(2006) Guan Min Yi Chu ZiNo.. ××
Plaintiff: ×××, female, born on ×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
Authorized Agent: Wu Liming, lawyer of Yunnan Jianguang Law Firm, general agent ad litem.
Defendant: ××××××, male, born on, year, month, year, year, month, year.
Authorized Agent: Xing Lei, lawyer of Yunnan Wancheng Law Firm, general agent ad litem.
The case of plaintiff ×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
The plaintiff XXX claimed that the original and the defendant registered their marriage on August 28th, 2000. Both parties had unhappy marriages before marriage and both had their own children. Both parties have no children after marriage. In the past two years, the defendant indulged in gambling every day, went whoring outside, was rude to his family, abused the plaintiff at will, and took care of nothing at home. The two sides have been apart for a long time. The weak marriage between the two sides is no longer possible, and the feelings between the two sides have completely broken down. In addition, the house located in XXX Road, Wuhua District, Kunming is a fund-raising house for the relocation and resettlement of the plaintiff's old house before marriage, and the fund-raising money has been paid in full by the plaintiff before marriage. The house belongs to the plaintiff's pre-marital property and should not be divided into * * *. The plaintiff is now suing the court, demanding: 1, and ordering both the plaintiff and the defendant to divorce; 2. Divide marital property according to law; 3. Share the legal costs of this case according to law.
The defendant argued that the relationship between the original and the defendant was not broken, and the two sides could make up, but the defendant did not agree to divorce. In the plaintiff's complaint, only the fact that both parties are married and have no children is true, and the rest are not. Neither the plaintiff's reasons for emotional breakdown nor the defendant's statement are true. The house in XX Xincun is the joint property of husband and wife. Although the purchase price was paid before marriage, the ownership of the house should be subject to the registration of property rights, and the evidence submitted by the defendant can confirm the defendant's claim. If the plaintiff and the defendant are not husband and wife, the plaintiff cannot be assigned to the house. Both parties have formed a de facto marriage on 1999.
Based on the arguments of the defendant and the defendant, the parties in this case have disputes on the following issues: 1, whether the relationship between the defendant and the defendant is broken, and whether the plaintiff's divorce request can be supported; 2. During the marriage, which husband and wife have the same property, such as divorce, and how to divide the property.
During the trial, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to our court in response to his claim: 1, the triple receipt of the case of receiving the police, the examination decision of the case of receiving the police, and the critically ill notice to confirm the fact that the defendant was whoring outside; 2. An agreement on building houses by employees' fund-raising, two invoices, a statement on February 28th, 2004, a statement on August 30th, 2006, and an evaluation form of housing rent standard in Kunming, which prove the rent of the first house in Kunming on February 28th, 2006. XXX Road, Wuhua District, Kunming is the plaintiff's personal property before marriage; 3. 1. A copy of the motor vehicle driving license and a copy of the Transaction Price Audit Sheet for Used Motor Vehicles in Yunnan Province, which prove that * * * has a van with the same property rights; Two sales orders prove the value of home theater and DVD.
After cross-examination, the defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the triple receipt of the police case and the decision on the examination of the police case in the evidence 1 submitted by the plaintiff, but it can't confirm the plaintiff's claim, which only shows that a criminal case has occurred and can't prove that the defendant is whoring. Critical notice that there is no seal, do not recognize its authenticity. There is no objection to the authenticity of the employee fund-raising housing agreement, invoice and statement of August 30, 2006 in Evidence 2, but it is considered that the plaintiff has no right to participate in fund-raising housing construction and cannot confirm the ownership of the house, and the statement of June 28, 2004 has nothing to do with this case; There is no objection to the authenticity of evidence 3, but it is considered that the price on the vehicle transaction price audit list is only the evaluation price, and the defendant actually spent 8,000 yuan to buy the vehicle; There is no objection to Evidence 4, and the defendant contributed 7,000 yuan.
During the trial, the defendant submitted the Extract from the Archives of Xishan District Real Estate Administration Bureau and the House Qualification Examination Form to our court, which proved that the house where the original defendant and the defendant now live is the joint property of husband and wife.
After cross-examination, the plaintiff had no objection to the authenticity of the above-mentioned evidence cited by the defendant, but thought that it could not confirm the defendant's claim, but only confirmed the marital status of both parties.
According to the court statements of the original defendant and the defendant and the above-mentioned evidence presented by both parties, our court concluded that the alarm receipt and the alarm case review decision in the evidence 1 presented by the plaintiff were valid evidence after cross-examination by the defendant, and there was no objection to their authenticity, which was confirmed by our court. However, the contents contained in the evidence can only prove that the defendant reported to the public security organ that he was robbed on February 4, 2002, and the public security organ took it as a criminal case for investigation after receiving the police, which is not enough to prove that the defendant was whoring. Evidence 2 is valid, because the defendant did not raise any objection to its authenticity, which can prove that the plaintiff signed the Agreement on Building Houses by Raising Funds for Employees with its unit, Yunnan XX Economic and Trade Corporation, on April 25th, 2000, and paid off the purchase price before marriage and moved into a new house, and the plaintiff was able to obtain a new house due to the demolition of the old house. Evidence 3: The defendant has no objection to its authenticity. As valid evidence, our court accepted it and confirmed that the appraised price of Yunxx van in May 2004 was 15000 yuan. Although the defendant argued that the vehicle was bought with 8,000 yuan, our court refused to accept it because there was no evidence to the contrary. Evidence 4 is valid evidence, which is confirmed by our court to confirm the price of home theater and DVD in the property jointly owned by the original and the defendant. The above-mentioned evidence cited by the defendant, after cross-examination by the plaintiff, has no objection to its authenticity and is valid evidence, which is confirmed by our court. However, it can only confirm the time of property registration, the owner and the construction area of the house in XX Road, Wuhua District, Kunming, and the contents extracted from it are not enough to prove that the house is owned by the original and the defendant.
According to the trial and cross-examination, our court confirmed that the legal facts of this case are as follows: the original and the defendant were in a free love relationship at the beginning of 1999, and they voluntarily registered for marriage on August 28th, 2000. Both of them remarried and did not have children together after marriage. The relationship between the defendant and the defendant was good at the beginning of their marriage, but later there was a contradiction because of property issues. The plaintiff now appeals to our court on the grounds that the defendant often gambles, whores, beats and scolds the plaintiff at will, fails to fulfill his family obligations, and the two parties live apart for a long time, claiming the above demands. During the trial, the defendant claimed that the relationship between the original defendant and the defendant was not completely broken, and both parties could continue their lives. The defendant will not quarrel with the plaintiff in the future. However, it said that the plaintiff had long planned to possess other people's property through marriage and the defendant was the victim. Since the two sides moved into the house in XX New Village, the relationship has been bad. It was also found that the original and the defendant owned the following property during the marriage: a Yunxx van (the appraised price of this car in May 2004 was 15000 yuan), a CAV home theater (including a pair of speakers and a power amplifier), a Kim Jong DVD, a Electrolux refrigerator and a wooden sofa. Check again, because the plaintiff's old house ××× new village house was demolished, the plaintiff unit arranged a new house for the plaintiff. On April 25, 2000, the two parties signed the Agreement on Building Houses by Raising Funds for Employees, and the plaintiff bought a house on XX Road in Kunming with a building area of 88.57 square meters, and the house raised funds of 62,383 yuan. 1On March 29th, 1999, the plaintiff paid 59,643 yuan to the unit, and paid off 2,740 yuan on the agreed day. After the house was completed, the plaintiff moved in on April 27, 2000. The property ownership certificate was handled on June 26, 2005, and the owner was the plaintiff ××××, but it was unoccupied, with a construction area of 88.57 square meters. In the process of handling the property ownership certificate, the plaintiff's appraisal materials submitted to the relevant real estate management departments (August 19, 2004, the qualification examination form for self-built housing, August 19, 2004, the filing form for self-built affordable housing or self-built housing purchased by Kunming employees' families, and the summary of employees' housing situation) all recorded that the defendant was the plaintiff's spouse.
Our court believes that in this case, both the original and the defendant had an unhappy marriage before marriage, and they should cherish this hard-won relationship after voluntary marriage, but they lack the necessary trust in their married life, so there is a contradiction on property issues. Now the plaintiff insists on divorce. Although the defendant expressed disapproval of the divorce, the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant in the trial can reflect that there is no feeling between the original defendant and there is no possibility of reconciliation between the two sides. The relationship between husband and wife has completely broken down, and our court supports the plaintiff's request for divorce. The defendant's objection to divorce was not accepted. Regarding whether the house on XX Road in Kunming disputed by the plaintiff and the defendant belongs to the joint property of husband and wife, our court believes that the house was demolished from the plaintiff's old house and placed by the unit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff signed a house purchase agreement with the unit before marrying the defendant, paid off the house price and moved into the house. At this point, the plaintiff fulfilled his obligations and had the necessary elements to obtain property. Just because the house is jointly owned by the original and the defendant after marriage, it cannot be regarded as the joint property of husband and wife, which is not conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and also goes against the principle of fairness and the principle of consistency of rights and obligations in the General Principles of Civil Law of China. Therefore, we believe that the above-mentioned houses should be the personal property of the plaintiff before marriage, not the property of husband and wife. For the defendant's argument that the house belongs to the original house and the defendant's house, considering the defendant's factors, the plaintiff has no right to divide the house, and the house should belong to the joint property of both husband and wife, which is contrary to the facts verified in this case and will not be adopted by our court. Regarding the registration of the defendant as the plaintiff's spouse in the process of applying for a permit, since the original defendant and the defendant became spouses after they got married on August 28, 2000, the plaintiff registered the defendant as the plaintiff's spouse in 2004, which was a true record of the plaintiff's family members at that time, and it could not be determined that the house was allocated to both the original defendant and the defendant, so this defense opinion of the defendant was not adopted by our hospital. As for the defendant's claim that the original and the defendant have formed a de facto marriage relationship at 1999, this court will not accept it because the plaintiff does not recognize it and the defendant has no evidence to prove it. For the property of both the original and the defendant identified by our hospital, our hospital will divide it according to law in line with the principle of being conducive to production and life and convenient to use. Accordingly, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned, our court made the following judgment in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 39 and 18 of Article 32 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China:
First, the plaintiff XXX is granted a divorce from the defendant XXX.
Second, the common property of husband and wife: a CAV home theater (including a pair of speakers and a power amplifier) and a refrigerator in Electrolux belong to the plaintiff ×××; The rest of the property, a van, a wooden sofa and a DVD of Kim Jong-chui, belongs to the defendant.
Source search network: network link
3. Reject other claims of the original and the defendant.
The legal fee 100 yuan and the property division fee 180 yuan, totaling RMB 280 yuan, shall be borne by the original defendant and the defendant respectively.
If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties to appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming City, Yunnan Province.
If both parties accept the judgment, the judgment will take legal effect. If the obligor fails to perform this judgment, the right party may apply to our court for compulsory execution within one year after the expiration of the performance period stipulated in this judgment.
Acting Judge Su Yan
October 20, 2006
The bookkeeper is strict