge, are invalid”.Because Fei Da Company has no right for the foreign trade business, so the very contract is invalid.（2）According to the Rule No.9 in “Law for the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China》, the appellant, Fei Da Company, has had no the approval license from the foreign economy-trade department of the State Council, what is more, has had no definite or specific foreign trade business scope, hence, the contract signed by the two sides should be invalid because of having violated the compulsive rules of the state law.（3）According to Rule No.10 in the Section I ”Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in ‟Contract Law, People's Republic of China' “： ”The parties make the contract beyond the business scope, the people's court does not maintain the contract be invalid due to this.But the exceptions are these that violates the limited business by the state, the concessionary business, the business banned by the law, the administrative codes.“ The foreign trade business belongs to the business ratified by the State.Thus, the contract signed by the appellant and the Farming Production Society should be invalid.3.The all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998, should be valid.The Farming Production Society should be excluded from the parties of this contract.The law should protect the terms of this contract.4.The actual buying relationship of this case is that： Jiang Nan Company had bought the glove machine, then, sold it to Fei Da Company.Therefore, the court in charge of the first instance was wrong in identifying the facts.5.The compromise agreement signed by Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company is legal and valid.Fei Da Company has carried out all the payment about this contract.So the responsibility for the payment should be dismissed.6.The legal proceedings in the first instance have violated the law.During the first instance, the two appellees just postponed to pay the legal fare.The postponed date closed before November 12, 2002.However, so far the two appellees have not paid the legal fare yet.It has been illegal that the court in charge of the first instance had made a sentence under the condition that the court did not received the legal fare.7.The first instance did not make it clear that the relationships of the specific rights and duties between the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society.8.The first instance did not clearly identify the disputed amount of this case.The Reckoning Group claims that：

1.The board of directors decided the foundation of the Reckoning Group after the study and discussion, which had officially declared to the departments concerned through the legal procedures, the foundation of which was ratified by the Foreign Fairs Office of Hui Cun Industrial and Commercial Administrative Management Bureau, by the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Borders Economy Corporation District, by the Peace Section of Hui Cun Public Security Bureau, the purpose of which is to clear and settle accounts of the creditor's rights and the debt.2.According to the 4th item, the 5th, the 6th and the 7th item in the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, it is unnecessary for Fei Da Company to have the imports-exports business license ratified by the Foreign Economy andTrade Ministry.Hence, the contract signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998, is just an ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract, not an imports-exports purchase-sale contract, which should be considered valid.3.The compromise agreement, which was signed by the legal representative Jiang NanCun of Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998, belongs to an invalid one.4.The Farming Production Society claims that： the facts identified in the first instance are clear and the law applied is proper, requesting the court should turn down the appeal and maintain the judgment in the first instance.Summarizing the appellant's appeal and the appellee's reply, also soliciting the opinions from the various parties, the focus of the case is that：

1.Whether does the Reckoning Group have qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？

2.Whether is it valid or not that the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract was signed by the three parties on May 6, 1998？

3.Whether is it valid or not that the compromise agreement was signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998？

4.Whether is there anything illegal in the legal proceedings for the court in charge of the first instance？

In the second trial, the evidence provided by the various parties is the same as that in the first instance, there is no new evidence given by each of them.Therefore, in the second trial, what our court has found out is the same as what the former court found out in the first instance.Regarding the above-mentioned focal issues, what our court has generally analyzed is as follows：

（I）Whether does the Reckoning Group have the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case or not？

The appellee, the Reckoning Group, thinks that, its foundation is legal, so it has the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case.Furthermore, it has provided the document No.53 Hui Jing Fa Zi [2001] “the Approved Reply Paper about the Foundation of the Reckoning Group by Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd”, which proves that the foundation of the Reckoning Group has been approved by the state foreign trade branch in charge.The appellant, Fei Da Company, has no objection to the authenticity of the document No.53 Hui Jing Fa [2001], which has been provided by the Reckoning Group.However, Fei Da Company thinks that Hui Nan Company is the privately owned business, the Reckoning Group should have been established by the Board of Directors.Fei Da Company has also provided the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] by the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Cooperation District, which is about “The Ratified Reply Paper to the Application for Establishing Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd in the Border Economy Cooperation District by Jiang Nan Industry Ltd and the Fibre Society（which is the only one in South Korea）”； Fei Day Company has also provided the list of the board of directors, which proves that Jiang Nan Company is the privately owned business.Thus, the Reckoning Group doesn't have the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case, which should have been acted as by the member of the board of directors.In questioning the evidence, the appellee, the Reckoning Group, claims that： they have no objection to the authenticity about the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] and the list of the board of directors.But Jiang Nan Company is a joint venture between China and the foreign country.It is not the privately owned business, which has been claimed by the appellant.The Economy Development Bureau of Hui Jiang Border Economy Cooperation District has the right to set up a reckoning group.Our court thinks that： Jiang Nan Company is the joint venture that has been set up by China Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd.and the Fibre Society（which is the only one in South Korea）.According to the document No.125 Hui Jing Fa [1993] provided by the appellant and according to the business legal representative's license of Jiang Nan Company provided in the first instance by the appellee, the Reckoning Group, this does sufficiently prove that Jiang Nan Company is a joint venture, not a privately owned business which has been claimed by the appellant, Fei Da Company.According to Rule No.3 in “Business Law for the Domestic and Abroad Joint Venture, People's Republic of China》, Rule No.2, the 2nd item of Rule No.3 in”Methods for Reckoning in Joint Venture Business》, the Economy Development Bureau of Hui Cun Border Economy Cooperation District, as being the state economy-trade branch in charge of the foreign trade business, has the right to decide setting up a reckoning group in the joint venture, Jiang Nan Company.In summary, the foundation of the Reckoning Group is legal and it has the qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of this case.Therefore, it is untenable that the appellant, Fei Da Company, has claimed that the Reckoning Group has no qualifications for being the main body of the lawsuit of the case.（II）Whether is it valid or not that the“All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract》has been signed by Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company on May 6, 1998？

The appellant, Fei Da Company, thinks that, the actual buying relationship of this case is that, Jiang Nan Company sold the glove machine to Fei Da Company after Jiang Nan Company had bought the glove machine from the Farming Production Society.There are differences between the purchase price of Fei Da Company and that of Jiang Nan Company.Because Fei Da Company has no license ratified and issued by the state economy-trade branch in charge of the foreign trade, Fei Da Company has no right to carry out the foreign trade business.Thus, the contract signed by Fei Da Company and the Farming Production Society has violated the compulsive rules of the state law.Yet that doesn't influence the effectiveness of the purchase-sale contract between Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company.The Farming Production Society should be excluded from the parties of this contract.Consequently, it is maintained that the purchase-sale contract between Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company should be legal and valid.The law should protect the contents of the items in this contract.These have been provided： the special tariff payment paper（Imports and Exports, Hui Cun Customs）, the certificate that Hui Cun Border Trade Company imported 52 knitting machines from South Korea for Fei Da Company, the evidence of the fees for the agency, for the certificate, for the commodity check-up, for the port, for the customs, etc., which were all paid by Jiang Nan Company to Hui Cun Border Trade Company.The appellee, the Farming Production Society and the Reckoning Group, thinks that： the all-automatic glove machine purchase-sale contract involved in this case has been signed through the three parties' negotiations, Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Day Company.In the contract, the promised sites for the delivery and the goods check-up are all inside the border of China.Therefore, the contract should not be regarded as the foreign-trade-related contract.It is just an ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract.So it is a valid contract.Our court thinks that： Fei Da Company as being the first side and the Farming Production Society, Jiang Nan Company as being the second sides, signed “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract》on May 6, 1998, in which the marked goods ”all-automatic glove machine“ are provided by the main body of one side the Farming Production Society, the business of South Korea.Though the sites for the delivery and the goods check-up are all in China, the contract can't be considered as ”the ordinary domestic purchase-sale contract“.The contract should be considered as the imports & exports purchase-sale contract according to the main body and the object of the contract.”Contract Law for the Economy Relevant to the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China“ and the judicial explanations concerned are applicable to the dissension arisen in the contract.According to the 2nd item, Rule No.3 in ”Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in „Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade' “ by the People's Supreme Court： ”The contracts made by the parties of our country, who have no the foreign trade business right ratified and issued by the state branch in charge, are invalid“.According to Rule No.13 in ”Law for the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China“which stipulates”The organization or the individual, who have no license for the foreign trade business, can entrust the agent in charge of the foreign trade to run the business in the domestic country within his business range“, because neither Fei Da Company nor Jiang Nan Company has no right to run the foreign trade business and they cannot directly sign the goods purchase-sale contract with the foreign businessman, so the ”All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-sale Contract“is invalid due to being unqualified for the main body of the contract.（III）Whether is it valid or not that the compromise agreement was signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998？

The appellant, Fei Da Company, thinks that, the all-automatic glove knitting machine, which is disputed in this case, was sold by Jiang Nan Company to Fei Da Company after Jiang Nan Company had bought it from the Farming Production Society.There is direct buying relationship between the appellant Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company.Yet there is no direct buying relationship between Fei Da Company and the Farming Production Society.Therefore, the compromise agreement signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Day Company should be valid.The appellees, the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society, both claims that, the compromise agreement signed by Fei Day Company and Jiang Nan Company should be invalid.The reason is that the main body of one side has not participated in “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”.Our court thinks that： the two respects of the law relationship are involved in “The Compromise Agreement” signed by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company on December 18, 1998.One is the compromise agreement that has been reached by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company because of the arrears for the purchase-sale of the socks knitting machine between the two sides； the other is the compromise agreement reached by Jiang Nan Company when they had dissension while their carrying out “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”, which is involved in this case.For this case is about the settlement of the dissension arisen in the purchase-sale of the all-automatic glove machine between Fei Da Company and Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society.So the promise in the “Compromise Agreement”, that “Fei Da Company should pay Jiang Nan Company ￥180,000Yuan as the payment for the socks knitting machine”, has no relation with this case because of belonging to another relationship of the law.Our court will not judge the effectiveness of this item.The promise in the “Compromise Agreement”, that “Fei Da Company should pay Jiang Nan Company ￥80,000Yuan as the payment for the glove machine, the rolling machine and the fittings”, is the compromise agreement reached by Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company when their dealing with the dissension arisen from “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”.Although another party, the Farming Production Society, has not participated in the agreement, yet Fei Da Company does not have the right for the foreign trade business considering the signing and the implementation of “Full-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”.So Fei Da cannot participate in signing the foreign trade contract； actually it has not had the direct buying relationship with the Farming Production Society.It is Jiang Nan Company that has entrusted Hui Cun Border Trade Campany（who has the right to do the foreign trade business）to import 57 glove machines from South Korea； and has also paid the relevant fees to Hui Cun Border Trade Company.Then, Jiang Nan Company sold the machines to Fei Da Company.Even if Fei Da Company didn't pay all the payment for the goods, the Farming Production Society could but claim rights from Hui Cun Border Trade Company and Jiang Nan Company according to the foreign trade contract, the Farming Production Society cannot claim rights from Fei Da Company.Moreover, Jiang Nan Company can claim rights from Fei Da Company according to its contract with Fei Da Company, in which the actual buying relationship has taken place between Jiang Nan Company and Fei Da Company.Therefore, because “All-automatic Glove Machine Purchase-Sale Contract”, which was signed by Jiang Nan Company, the Farming Production Society and Fei Da Company, is invalid, the Farming Production Society cannot have direct economic contact with Fei Da Company who has no rights for the foreign trade business.So the Jiang Nan Company's dissension from this contract, and then the compromise agreement reached with Fei Da Company have no relation with the Farming Production Society, the agreement should be considered valid.Because Jiang Nan Company has already come to the compromise agreement with Fei Da Company about the arrears for the glove machines, and actually the agreement has been completely implemented, it is untenable that Jiang Nan Company started a lawsuit against it.（IV）Whether has the sentence of the first instance court violated the legal proceedings？

The first instance court made the sentence under the circumstance that Jiang Nan Company and the Farming Production Society had not paid the legal cost.It doesn't belong to the legal violation of the legal proceedings.Thus, it is untenable that the appellant claims the legal proceedings of the first instance should be illegal due to this.Summarizing all the about-mentioned, it is untenable that the Reckoning Group and the Farming Production Society claims that Fei Da Company should pay the goods payment and compensate for the loss, and it is not supported by the law.This request is unreasonable and should be turned down.The facts that the first instance has identified are clear, yet there was certain improper place in the law applied.According to Rule No.2 in “Contract Law for the Economy Related to the Foreign Trade, People's Republic of China”, the 2nd item of Rule No.3 in “Solutions Applicable to Some Issues in „Contract Law Related to the Foreign Trade' ”by the People's Supreme Court, and（II）in the first item of Rule No.153 in “Code of Civil Law, People's Republic of China”, the sentence is as follows：

1.Withdrawing the civil judgment No.63 Yan Zhou Jing Chu Zi（2000）by the People's Intermediate Court of YanBian Korean-Nationality Autonomous Prefecture, Jilin Province, People's Republic of China；

2.Turning down the lawsuit requests by the Reckoning Group of Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd.and the Farming Production Society of KOMARA, South Korean.3.The fees for the first instance and the second instance, RMB￥41,332, shall be borne by the Reckoning Group of Hui Cun Jiang Nan Industry Ltd.and the Farming Production Society of KOMARA, the Republic of Korea.This judgment is the final judgment.Presiding judge： Wang Xiaodong

Acting judge： Wang Donglin

Acting judge： Jiangtao

Jilin Province Higher Peoples Court

（Seal）

June 10, 2003

Clerk： Niu Feng

第二篇：民事判决书

×××市人民法院 民事判决书

[2001]×民初字第25号

原告孙×杰，男，1940年8月21日出生于××省××县系××公司退休干部，住××公司宿舍楼×栋×单元×号。

被告孙×林，男，1979年5月3日出生于××省××县××制药厂工人，住××市××街×楼×号。

原告孙×杰与被告孙×林脱离养父子关系一案，本院于2001年11月×日受理后，由审判长张××和人民陪审员朱××、王××依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。原告孙×杰和被告孙×林均到庭参加诉讼，本案现已审理终结。

原告孙×杰诉称，原、被告系叔侄关系，2001年5月，原告孙×杰经被告孙×林的父母请求，在办理了相关手续后，收被告孙×林为养子，养父子关系确定后，同年9月1日，原告孙×杰将被告孙×林的户口由原籍××省××县××乡××村转至××市，并为被告孙×林找了工作。日常生活中被告孙×林将全部工资交给原告孙×杰，原告孙×杰每月给被告孙×林200元零花钱，并购买衣物，关系一直很好。2005年8月，被告孙×林在其制药厂分得一间房子后便搬出去住，再也不将工资交给原告孙×杰，原告孙×杰与被告孙×林在2007年3月，因被告孙×林婚姻问题发生争吵，被告孙×林于2001年10月23日晚与其生母一道趁原告孙×杰出去散步的机会，将原告孙×杰买来仅两个月价值4000元的松下彩电一台搬走，原告孙×杰发现后大为不满，在要求被告孙×林归还电视机未果的情况下，于2007年11月2日向××市人民法院起诉。诉请与被告孙×林脱离养父子关系，并让被告孙×林归还电视机。

被告孙×林辩称，在与原告确定养父子关系后，每月将1000余元的工资全部交给原告孙×杰，被告孙×林工作以后共向原告孙×杰交了近3万元工资。被告孙×林在其制药厂分得一间房子后虽然搬出了原告孙×杰家，但是在节假日还去看孙×杰，通常还买些食品。原告孙×杰也不再给被告孙×林零花钱。原告孙×杰因病住院，被告孙×林还特意请假到医院照顾原告孙×杰，买了食品和生活用品。被告孙×林工作后，共向原告交了近3万余元的工资，只从原告孙×杰处得到不满1万元的零花钱和物品，要求法院判令原告孙×杰退回被告孙×林所交工资的剩余部分2万元，并资助被告孙×林部分结婚所需费用。

经审理查明，原告孙×杰与被告孙×林在形成养父子关系后曾和睦相处了3年。期间，被告孙×林将工资交给原告孙×杰是尽人子之情，而原告孙×杰负责全家生活开支，还给被告孙×林零花钱，为被告孙×林购买衣物，也尽了为父之责，再断无向被告孙×林返还所交工资之理。后因双方在被告婚姻问题上发生分歧而出现矛盾，被告孙×林于2001年10月23日晚与其生母一道趁原告孙×杰出去散步的机会，将原告孙×杰买来仅两个月价值4000元的松下彩电一台搬走，以致引起诉讼，显属被告孙×林的错误。原告孙×杰住院期间，被告孙×林还请假照顾，也尽了一定义务。

本院认为：原告孙×杰和被告孙×林为养父子关系期间，因双方在被告婚姻问题上发生分歧而出现矛盾，被告采取搬走原告电视机的行动激化了矛盾，显属被告孙×林的错误。但念及原告孙×杰住院期间，被告孙×林请假照顾，尽了一定的义务，原告孙×杰在被告孙×林结婚时给予一定的资助亦在情理之中。据此，依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百一十七条的规定，《中华人民共和国收养法》第二十三条、第二十七条的规定判决如下：

一、原告孙×杰与被告孙×林解除养父子关系；

二、被告孙×林将电视机退还给原告孙×杰；

三、原告孙×杰付给被告孙×林3000元钱作为对被告孙×林结婚成家的资助。

本案案件诉讼费用600元由原告孙×杰、被告孙×林各负担一半。

如不服从本判决，可在判决书送达之日起15日内，向本院递交上诉讼状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于××××高级人民法院。

审判长

张××

人民陪审员

朱××

人民陪审员

王××

2001年12月3日

（院印）

本件与原起诉书

检刑诉（）

号

被告人刘XX，男，19XX年X月X日出生，汉族，初中文化，被补前是XX市XX公司的一名勤杂工，住在该公司宿舍平房3排13号。2005年5月10日因涉嫌故意杀人罪被X市公安局刑事拘留，同年，5月15日，经XX市人民检察院批准逮捕。

本案由XX市公安局侦查终结，XX市公安局X分诉字（2005）12号起诉意见书，以被告人刘XX故意杀人罪，于2005年5月20日向XX市人民检察院移送审查起诉。本院受理后，告知补告人有权委托辩护人，刘XX委托律师王XX为其辩护。审查了全部案件材料。

经依法审查查明：

刘XX在XX公司工作期间马马虎虎，责任心不强，自由散漫，经常违反纪律，不遵守规章制度，多次受到公司经理许XX等领导的批评教育。1998年9月又因偷拿公司职工香烟八包、衬衫一件和250元等财务，受到记过处分。

2005年2月，XX公司发放1999奖金，刘XX因有偷摸行为未拿到奖金，因而对公司领导尤其是对公司经理怀恨在心，蓄谋报复杀人。

2005年5月10日，刘xx上班后四处寻找作案工具，先到公司厨房想偷拿菜刀行凶，见厨房人多，不变下手，就走了；后又窜到木工房，见只有木工朱XX在干活，就上前与他闲聊，并谎称要修理桌椅，想从木工房间借几件工具，用完后一定及时归还，于是经朱XX同意，从木工房拿羊角锤一把、木工凿一把，并藏于宿舍床下。

中午12时许，刘xx混进公司办公楼一层值班室，伺机报复领导。1时许，许XX进入三层经理办公室（333室）午休。1时30分许，刘XX窜到三楼轻轻推开333室房门，见许经理在办公室套间里午睡，而经理秘书侯XX正在办公室外屋沙发上休息，于是刘XX灵机一动，轻轻推醒侯XX，将其叫到门外，谎称有一件重要事情需要单独向许经理报告，请侯XX回避一下，另找地方休息。侯走后，许XX进入333办公室，先将门反锁上，后窜入里间，趁许经理在床上熟睡之机，取出藏匿在身的凶器羊角锤、木凿，用羊角锤朝许经理的头部猛击二三十下，后又对着许的面部、颈部和胸部使劲用羊角锤敲打、木工凿扎刺十余下，致使许XX经理颅骨粉碎性骨折，脑组织外溢，面部、颈部和胸部的创伤流血不止，当即死亡。

刘XX作案后逃离现场，先逃到XX市长途汽车站，企图乘车逃回老家，发现已有公安人员堵截，随即转到XX火车站，企图坐火车逃往上海、杭州等地。当晚8时许，刘XX被追捕的公安人员抓获并立即予以刑事拘留。

认定上述事实的证据如下：

（一）被告人刘XX供述；

（二）证人朱XX侯XX的陈述；

（三）法医鉴定结论；

（四）作案工具（羊角锤一把，木工凿一把。）

（五）被告人刘XX抓捕经过。

本院认为，被告人刘XX有明确的杀人目的与动机，并且希望其行为能致使被害人死亡，其行为触犯了《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百三十四条之规定，犯罪事实清楚，证据确实充分，应当以故意杀人罪追究被告人的刑事责任。根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百四十一条之规定，提起公诉，请依法判处。

此致

XX市人民法院

2005年6月X日本核对无异

第三篇：民事判决书

民事判决书

（××××）×民再字第××号

原审原告（或原审上诉人）……（写明姓名或名称等基本情况）。

原审被告（或原审被上诉人）……（写明姓名或名称等基本情况）。

原审第三人……（写明姓名或名称等基本情况）。

（当事人及其他诉讼参加人的列项和基本情况的写法，与本院决定再审的案件用的民事判决书样式相同。）

……（写明原审当事人的姓名或名称和案由）一案，本院于××××年××月××日作出（××××）×民×字第××号民事判决（或裁定、调解协议），已经发生法律效力。××××年××月××日，原审×告（或原审第三人）×××向本院申请再审，经审查该申请符合法律规定的再审条件。本院提起再审后，依法另行组成合议庭，公开（或不公开）开庭审理了本案。……（写明参加再审的当事人及其诉讼代理人等）到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。（未开庭的写：“本院依法另行组成合议庭审理了本案，现已审理终结。”）

……（概要写明原审生效判决认定的主要事实、理由和判决结果，以及当事人申请再审的主要理由与请求）。

经再审查明，……（写明再审认定的事实和证据）。

本院认为，……（根据再审查明的事实，着重论述原审生效判决是否正确，申请人提出的理由能否成立，阐明应予改判，如何改判或者应当维持原判的理由）。

依照……（写明判决所依据的法律条款项）的规定，判决如下：

……（写明判决结果）。

……（写明诉讼费用的负担。维持原判的，此项不写）。

……（按第一审程序再审的，写：“如不服本判决，可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于××××人民法院。”按第二审程序再审的，写：“本判决为终审判决。”）。

审判长 ×××

审判员 ×××

审判员 ×××

××××年××月××日

（院印）

本件与原本核对无异

书记员 ×××

第四篇：民事判决书

* * * 县 人 民 法 院

民 事 判 决 书

（2005）×民初字第001号

原告肖亮,男,1967年出生，汉族，农民，住****。被继承人肖立的次子。委托代理人，**律师事务所律师。

被告肖鹏，男,1988年出生，汉族，农民，住****。被继承人肖立的孙子。委托代理人，**律师事务所律师。

被告肖哲,男,****年出生，汉族，农民，住****。被继承人肖立的二哥的儿子。

委托代理人，**律师事务所律师。

原告肖亮与被告肖鹏、肖哲继承纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。原告肖亮及其委托代理人、被告肖鹏及其委托代理人、被告肖哲及其委托代理人等到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

原告肖亮诉称，他是被继承人肖立的次子,肖明是长子、肖鹏系肖明的儿子。被继承人肖立2000年离家后下落不明，经申请于2002年被宣告死亡。原告肖亮于2004年6月证实肖立于2004年5月17日病死，并立有两份代书遗嘱和自书遗嘱，肖明于2003年死于车祸。请求法院撤销宣告死亡的判决、判令120平方米的房屋由原告肖亮继承、古画5幅由被告肖鹏继承、存款23万元由原告肖亮和被告肖鹏共同继承、确认被告肖哲没有继承权。

被告肖鹏辩称，被继承人肖立被宣告死亡后，原告肖亮对是否继承遗产没有明确表示，遗产已实际由被告肖明继承，肖明死亡后，由被告肖鹏继承肖明的遗产。自此原告肖亮的权利已受侵犯，至2004年6月已超两年时间的诉讼时效，原告请求继承肖立遗产不受法律保护，应驳回原告的诉讼请求。肖哲得知肖立自书遗嘱由其继承古画二幅和存款5万元后，即提出继承的主张，并未超过两个月的期限，其享的继承权，古画二幅和存款5万元应由其继承。

被告肖哲辩称，肖立所立由他继承古画二幅和存款5万元的遗嘱合法有效，且他在得知有该遗嘱后即主张按该继承，没有超两个月时间，因此他有继承遗产的权利。

本案双方当事人经庭审陈述、举证、质证和辩论，对下列事实无异议，本院予以确认：

肖立生于1935年，早年丧偶，1960年生长子肖明，肖明于1985年娶妻李利，1988年生被告肖鹏；原告肖亮生于1967年，至今未婚；被告肖哲是肖立二哥的儿子。1995年被继承人肖立在一次与儿媳发生口角后离家出走，6年时间未与家里联系，原告肖亮和肖明经多方寻找没有肖立的任何音讯，为此原告肖亮和肖明于2002年向本院申请宣告肖立死亡，本院于同年判决宣告肖立死亡。肖立的遗产有：古画5幅、存款23万元、120平方米房屋1套。继承发生后，肖明和被告肖鹏表示愿意接受继承，原告肖亮未作任何表示，但继续与肖明居住于120平方米的套房内，2003年肖明在一次车祸中死亡。2004年6月，原告肖亮得知被继承人肖立于2004年5月17日病死，生前留有两份遗嘱：2001年按法律要求自书遗嘱1份，遗嘱内容为“古画5幅由长子继承，房屋1套由次子继承”；2004年2月10日按法律要求代书遗嘱1份，该遗嘱内容“古画2幅、存款5万元由侄子肖哲继承”。原告肖亮主张要求接遗嘱继承，并和肖鹏共同继承存款23万元；被告肖哲亦主张要求按遗嘱继承，受到被告肖鹏的拒绝，为此引起纠份，诉至本院。

原告肖亮提供以下证据证实:

1、当地公安局派出所出具的《户籍证明》证实：原告肖亮系肖立的次子，肖明系长子，肖鹏系肖明的儿子，肖哲系肖立二哥的儿子；

2、本院判决书证实：肖立失踪6年时间，2002年经原告肖亮和肖明的申请，本院查实后宣告肖立死亡。

3、当地派出所出具的《肖明死亡证明》证实：肖明于2003年因车祸死亡；

4、某医院证明证实：肖立于2004年5月17日病故。

5、遗嘱2份证实：2001年肖立按法律要求自书遗嘱1份，遗嘱内容为“古画5幅由长子继承，房屋1套由次子继承”；2004年2月10日接法律要求代书遗嘱1份，该遗嘱内容“古画2幅、存款5万元由侄子肖哲继承”。

对双方争议的原告肖亮是否超过诉讼时效时效问题及被宣告死亡时间与实际死亡时间不符如何认定继承时间问题、肖哲是否有继承权问题，本院查明：

1、原告肖亮是否超过诉讼时效问题。

被告肖鹏辩称，肖立被宣告死亡后，原告肖亮没有主张继承权，而肖立的遗产已实际由肖明继承，自此原告的权利已受侵犯时，到2004年6月已超过两年的诉讼时效，因此。

原告认为，肖立被宣告死亡后，他没有表示接受继承，依法律规定应视为接受继承。他仍和肖明、被告肖鹏居住肖立的遗产120平方米房屋里，因此肖立的遗产并非分隔，不存在原告的权利受侵犯的事实，他在2004年知悉肖立立有遗嘱后，方主张自己的继承权，并非超过两年的诉讼时效。

本院认为，肖立被宣告死亡以及肖明死亡后，原告肖亮仍与被告肖鹏共同居住在肖立的遗产120平方米的房屋内，且古画五幅和存款23万元亦共同保管，其遗产尚未进行分割，原告肖亮的权利尚未受到侵害，当原告肖亮知悉肖立实际死亡时间及立有两份遗嘱后，方主张继承的权利，而受到肖鹏拒绝时，其权利始受到侵犯，未超过两年的诉讼时效。因此对被告肖鹏的主张不予支持。

2、当发生宣告死亡时间与实际死亡时间不符时，应如何认定继承时间问题。原告诉称，宣告肖立死亡时间与肖立实际死亡时间不符，而产生当事人利益冲突时，应以实际死亡时间认定继承时间。

被告辩称，肖立被宣告死亡后即为继承时间，不应以肖立实际死亡时间认定。

本院认为，本院业已查明，被继承人肖立被宣告死亡后，其遗产尚未分割，现已确定肖立实际死亡时间，且已查明肖立生前立有两份遗嘱，从而使被继承人的利益发生冲突，依法应确定肖立实际死亡时间为开始继承的时间。原告肖亮的主张符合法律规定，应予以支持。

3、肖哲是否有继承权的问题。

原告诉称，被告肖哲明知肖立立有自书遗嘱，而在二个月内没有表示是否接受继承，丧失了继承权利。

被告肖哲辩称，其获知肖立立有遗嘱由其继承古画二幅及存款5万元时是在2004年6月，知悉后即主张依遗嘱继承的权利，并未超过两个月时间，因此应认定肖立所立的遗嘱有效，应依该遗嘱继承。

本院认为，原告并没有证据证明在2004年6月前被告肖哲知道肖立立有遗嘱的事实，其得知受遗赠时间应认定为2004年6月，其表示接受继承时并未超过两个月时间，因此应依遗嘱享有继承权。对原告肖亮的该主张不予支持。综上所述，本院认为，原告肖亮与肖明系被继承人肖立的儿子，应列为第一顺序继承人，肖明先于肖立死亡，应由被继承人肖立的子女的晚辈直系血亲，即被告肖鹏代位继承。对宣告死亡的判决予以撤销，确认肖立实际死亡时间2004年5月17日为继承开始的时间。被继承人肖立在生前先后依法律规定立有代书遗嘱和自书遗嘱，该两份遗嘱均合法有效，但后一份遗嘱内容与前一份遗嘱内容相抵触，应以最后一份遗嘱为准。遗嘱未列部分的遗产，应由法宝继承人，即原告肖亮和被告肖鹏共同继承。即120平方米的房屋一套由原告肖亮继承、古画三幅由被告肖鹏继承、古画二幅及存款5万元由被告肖哲继承、存款18万元由原告肖亮和被告肖鹏共同继承。依照《中华人民共和国继承法》第二条、第八条、第十一条、第十二条、第十六条、第十七条、条二十条、第二十五条之规定，判决如下：

一、撤销本院于2001年宣告被继承人肖立死亡的判决。

二、遗产120平方米一套、存款9万元由原告肖亮继承。

三、遗产古画三幅、存款9万元由被告肖鹏继承。

四、遗产古画二幅、存款5万元由被告肖哲继承。

案件受理费6000元，其他诉讼费用3000元，则原告肖亮负担4000元，被告

肖鹏负责3000元、被告肖哲负担2000元。

如不服本判决，可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于××××人民法院。

审判长 ×××

审判员 ×××

2005

本件与原本核对无异

审判员 ××× 年6月25日（院印）书记员 ×××

第五篇：民事判决书

XX市XX区人民法院

民事判决书

2010X民初字第034号

原告：张XX，女，汉，1989年9月7日出生，X省X县人，大学在读，XXXX大学09级学生，住XXXX大学X栋xxx

号寝室。

委托代理人：李XX，XX律师事务所律师

被告：王XX，男，汉，1990年6月10日出生，X省X县人，在校大学生，XXXX大学09级学生，现住XXXX大学XX

栋XXX号寝室。

辩护 人： 吴XX，XX律师事务所律师

原告张XX诉被告王XX人身伤害赔偿一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭审理。本案当事人原告张XX，委托代理人李XX，被告王XX，辩护人吴XX，证人韩XX、韦XX、王XX、罗XX到庭参加

诉讼，本案现已审理终结。

原告诉称：2010年9月3日，原告与被告因感情纠纷，在XXXX大

学人工湖凉亭处发生争执，原告以用水果刀自杀威胁被告不要与其分

手，被告夺过水果刀，阻止其自杀，但是在过后的争斗中，原告身体

失去平衡时向被告倒去时，故意制造过失与意外，将原告腹部刺伤，造成原告轻微伤害，住院治疗一个多月，故要求被告赔偿原告住院费

3000.00元，医疗费3600.00元，营养费800.00元，交通费300.00

元，精神损失费6000.00元，共计13700.00元。

被告辩称：原告被水果刀刺伤，纯属意外事件，根据法律的相关规定，不承担原告的上述费用，但是出于道义，愿意给予原告4000.00元的慰问费用。

经审理查明：2010年9月3日，原告与被告因感情纠纷，在XXXX大学人工湖凉亭处发生争执，在争执过程中，被告夺下原告欲用来自杀的水果刀，阻止其自杀，在后面的争执中，原告脚下一滑，身体失去平衡，倒向被告，被告忙去撑扶，被告由于大意没有预见到自己手中的水果刀会将原告刺伤，导致原告的腹部被水果刀刺伤，造成原告轻微伤害，住院一个多月，从而产生住院费3000.00元，医疗费3600.00元，营养费800.00元，交通费300.00元，精神损失费6000.00元，共计13700.00元。后因赔偿费用发生争执，诉至本院。上述事实有原告的陈述，被告的辩称，证人证言，水果刀等证明，事实清楚，证据确实充分，足以认定。

本院认为：被告因过失导致原告身体受到伤害，理应赔偿，原告之请求应予支持，被告以意外事件不应承担责任之主张不予支持。本案中原告受到伤害，被告应负全部责任，由于是原告自己不小心滑到，被告出于好心，过失导致原告受伤的，所以原告之精神损失费用4000.00元的请求不予支持。为此，依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第 一百零六条、第一百一十九条之规定，判决如下：

1、被告应于本判决生效之后赔偿原告住院费住院费住院费3000.00元，医疗费3600.00元，营养费800.00元，交通费300.00

2元，精神损失费6000.00元，共计13700.00元

2、本案诉讼费500.00元由被告承担。

如不服本判决，可在判决书送达之日第二日起15日内，向本院或直接向XX市中级人民法院提起上诉，其中上交上诉状1份，副本2份。

（本卷与原本核对无异议）

2010

审判长：李XX 审判员：韩XX 审判员：鸣XX 年11月19日（院印）书记员：仲XX 3