Agent ad litem: Ni Zhenyang, lawyer of Zhejiang Innovation Law Firm.
Defendant: Wang, a villager, the plaintiff's biological father.
Defendant: Jin, a villager and the plaintiff's biological mother.
Defendant: JOE, a villager in Tongtang Village and the plaintiff's second uncle.
Defendant: Xu Yi, a villager in Tongtang Village and the plaintiff's brother-in-law.
Cause of action: dispute over inheritance rights
Xu Moumou, a villager in Tongtang Village, Yongkang City, Zhejiang Province, is the younger brother of the third and fourth defendants. He married Zhang, who lost her ex-husband, at 1985 because he was unmarried in his forties. Two years after marriage, no children.
1In mid-September, 1987, the plaintiff was adopted by Xu Moumou and Zhang on the fifth day of her birth. 1989 and 1990, the adoptive mother and adoptive father died one after another, and the plaintiff was only three years old. Because there is no suitable guardian, the plaintiff's biological parents, Wang and Jin, can't bear to see the young plaintiff lose dependence, so they resolutely rent a home in the same village and assume the guardianship responsibility for the plaintiff so far. During this period, the two committees of the plaintiff's village and their neighbors cared for each other, announced the plaintiff's reconciliation and assigned responsibility fields to take care of orphans, and gave strong support to the plaintiff's biological parents as the plaintiff's guardians, so that the plaintiff could enjoy the true love on earth again and the orphans grew up healthily. However, nine years after the adoptive father died, in June of 5438+0999 1 1, the four defendants signed an agreement to dispose of the adoptive father's estate owned by the plaintiff to the "biological brother". Since then, the third defendant and the fourth defendant have taken possession of the plaintiff's adoptive father's estate (mainly three houses) as agreed.
In 2002, when the village distributed the land expropriation money, the plaintiff was deprived of the treatment of the villagers on the grounds that he did not inherit the inheritance of his adoptive father and was under the guardianship of his biological parents. The plaintiff's parents felt that the matter was serious, so they entrusted Zhejiang Chuangxin Law Firm and appointed lawyer Ni Zhenyang to represent the case. In September 2003, they sued for rights protection.
During the court hearing, the plaintiff and the first and second defendants and the third and fourth defendants mainly revolved around the following points:
1. Whether the adoption relationship between plaintiff Xu Moumou and Zhang Moumou is established and valid.
The third and fourth defendants argued that the adoption relationship between the plaintiff and his adoptive father was not established. The plaintiff is an abandoned baby, and illegal adoption is prohibited according to Article 45 of Zhejiang Family Planning Regulations (Revised) (1995). Illegal adoption, according to the provisions of family planning ". The adoption of the plaintiff by Xu Moumou and Zhang Moumou violated the above-mentioned stipulation that abandoned babies should not be adopted, so the adoption relationship was not established. Even if the adoption relationship was established at that time, the plaintiff was only three years old when the adoptive parents died. Since then, the plaintiff was taken back by her biological parents, separated from her adoptive parents, and re-established the parent-child relationship with her biological parents. So the adoption relationship no longer exists.
The plaintiff believes that the adoption relationship between the plaintiff and Xu Moumou and Zhang Moumou is valid.
1. Since1September 1987, the plaintiff was adopted by Xu Moumou and Zhang. This is the true meaning of the plaintiff's biological parents, Xu Moumou and Zhang, and has been unanimously recognized by the Xu family, including the third and fourth defendants, and supported by the village Committee. The plaintiff's household registration book and the agreement between the four defendants and Xu fully proved this point. Article 15 of the Adoption Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "adoption shall be registered with the civil affairs department of the people's government at or above the county level. The adoption relationship shall be established from the date of registration. " However, the adoption law came into effect on April 1992. The plaintiff was adopted in September 1987. According to Article 28 of the Supreme People's Court's "Opinions on Implementing Civil Policies and Laws", the fourth part "Adoption" stipulates that "the adoptive parents and adopted children live together for a long time with the approval of relatives, friends and the masses, or the certificate of relevant organizations clearly states. Although legal procedures have not been completed, it should be regarded as an adoption relationship. " According to the regulations, the adoption relationship between the plaintiff and Xu and Zhang is objective, legal and effective.
2. After the death of the plaintiff's adoptive parents, it is a fact that the plaintiff was raised (supervised) by his biological parents. However, according to the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Adoption Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "the relationship between the rights and obligations of the adopted child and the biological parents and other close relatives shall be eliminated due to the establishment of the adoption relationship." The law does not stipulate that the rights and obligations between adoptive parents and adopted children naturally disappear after the death of adoptive parents, nor does it stipulate that the rights and obligations between minor adopted children and biological parents naturally recover. Therefore, the third defendant and the fourth defendant's claim that the adoption relationship no longer exists cannot be established.
2. Whether the punishment made by the four defendants on Xu Moumou and Zhang Moumou's estate by signing an agreement is legal and effective.
Three or four defendants believe that one or two defendants are the guardians of the plaintiff and have the right to dispose of the property of the ward; The four parties signed the Agreement, stipulating that the inheritance of Xu Moumou and Zhang Moumou belongs to the third and fourth defendants, which is the true expression of the plaintiff's biological parents. Therefore, the Agreement is legal and valid.
The plaintiff thinks that the "agreement" signed by the four defendants to dispose of the plaintiff's adoptive parents' inheritance is invalid. The reason is:
1. The inheritance of the plaintiff's adoptive parents is inherited by the plaintiff and belongs to the plaintiff according to law.
According to Article 26 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, "the state protects the lawful adoption relationship. The rights and obligations between adoptive parents and adopted children shall be governed by the relevant provisions of this Law on the relationship between parents and children. " Article 23 of the Adoption Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) "Since the establishment of the adoption relationship, the rights and obligations between adoptive parents and adopted children shall be governed by the provisions of the Law on the Relationship between Parents and Children". And Article 10 of the Inheritance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "Inheritance shall be inherited in the following order: the first order: spouse, children and parents. The second order: brothers and sisters, grandparents, grandparents. After the inheritance begins, the successor in the first order inherits, and the successor in the second order does not inherit. If there is no successor in the first order, it is inherited by the successor in the second order. Children referred to in this Law include children born in wedlock, children born out of wedlock, adopted children and stepchildren with dependency. The parents mentioned in this Law include biological parents, adoptive parents and step-parents who have a dependency relationship ". It is agreed that the plaintiff, as the first heir of the adoptive parents' estate, has passed away, and the plaintiff is the only heir of the adoptive parents' estate. Therefore, after the death of the plaintiff's adoptive mother and adoptive father, the inheritance of the plaintiff's adoptive parents belongs to the plaintiff and belongs to the plaintiff's property.
2. The contents of the agreement signed by the four defendants to dispose of the plaintiff's property are invalid.
As mentioned above, according to the law, the adoptive mother and adoptive father of the plaintiff died in 1989 and 1990 respectively, and their inheritance was inherited by the plaintiff and owned by the plaintiff. However, nine years later in September, 1999 (the plaintiff's nominal age was only 13), the four defendants signed an agreement, stipulating that "the estate of the plaintiff's adoptive father belongs to his biological brother, and the minor estate is in the charge of the plaintiff's biological parents Wang and Jin, voluntarily agreeing that the plaintiff will not accept (inherit) his adoptive father's estate." This agreement is illegal and invalid. According to article 10 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on General Principles of Civil Law: "The main duties of guardians are: (1) to protect the personal rights of the ward. (2) to manage and protect the property and other lawful rights and interests of the ward. (3) Acting as an agent for the ward to carry out civil activities and civil litigation activities. " Article 18 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates: "A guardian shall perform his guardianship duties, protect the person, property and other legitimate rights and interests of the ward, and shall not dispose of the property of the ward except for the benefit of the ward." Moreover, Article 58 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulate that the following civil acts are invalid: (5) In case of violation of laws or social public interests, Article 52 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the contract is invalid in any of the following circumstances: (5) In case of violation of mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, it shall be managed by the guardian. The four defendants signed an agreement to dispose of all the plaintiff's property to the third and fourth defendants, which directly violated the plaintiff's legal property rights and deprived the plaintiff of the most basic living guarantee. Therefore, the content of the agreement to dispose of the plaintiff's property violates the mandatory and prohibitive provisions of the law, which is illegal and invalid and should be revoked.
3. Whether the estate (three houses) of the plaintiff's adoptive parents should be owned by the third and fourth defendants.
The third and fourth defendants believe that it has been five years since the four defendants signed the agreement in September 1999 and occupied and used the plaintiff's property according to the agreement. According to the law, the plaintiff has exceeded the limitation of action for two years, and the three houses should be owned by him.
The plaintiff believes that the second paragraph of Article 58 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "invalid civil acts are not legally binding from the beginning." Third, there is no legal basis for the fourth defendant to possess and use the plaintiff's property according to the illegal and invalid Agreement. The plaintiff is only 16 years old this year, claiming that his legitimate rights and interests are not limited by the statute of limitations before he is 20 years old. Therefore, it does not belong to the possessor, because the two defendants have actually occupied it for five years.
The court held that
After three court sessions, the court held that the adoption relationship between the plaintiff and Xu and Zhang did not go through the adoption procedures according to the adoption laws and policies, but the rights and obligations relationship between the plaintiff and Xu and his wife had actually formed, and the relationship had been recognized by the masses, and the plaintiff was included in the Xu family tree as the adopted daughter of Xu and his wife, so the de facto adoption relationship between the plaintiff and Xu and his wife was established. The disputed property house in this case was registered by Xu Moumou, and it was Xu Moumou's premarital property, and Zhang died before Xu Moumou, so the property should belong to Xu Moumou's personal heritage. As the sole legal heir of Mr. and Mrs. Xu, the plaintiff has the right to inherit Xu's estate. Defendants Wang and Jin disposed of minors' property without authorization, and the agreement signed with the defendants to dispose of the plaintiff's inheritance rights violated the plaintiff's legal property inheritance rights. Therefore, the agreement signed by the four defendants in September 1999 was invalid, and Xu's estate should be inherited by the plaintiff according to law. The defendant and Xu's estate in his possession shall be returned to the plaintiff for inheritance and enjoyment. The plaintiff requested to confirm that the contents of the Xu Heritage Disposal Agreement signed by the four defendants in September 1999 were invalid, and the lawsuit for returning the house was established according to law, which was supported by our court. Defendants JOE and Xu Yi have no evidence to prove their defense reasons, which cannot be established according to law, and this court will not adopt them.
Judgments and Results According to the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 18, Paragraph 1 (5) of Article 58 and Article 61 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the court made the following judgments:
I. It is confirmed that the contents of the agreement signed by the four defendants on September 1999 to dispose of the plaintiff's inheritance rights are invalid.
2. The defendant and Xu Yi returned three sets of property owned by Xu in the same village to the plaintiff for inheritance within three months after this judgment came into effect.
After the verdict was pronounced, the defendants JOE and Xu Yi did not appeal. However, it did not consciously fulfill the obligations determined in the judgment within the time stipulated in the judgment. At the application of the plaintiff, it was enforced by the court at the end of 2003.
According to the analysis, the plaintiff in this case got the inheritance at the age of three because of the unfortunate death of his adoptive parents, was deprived of it at the age of twelve because of the behavior of his biological parents and uncle, and turned to the law to recover the lost property at the age of sixteen. This is undoubtedly a successful case of safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of minors.
The biggest feature of this case is that it is not others who infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of minors, but the plaintiff's own biological parents and uncles. Therefore, in the process of handling the case, we encountered legal obstacles:
1. Determination of guardian. According to the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 16 of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), "Parents of minors are guardians of minors. If a minor's parents are dead or have no guardianship, one of the following persons with guardianship shall be the guardian: (1) grandparents; (2) brothers and sisters; (three) other close relatives and friends are willing to assume the responsibility of guardianship, with the consent of the unit where the minor's parents work or the residents' committee or villagers' committee of the minor's domicile. If there is any dispute about being a guardian, it shall be designated by the unit where the minor's parents belong or the residents' committee or villagers' committee where the minor's near relatives live. If a lawsuit is brought against the designation, it shall be ruled by the people's court. " According to the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Adoption Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), since the adoption relationship was established, "the relationship of rights and obligations between adopted children and biological parents and other close relatives was destroyed by the establishment of adoption relationship", and the relationship of rights and obligations between plaintiff and biological parents was not naturally restored after the death of plaintiff's adoptive parents. Therefore, the biological parents naturally cannot be the legal guardians of the plaintiff. Fortunately, when the plaintiff died from his adoptive parents at the age of three, his biological parents actually fulfilled the obligation of guardianship and support for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's relatives, villagers' committees and the masses had no objection. It has been 13 years since the prosecution. Therefore, the plaintiff's biological parents are de facto legal guardians, and the court did not raise any objection.
2, the determination of the subject of litigation. Because the agreement was signed, the party who handled the plaintiff's adoptive father's estate was the plaintiff's biological parents, that is, the plaintiff's guardian. Article 18 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "A guardian shall perform his guardianship duties, protect the person, property and other legitimate rights and interests of the ward, and shall not dispose of the ward's property except for the benefit of the ward." According to item (3) of Article 10 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (Trial), the guardian's main duty is to "represent the ward in civil activities and civil litigation activities". When the legitimate rights and interests of the ward are infringed upon and need to be maintained, the guardian shall conduct civil activities and civil litigation activities on behalf of the ward according to law. But in this case, the infringer is the plaintiff's biological parents (guardians) and is undoubtedly the defendant in this case. If the biological parents (guardians) represent the lawsuit, the biological parents will of course appear in court as plaintiffs. This has become a case of suing yourself, which obviously violates the jurisprudence. Since the guardian can't represent civil activities and civil litigation activities, who should perform the guardianship responsibility, including asking a lawyer to represent him? The law does not stipulate this. -This is a blank in the current law. If you want to wait until the infringed person reaches the age of 18 and has full capacity for civil conduct before claiming rights, it will lead to the situation that you know that you are infringed and can't defend your rights, which is obviously not conducive to fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of minors.
Suggestion: When the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) is revised next time, when the guardian infringes on the rights and interests of the ward and cannot perform the guardianship duties, it should be clearly stipulated who will perform the guardianship duties on his behalf, so as to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors.
Case study of campus law (1)
Case: The winter vacation has started again. When the students in Class 3, Grade 1 signed up, Mr. Guo emphasized the hairstyle again. Telling the truth, "dressing and wearing a hat, each has its own merits", and what kind of hairstyle to keep is originally a trivial matter, but now many schools regard it as a major event. The reason is that it is not the education commission or the school that orders middle school students to grow their hair styles, but singers, movie stars and stars. Students are positioned by image, and as a result, students who don't choose the best school often give people "street hooligans" and "harmony"
Three days later, Su Mou, a boy in the class, still maintained a long middle score. One day after school at noon, Mr. Guo called him to the office. The teacher asked, "Do you know the hairstyle requirements that the teacher requires the whole class? This is also the unified requirement of the whole school, you know? " "I know." The student answered in a low voice. "You know what? Do you know why you didn't move? " The teacher's voice is a little angry. "I don't care at home, and I can't help it." The students are well founded. In this way, the smell of gunpowder in the dialogue between teachers and students is getting stronger and stronger. Finally, the teacher opened the drawer and took out a pair of scissors. He said, "I'll cut it for you." While defending, Su said, "Okay, okay, I'll handle it myself, okay?" Say that finish ran out of the office.
When Sue came home, his father was drinking. When I saw my son come in with his head held high, I shouted, thinking that his son was fighting outside again and causing trouble. When I heard the whole story, I rushed into school with a little alcohol. Seeing that Mr. Guo was rational at first, he later swore, and all the teachers present were dumbfounded.
Just when everyone came forward to persuade, the parents refused. Joe, a female teacher with silver hair and about to retire, stepped forward and said, "Let you be lawless" and gave Fu Su a mouth. I don't know whether it is the effect of this slap or whether the wine in Fu Su should wake up. Anyway, I couldn't hear the scolding afterwards, but I heard Fu Su repeatedly emphasize: "It's not the Cultural Revolution that beheaded the children in the first month. Why should I shave their heads ..." At this time, there were already many people outside. In order to solve the contradiction, the grade director took them to the principal's office.
The headmaster received them warmly. Coincidentally, the principal has just finished the education law class, and after listening to everyone's statements, he thinks this is a typical case, which is also a good opportunity to educate everyone on the legal system. The headmaster thinks that the best way to solve contradictions is to study law and let them realize their mistakes. First, the principal told the parents that you were upset when you saw the child shave his head. Everyone can understand, and you can also reflect your opinions, but you are not allowed to come to school to make noise and insult teachers. This is illegal. The headmaster opened the Teacher Law and turned to Article 35: "Those who insult or beat teachers shall be given administrative sanctions or administrative penalties according to different situations; Causing damage, shall be ordered to compensate for the losses; If the circumstances are serious enough to constitute a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law. " After the headmaster finished speaking, he asked his parents for advice: "Do you think we should solve this problem at school or somewhere else?" Parents quickly made a mistake and were willing to apologize. They stood up and bowed deeply to Miss Guo.
Then the headmaster turned to Mr. Guo and said, "It's good that you are strict with students and are serious and responsible for your work, but you don't properly respect students' personality." "The headmaster opened the third chapter of the Law on the Protection of Minors and found article 15:" Teachers and staff in schools and kindergartens should respect the personal dignity of minors, and may not impose corporal punishment, disguised corporal punishment or other acts that insult their personal dignity on underage students and children. "At this point, Mr. Guo should apologize to the students. At this point, Mr. Guo felt guilty for his recklessness. Sincerely apologize to students and parents through the words of the principal. To Miss Qiao, the headmaster criticized her with a smile and said, "It is not easy for you to stand up and uphold justice, but you should not use illegal behavior to stop illegal behavior." If this continues, wouldn't it be a mess? "Teacher Joe immediately apologized to his parents for his generosity, and said that the principal criticized him for being right. He really shouldn't be calm when something happens.
Case analysis: the principal is very clear about the behavior in this case according to the law. What we need to see through this case is that similar incidents are common in school teaching activities. It is not only the teacher's behavior, but also the fact that parents come to school to "find fault". When this happens, it should be handled according to the existing laws, although not all acts have corresponding specific legal provisions. However, we can also refer to some similar provisions or the spirit of the law to solve it. It is a requirement for every citizen to know the law and have legal consciousness. Everyone can think calmly when encountering something and pay attention to regulating their behavior by law, which is very important for ensuring the normal teaching procedure of the school and is also an important prerequisite for safeguarding their rights.
Case Analysis of Campus Law (2)
The teacher injured the students by mistake.
Case: Plaintiff Zhang Xinxin, male, 10 years old, a primary school student; The defendant is Wang Shizhi, the plaintiff's teacher, male, aged 28; The third party is the plaintiff's school and a town education office.
The original report said: On the morning of June 1992, in the first class, because the deskmate didn't pay attention to the class, the teacher Wang Shi requisitioned a bamboo pointer to slap the student Chen Mou's desktop and gave Chen Mou a lesson, only to interrupt the pointer. Debris flew into my left eyelid and cornea, and it didn't work after treatment. 1July, 992 13 was diagnosed as ocular trauma and pupillary atresia by the county people's hospital. 1992. On August 20th, I went to an eye hospital and was diagnosed as old ocular blunt injury (corneal blood spot). The defendant is now required to compensate me for my medicine expenses, lost time for relatives 1800 yuan, and my disability living allowance of 27,500 yuan and * * * 30,450 yuan.
The defendant argued: I was on duty (in class) and hit the desk with a pointer to warn the students who violated discipline. Unexpectedly, the pointer broke and flew out, stabbing the plaintiff's left eyelid. Later, the plaintiff pulled it out, and I didn't notice it at that time. Later, I learned that the plaintiff had repeatedly suggested to the school leaders and class teachers to go to the hospital for examination and treatment, but the plaintiff's family said: it's just a serious heat poison, so don't bother. Later, because I didn't find a specialist hospital for treatment in time, my eyes went blind. Therefore, I should not take full responsibility.
Statement of the third party: The injuries and treatment process described by the original and the defendant are all facts. Because the defendant's behavior was negligent and did not intentionally cause the plaintiff's blindness, we hope to solve it reasonably.
The people's court found through trial that the defendant Wang Shizhi checked the students' recitation of multiplication formula in the first math class on June 9, 1992. Because the students couldn't recite it and looked around, the defendant beat Chen's desk with a pointer to show warning and concentration. However, when slapping, unexpectedly, a bamboo piece smaller than a toothpick flew into Chen's deskmate, that is, the eyelid under the eyebrow of the plaintiff's left eye (lying on the table because of the plaintiff's discomfort), and the plaintiff immediately pulled it out and cried in a low voice when he felt pain and bleeding. After the defendant found out, he stopped attending class to ask if he was sick and had his eyes examined, and called the plaintiff to the health station to see a doctor. Because the plaintiff didn't want to go at that time, the class teacher didn't send her home by bike until noon, and the plaintiff continued to go to school the next day. In the first day or two, my parents thought that the problem was not serious and that it was caused by heat poison, so they didn't pay attention to it. After the plaintiff felt that his eyes were too sore to open, his relatives took the plaintiff to health stations, health centers, people's hospitals and other places for treatment. During this period, * * * spent 22 1.06 yuan on medical expenses. Later, because his condition did not improve, it worsened, and he was admitted to the county people's hospital in July 1992. After diagnosis: eye injury, pupillary atresia, medical expenses ***339 yuan. The above medical expenses are RMB 560.06 with documents * * *, and RMB 668 without documents. 1On August 20th, 992, with the consent of both parties, the defendant and the plaintiff went to the eye clinic of Zhongshan Medical College in Guangzhou for another examination, and were diagnosed as old blunt eyeball (corneal blood spot). In the whole medical process, * * * cost 1248 yuan, of which the defendant paid 600 yuan (including 200 yuan who went to the factory for inspection). 1September 6, 992, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that the defendant compensate for medical expenses, lost time and disability living allowance of * * * 30,450 yuan.
The court held that the fact that the defendant injured the plaintiff was clear and the evidence was sufficient. The plaintiff asked the defendant to pay for medicine, lost time and living expenses, and our court should support it. In the whole accident, although the defendant had no subjective intention, it objectively caused the plaintiff's left eye to be completely blind and become a lifelong disability, and the defendant should bear the main responsibility. Because the damage occurred in the teaching process, the third person should also bear some responsibility. After mediation, the two sides held their own words. According to the provisions of Article 1 19 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 47 of the Law on the Protection of Minors in People's Republic of China (PRC), the defendant Wang Shizhi was awarded a one-time compensation of 3,600 yuan (including paid 600 yuan) for medical expenses, lost time and living expenses after disability, and the third party was awarded a compensation of 2,000 yuan. The acceptance fee of this case, 50 yuan, shall be borne by the defendant.
Case analysis: In the process of teaching and managing students, teachers sometimes do harm to students' health because of their intention or negligence. After the injury happens, it often leads to compensation litigation. The plaintiff is affirmative, he is a student whose legitimate rights and interests have been damaged, but the identification of the defendant is more complicated. To sum up, there are several situations: (1) The defendant is a school; (2) The defendant is a teacher; (3) Schools and teachers are co-defendants; (4) The school is the defendant and the teacher is the third person; (5) The teacher is the defendant and the school is the third person. This case reflects the fifth situation. This book agrees with the first approach and thinks that it is more appropriate to list the school as the defendant and bear the liability for compensation, because the damage caused by teachers to students is caused by teachers' duty behavior. However, this does not mean that teachers are not responsible for anything. In addition to administrative responsibility, it should also bear civil liability for compensation. After the school has fulfilled its obligation of compensation, it can recover part or part of the expenses compensated by the school from the teachers.