(2000) Zhongliao Xingzi No. 57
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Yao Huaping, male, born in August 1962, Han nationality, primary school education, farmer, lives in Yaoxing Village, Qingshui Town, Guan County.
Lawyer: Ge Runmin, a legal worker at Dongchangfu District Law Firm.
Lawyer: Xing Tianhua, same profession.
The appellee (the first defendant) is the People’s Government of Qingshui Town, Guan County.
Legal representative: Yue Qixiang, mayor of the town.
Lawyer: Ru Yan owes money to the director of Qingshui Judiciary in Guan County.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the agricultural administrative law enforcement and appealed to the Guan County People’s Court (161). This court has formed a collegial panel and heard the case.
The Guan County People’s Court heard the case and found out: In early May 1998 of the lunar calendar, the defendant Qingshui Town People’s Government of Guan County refused to pay the plaintiff Pingyao Agricultural Summer Levy, and the forcibly seized tractor belonged to the plaintiff Du Gong of Yao Village Snow all. Regardless of whether there is any legal basis, the courts will not support its administrative actions. The plaintiff Pingyao sued for 10,000 yuan in cash from the toolbox, but no evidence was found and the court did not accept it. 1999. On February 22, 1999, the Guan County People’s Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 54, Item (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China and Items (3 and 4) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, , Judgment: 1. The defendant Guan County Qingshui Town Government’s compulsory administrative act of detaining the Huayao horizontal tractor limited the effectiveness of the defendant Guan County Qingshui Town Government within five days. The case acceptance fee of 400 yuan shall be borne by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, Guan County.
The appellant Yao Huaping found the facts clearly stated in the administrative judgment of the Guan County People’s Court (Zi Chu No. 161) in the first-instance judgment. The decision based on the appeal was wrong, and he requested the court to change the judgment in accordance with the law.
Appeal to the People’s Government of Qingshui Town, Guan County for a reply. If the first-instance court found the facts clearly, the procedures were legal, and the application of the law was correct, the judgment was correct in accordance with the law, and the second-instance court upheld it.
The People's Government of Qingshui Town, Guan County held the first instance hearing. This court conducted cross-examination and reviewed the evidence submitted by the appellee. The main evidence, the respondent Qingshui Town Government: 1. Li Dui’s investigation transcript; 2. Li Chunling’s testimony; 3. The transcript of the investigation of Du Jifeng; according to the transcript submitted by Li Chunze, the above evidence proves that the appellant Yao Ping has no cash in his tractor tools . The transcripts of the investigation of Li Shuling and Chen Renxiang; the transcript of the investigation of Fan Yuling proved that the tractor of the appellant Du Yao and Gong Xue was detained. Evidence objection
The appellant is an agent of the Qingshui Town People's Government of Yaoguan County and submitted the following evidence: 1. Du's transcript; 2. Xu Fengwen's transcript; 3. Du Yueren's testimony. The above evidence shows that the employee was forcibly detained by the Qingshui Town People's Government of Guan County in Yao Ming on May 1 while driving a tractor driven by the appellant Du.
Court: The respondent, the Qingshui Town People’s Government of Guan County, refused to pay the appellant Yao Pingqiang’s Lunar Summer Detention Fee on May 1, 1998. The fact that the appellant Yao Tuochao returned home can be determined. It is an administrative action that has no legal basis, that is, it is illegal and will not be supported by the court. The respondent should return the impounded tractor. The appellant Yao Ping sued the tractor tool box for a dispute over 10,000 yuan in cash. If there is insufficient evidence to provide the reason for the request, the Tuishui Town Government cannot be established, and this court will not support it. The original judgment was not improper and should be upheld. In accordance with the provisions of Section 61 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
The appeal is dismissed and the original judgment is upheld.
The first and second instance case acceptance fees are 100 yuan, each of which is 100 yuan, and belongs to the appellee Guan County People's Government and the appellant Yao Ping respectively.
Judgment is final.
/a gt;
Presiding judge: Zhang is on record.
Judgment: Xue Zhen No. 1
Judge: "Ling
June 3, 2000
Acting Clerk: Duke University Law.