1. Generally speaking, the mediation procedure is faster, saving time and half of the legal fees, and of course saving both parties a lot of energy, which is an advantage. However, since it is mediation, it must be that both sides have made some concessions, especially the concessions made by the plaintiff are generally relatively large. From this perspective, the plaintiff should suffer, at least in form. Accordingly, the defendant's payment time was advanced.
The two sides don't need to give in to each other, but the judgment takes a long time, especially after the judgment of the first instance. Both parties may refuse to accept the first-instance judgment, file an appeal, and then enter the second-instance procedure, and a few months or even a year or two will pass. The urgent need for funds (such as the injured waiting for compensation in the hospital) is a torment for the plaintiff.
3. After the judgment or conciliation statement comes into effect, its legal effect is the same. If the other party fails to perform, the parties may apply for enforcement.
4. Relatively speaking, there are fewer contradictions in mediation because of the concessions of both parties. And the judgment, the opposition between the two sides is more serious. If the losing party intends to be a deadbeat, then the judgment becomes a legal blank for the plaintiff.
Under normal circumstances, after the mediation is delivered, there is no very special reason, and both parties can't go back on their word. If the judgment is made, the parties may appeal within 15 days after the judgment is pronounced in the first instance. Therefore, if things are complicated, mediation must be considered thoroughly, because once both parties sign, there is basically no chance to go back on our word.
Supplement: A friend said that the mediation made great concessions and reached an agreement, but the other party refused to pay afterwards, which was a default. There are many such situations. The solution is to take the part compromised during mediation as liquidated damages and return it twice. Add this clause to the mediation agreement.
For example, Party A should compensate Party B for100,000 yuan. During mediation, Party A made a concession of 30,000 yuan to reach an agreement, and Party B paid Party A 70,000 yuan. Add a clause after it. If Party B fails to pay on time as agreed, Party B shall pay a penalty of 60,000 yuan. In this case, once Party B fails to perform the agreement and Party A applies for compulsory execution, Party B shall pay130,000 yuan to Party A..
The whisper of the law clearly answers you: 1. First of all, it is clear that mediation and judgment have the same legal effect. You can apply for execution;
2. Whether it is beneficial to the plaintiff depends mainly on the evidence. If the evidence chain is perfect, the facts are clear, and the court decides the plaintiff to win the case with a high probability, then mediation is not good for the plaintiff. Because mediation is successful, both parties have to make concessions, and once the plaintiff makes concessions, he will definitely not get the full amount of the lawsuit;
3. If the plaintiff's evidence is not very good, and the other party has evidence to the contrary, if under the auspices of the court, both parties reach an agreement on the basic facts and are willing to reach mediation, then this mediation agreement is beneficial to both parties;
If the evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot support the facts of the prosecution, then mediation is of course beneficial to the plaintiff. Because even if the fact is that Bajie owes Wukong 6,543,800 yuan, if Wukong can't produce evidence to prove it, the court will still decide Wukong to lose the case. If Bajie reached a mediation with Wukong during the trial and was willing to return 50,000 yuan, on the surface, it would be the plaintiff's loss. In fact, if mediation is not reached, Wukong will not even get the 50 thousand yuan, so this situation is beneficial to the plaintiff.
Therefore, to consider whether mediation or judgment is more beneficial to the plaintiff, the main reference value is evidence. We can't judge from the basic facts, because the judge mainly relies on evidence when trying a case, and the facts mentioned by the plaintiff need evidence to prove. If it can't be proved, the court can't determine the facts.
First, popularize the effectiveness of the mediation: first, if the mediation is closed, neither party can sue again for the same fact;
Second, if the case is settled through mediation in the first instance, neither party can appeal again;
Third, the disputes between the two parties are eliminated through mediation, and the rights and obligations are determined through mediation;
Fourth, the conciliation statement is enforceable. If one party fails to fulfill its obligations in the mediation agreement, the other party may apply to the court executive board for enforcement. The Executive Board equates the conciliation statement with the court judgment and implements it.
As a legal person who specializes in execution, let me answer your question.
In the legal circle, I am different.
I never show off my qualifications, and I don't want to pile up a lot of legal terms to satirize the plaintiff. My principle is that people can understand what they say.
If you can not mediate, you must not mediate, and you must make a judgment.
This is experience. Don't ask why, do what you are told, it won't do you any harm.
By the way, how did that professional lai fool the plaintiff with mediation? I suggest you collect and forward.
Because of civil regulations, the same case cannot be prosecuted twice. If the defendant doesn't pay back the money after mediation, the plaintiff can only apply for resumption of execution and can't sue again.
According to the current situation that the final cost rate of most court economic cases is around 65%. That is to say, in every three cases of economic disputes, two cases can only get a judgment with an iou, but they can't get the money back.
This is completely contrary to the original intention of the people to ask for a lawyer.
The purpose of people's litigation is to make the other party pay back the money, not to kill the other party. Therefore, whether the other people don't care about the people, just want to get back their hard-earned money, settle down and live a good year.
Most people are kind, but often because of their kind nature, ignorance of the law, greed for interests or not wanting to offend each other's upstream and downstream supply chain relations and their own business, they signed a contract and made a payment in a daze.
Most people think that the final ruling is the end of this case.
I began to complain everywhere that judges didn't take action, lawyers didn't take action and they didn't get their money back.
Win the lawsuit but fight for nothing, and even spend more on legal fees, making matters worse! ! !
This idea is also true. But since it happened, it must be solved.
I reiterate a legal concept here. The issuance of the final ruling is not the end of the case, but only the end of the litigation stage.
Explain that your case has reached the final stage, which is also the most critical stage, that is, entering the execution link!
At this time, the plaintiff should put all his energy and painstaking efforts into execution and payment, instead of blindly saying how wronged he is and how shameless the other party is. . .
Due to the limited police force of the Executive Board and the fact that the domestic court asset inventory system has not been networked nationwide,
Most executive judges can only scan their own intranet system to see if the defendant has assets at the crime scene.
But in fact, the normal hidden transfer place of a defendant's assets includes not only the location of the case, but also the domicile and permanent residence.
Especially in the place where the household registration is located, if there is no detailed investigation, it is only an understatement in the place where the case occurred, which is a bit similar to what we learned when we were young. I believe everyone already knows what I'm talking about.
Let's analyze the specific case. I can't give you all kinds of effective advice without seeing your judgment and final ruling.
But in any case, focusing on execution is the most important thing and the only thing you need to pay attention to.
Come along. It is not difficult to find out where Lao Lai people are, and it is not difficult to hide assets and transfer assets. Just leave the professional things to the professional team.
Let's just say so much.
Which is more advantageous? You have to look at the difference between mediation and judgment first.
Advantages of conciliation statement:
65438+ If the other party really has the will to perform, it can achieve the purpose of litigation faster.
2. If the other party fails to perform according to the conciliation statement, the conciliation statement can be directly used as the basis for execution to apply to the court for execution.
Disadvantages:
1. In the process of mediation, both parties have to make some concessions, which may be different from your expectations.
2. If the other party has the ability to perform and maliciously fails to perform, then it is difficult to refuse to execute the judgment and investigate the criminal responsibility of the other party, because the conciliation statement is not the "judgment" and "ruling" required by the crime.
(Although you can apply to the court for ruling compliance in the implementation stage, the success rate in practice is not high. )
The advantage of the judgment is that there are no problems mentioned in defect 2 of the mediation document, and there are two main disadvantages:
First, it is easy to delay the performance period and increase your litigation costs, including time and overpayment of legal fees, car travel expenses, transportation expenses, etc.
Second, the result is unknown. Mediation is a compromise between the two sides. Everything is judged by the evidence. Without evidence, everything is zero.
Of course, apart from the above, there are many differences, so I won't list them one by one.
In fact, there is no standard answer to how to choose when encountering practical problems. Mainly depends on whether your evidence is sufficient and whether the other party has fulfilled its sincerity.
Which is more beneficial to the plaintiff, mediation or judgment?
Mediation, ruling and judgment are legal procedures, and it is difficult to have correct answers to such questions. It depends on the case, but also on personal circumstances to consider the problem. If you can't sum up the whole, such as the plaintiff is in a hurry to use money, or is in a hurry to close the case, then you are subject to the defendant, sacrifice a little interest and settle it quickly through mediation. If the defendant demands too much, or you ask the court to try according to law and protect your rights and interests by law, you can use the form of judgment. However, you should also be mentally prepared, and the road to litigation is very long. Can through mediation or through mediation! Litigation is risky, so be careful when entering the case. (Trust me privately if there is a problem with the case)
This cannot be generalized, but should be combined with the specific circumstances of the case.
1, to see whether the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient and solid.
Under normal circumstances, the plaintiff can go to court and think that he has sufficient evidence and is sure to win the case, otherwise the hasty prosecution will leave the defendant with an opportunity to fight back.
But some plaintiffs are passive when they sue, because if they don't sue, it will be beyond the limitation of action. In the cases prosecuted in this case, the general evidence is flawed, and even the key evidence is not original or lost. It is expected that the defendant will admit some facts in the defense without knowing it, but in this case, there is more luck.
The plaintiff's evidence is insufficient, and the hope of winning the case is not great and uncertain. If the case can be settled through mediation, the plaintiff can certainly accept it.
2. See if the defendant has the ability to perform.
Now every day, people enter the list of untrustworthy people announced by the court and become new and old lai. Many people have won the verdict, but it is followed by the court's ruling to "end this execution".
If the defendant is a state-owned enterprise, or the defendant is not short of money, the plaintiff can take litigation preservation measures, of course, not accepting mediation, not afraid of winning the case and not getting the money; But what if the defendant has no money? In this case, when the plaintiff gives in, wouldn't it be better to let the court do the work and let the defendant take the initiative to return it?
3. See if the plaintiff has time.
The legal eye scanning now represents several cases, all of which were prosecuted on 20 1 1. What's even more frightening is that it took 18 years to get the first-instance judgment in a first-instance case, and three presiding judges have been replaced.
There is an old saying: "overnight, copper in hand is better than gold", which means that if the case drags on, I don't know what will happen. If the plaintiff can get the money earlier, he can do something else, which is better than getting the money a few years later.
Especially in some cases, the defendant can only be sentenced to pay compensation according to the bank's interest for the same period. In this case, the defendant is procrastinating, because for the defendant, he has the right to borrow money from the bank without mortgage.
To sum up, each case is different and the defendant is different, so the plaintiff considers different issues. Of course, the plaintiff in each case must make concessions before reaching mediation.
Mediation and judgment are both ways to close the case in the process of litigation, but which is more beneficial to the plaintiff needs to be analyzed in combination with the actual situation. The purpose of prosecution is to realize one's own ideas. Mediation is also a good choice if most of a person's demands are realized in the process of mediation.
0 1 The advantage of litigation process mediation lies in its rapidity.
Mediation is usually a case-handling procedure after the lawsuit is initiated and before the court debate is over. Mediation should follow the principle of mutual voluntariness, in which the court plays the role of peacemaker.
The biggest advantage of mediation is that both parties can reach an agreement on the dispute quickly, thus terminating the litigation procedure and entering the performance procedure quickly.
However, it should be noted that after a mediation agreement is reached, it is necessary to apply to the court for making a mediation agreement on the mediation content, so that the defendant can apply to the court for compulsory execution of the mediation agreement when he fails to fulfill his obligations on time. Moreover, mediation cannot be appealed, so we must think clearly.
For the plaintiff, the advantage of litigation is that it can prevent the defendant from backing out. As mentioned above, if mediation is not carried out, the other party will not be able to enter the compulsory procedure after backing out. There is no need to worry about the plaintiff trying the case through litigation, and it can also prevent the defendant from delaying the time on the grounds of mediation, and then going back on his word and re-entering the proceedings.
Therefore, mediation must find out the real intention of the other party and don't be deceived. It is better to directly choose litigation to investigate the truth of the case as soon as possible, determine the verdict in the process of judge mediation, and enter the execution procedure as soon as possible.
If the plaintiff is fully confident of winning the case, there is no need to bear the legal costs. Although the mediation case can be closed in half, it is for the benefit of the defendant.
Conclusion Confirming that the other party really has the will and ability to perform, mediation can quickly close the case and pay the plaintiff in time, which is a process that both parties are happy with.
Therefore, mediation or litigation settlement needs to be analyzed according to the specific situation in order to get a favorable result for the plaintiff.
Which is more beneficial to the plaintiff, mediation or judgment, needs to be analyzed according to different situations:
Mediation and judgment are common ways to close a case.
The characteristics of mediation are: (1) reflecting the will of both parties; (2) It can break through the scope of litigation claims; (3) The case can be closed as soon as possible; (4) The plaintiff will generally make some concessions during mediation, and the defendant will bear heavier costs when he fails to perform mediation; (5) can ensure that the relationship between the two sides will not be destroyed; (6) The legal fees will be charged by half.
The characteristics of the judgment are: (1) it is completely based on the facts, evidence and legal judgment of the case, and it is relatively fair and just; (2) the litigation time is long, and it may have to go through the first trial, second trial and execution; (3) The relationship between the original defendant and the defendant will basically be stiff.
Which way is more beneficial to the plaintiff?
Which way to close the case is more favorable, the prosecution mainly depends on two aspects: (1) What is the content of the conciliation statement; (2) Whether the case evidence can guarantee the success of the case and obtain greater benefits.
If the plaintiff does not have to make concessions or makes little concessions, once the defendant fails to perform mediation, he will bear the cost of breach of contract higher than the judgment. Then mediation is definitely more beneficial to the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff's evidence is not particularly sufficient and the plaintiff is not sure to win the case, then mediation is beneficial to both the original defendant and the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff makes a big concession, or although the concession is not big, but does not increase the breach of contract clause, the judgment will be more favorable to the plaintiff. (For example, some defendants will deliberately reach a mediation with the plaintiff to make the plaintiff make concessions, but they will not perform mediation after mediation. At this time, once there is no default clause, it will be very unfavorable to the plaintiff. )
To sum up, it is still inconclusive which is more beneficial to the plaintiff, mediation or judgment.
But remember: mediation must be accompanied by high default costs. Even if the defendant fails to perform mediation after mediation, it will not cause losses to the plaintiff, and even make the plaintiff gain greater benefits than the judgment.
Under normal circumstances, the judgment is favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must make some concessions to the defendant during mediation, and the judgment is made according to law.
Mediation can be faster, and a mediation document will be issued soon after mediation. The judgment is slow, the summary procedure is three months, the general case is half a year, and the complex case is one year. In fact, some cases have been delayed by judges for two or three years.
Only when the judgment is fair can the plaintiff get more benefits. Mediation is not good for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffers. Plaintiffs often agree to mediation when they feel exhausted. In fact, mediation means that the plaintiff gives up part of his rights and gives part of his due benefits to the defendant.