Applicant:? Han nationality, 19? Year? Month? Date of birth, ID number, ID address? .
Respondent:,? Han nationality, 19? Year? Month? Date of birth, ID number, ID address? .
Applicant, right? City Intermediate People's Court 20? Year? Month? Made on the 20th (20? )? The Chinese and French people refused to accept the judgment of 1 and applied for retrial of the case.
Requested items:
1, revoked according to law (20? )? Sino-French Civil Judgment No.1;
2. safeguard Guangdong province according to law? City? District People's Court (20? )? French people's Zi Chu judgment 1;
All legal expenses shall be borne by the defendant.
Facts and reasons:
First, the basic facts identified in the final judgment lack evidence to prove.
There are two main evidences that the final judgment finds that there is a loan relationship between the applicant and the respondent. One is two postal transfer vouchers (customer receipts) provided by the respondents, and the other is communication.
Voice recording. Both sets of evidence have serious flaws, but the Court of Final Appeal not only turned a blind eye, but also made mistakes in the correct determination of the court of first instance, as shown in the following figure:
First, about two postal transfer vouchers (customer receipts).
Two postal transfer vouchers (customer receipts) submitted by the respondent, and the applicant pointed out that 20? Year? Month? On the transfer voucher (customer receipt) of RMB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, the account name transferred to the account is the respondent, not the defendant in this case. 20? Year? Month? Damn it? The RMB cash transfer voucher (customer receipt) is not stamped with the official seal of the post office. Moreover, the remittance time and account number on the above two transfer vouchers (customer receipt) are inconsistent with the statement of the respondent in the complaint of first instance. The above defects were also recognized by the court of first instance during the trial, and served as the basis for the first-instance judgment to reject the respondent's claim.
During the second trial, the court of final appeal only relied on the evidence provided by the respondent in Guangdong province, but did not cross-examine the applicant. A Certificate issued by the county post office made up for the defects in the above transfer voucher (customer receipt), believing that the respondent remitted the corresponding money to the applicant and the applicant received it, so the loan relationship between the two parties was established. Regardless of whether this logic is reasonable or not, as far as the rules of evidence are concerned, the "proof" provided by the respondent in the second trial can never be the basis for the final decision because it is not new evidence and has not been cross-examined. This is clearly stipulated by law. Moreover, the Court of Final Appeal thinks that everything will be fine with the proof. It is really puzzling that the remittance time and remittance account number on the two transfer vouchers (customer receipts) are inconsistent with the statements made by the respondent in the complaint of first instance.
Second, the issue of comprehensive recall.
The so-called court of final appeal? Found it? Chinese says:? The appellant (respondent) shall submit it separately.
The appellee (the applicant) after reading all the memories between him and the appellee (the applicant), confirmed in the trial of first instance that the above recorded information belongs to the dialogue between the appellant (the appellee) and the appellee (the applicant). In all his memories, the appellee (the applicant) confirmed to borrow money from the appellant (the respondent). ? This paragraph? Found it? The first sentence is a fact, and the second sentence is a lie with your eyes open. During the first-instance cross-examination, the applicant objected to the authenticity of the call record and refused to accept it. Moreover, the court of first instance correctly certified that the recorded content did not clearly show that there was a loan relationship between the original and the defendant.
Is the court of final appeal amazing? Found it? In the so-called two-person total memory, the appellee (the applicant) confirmed the fact of borrowing money from the appellant (the respondent) and bravely corrected the judgment of the court of first instance. But what is the basis of the discovery? How did you find out? Don't know anything and don't say anything! But it also reveals this logic: as long as you talk to the respondent, it proves that you borrowed money from the respondent! After reading the final judgment, the applicant suddenly found that it seemed to be back to the era of Dou E!
Second, the main evidence of the facts ascertained in the final judgment has not been cross-examined.
First of all, Guangdong Province provided by the defendant during the second trial? The certificate issued by the county post office has not been cross-examined by the applicant. During the second trial, when the respondent submitted the certificate to the court, the applicant immediately refused to cross-examine, on the grounds that the evidence did not belong to the new evidence during the second trial stipulated in the evidence rules. The reasons and behavior of the applicant's refusal are evidenced by the trial record of the second instance. However, the Court of Final Appeal ignored the facts and laws, and adopted the evidence without hesitation to make up for the defects of other evidence. The level is amazing!
Secondly, on February 23, 2009, the Court of Final Appeal made a statement to? City? The police station investigates and collects relevant records, and the institute issues a certificate to the Court of Final Appeal stating the defendant's son.
? There is no record of illegal crime, administrative detention or criminal detention within the jurisdiction of the institute. The applicant applied to the police station for evidence collection in the first instance, and the court of first instance rejected it on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the case. Whether it is in accordance with the rules of evidence for the court of final appeal to collect evidence from the police station ex officio without notifying the applicant is left aside for the time being. The key point is that the applicant has never seen what the certificate received looks like, let alone cross-examination. The Court of Final Appeal has so blatantly violated the rules of evidence that it has not been cross-examined by both sides? Evidence? Used to finalize the case, its handling style is really amazing!
To sum up, the applicant thinks? City Intermediate People's Court (20? )? The basic facts identified in the judgment of Sino-French MinzhongziNo. 1 lack evidence, and the main evidence for identifying facts has not been cross-examined. According to the provisions of Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), we now apply to your hospital for retrial of this case according to the trial supervision procedure, correct the misjudgment of the court of final appeal, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant.
I am here to convey
Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court
Applicant:
June 6(th), 2009
Attachment: 1 copy of this application.
Template 2 for retrial application:
Applicants for retrial (plaintiff of first instance and appellant of second instance): Wu XX, male, born on X, X, Han nationality, farmer, living in XX village, XX township, XX county.
Authorized Agent: Xu, lawyer of Shandong Tonghe Law Firm, tel: 053 1? 67885 1 10、 15550023633.
Respondent for retrial (defendant in the first instance and appellee in the second instance): XX County People's Government, address: XX Road, XX County.
Legal Representative: Wang XX, county magistrate.
Respondent for retrial (the third person in the first instance and the appellee in the second instance): Wu XX, male, born on1October 8th, 1948, Han nationality, farmer, living in XX village, XX township, XX county.
Wu XX, the retrial applicant, refused to accept the administrative judgments of XX Intermediate People's Court (20 15) and XX County People's Court (20 15), and sued the land administrative registration case of XX County People's Government. According to the provisions of Article 62 and Paragraph 2 of Article 63 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Supreme People's Court has made a decision to implement the People's Republic of China (PRC) Lawyers Law.
Request for retrial:
1. Revoke the administrative judgment of (2015) the final word of XX line made by the Intermediate People's Court of XX City according to law.
2.XX County People's Court (20 15)XX Chu ZiNo. Administrative Judgment. XX was revoked according to law.
3. Revoke the Certificate for the Use of Collective Construction Land (XX Y (20 15)No. XX) issued by XX County People's Government according to law.
4.XX County People's Government was sentenced to bear the costs of one, two and retrial proceedings.
Facts and reasons:
199 1, the retrial applicant declared and registered the land use in XX village, XX township, XX county, and the government issued a land use certificate with the registration parcel number of XX. On the same land, the government of XX county, the retrial respondent, issued the collective construction land use certificate XX (20 15) to Wu XX, the retrial respondent, which infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the retrial applicant, so it requested the people's court to revoke the collective construction land use certificate XX (20 15) issued by the people's government of XX county according to law.
The reasons for asking the court for retrial are as follows:
The facts of the first-instance judgment are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.
1. In the judgment of the court of first instance? The homestead of the plaintiff and the third party is also being cleaned up? And 20 15 the notice issued by the people's government of XX county, the respondent, is aimed at? Anyone who has not registered and issued certificates will be registered and issued with land? 199 1, the retrial applicant declared the registered land in XX village, XX township, XX county, and the government issued the land use certificate with the registered parcel number of XX. Therefore, the land of the retrial applicant is not included in the rectification. The house card of the retrial applicant is legal and valid, and the evidence that the house card of the retrial applicant has been revoked is insufficient, which does not meet the statutory revocation conditions. The residence certificate of the retrial applicant has not been cancelled, and the XX county government of the retrial respondent has not implemented the act of canceling the residence certificate of the retrial applicant and failed to fulfill the legal cancellation procedures.
Article 154 of the Property Law stipulates that if the homestead is lost due to natural disasters and other reasons, the right to use the homestead shall be destroyed. Villagers who have lost their homestead should be redistributed; Article 155 If the registered right to use the homestead is transferred or lost, the registration shall be changed or cancelled in time. Therefore, the land of the retrial applicant does not meet the revocation conditions stipulated by law.
Land that needs to be used for the construction of public facilities and public welfare undertakings in townships (towns) under the circumstances that the land use right can be recovered as stipulated in Article 65 of the Land Management Law of the People's Republic of China; Not using the land in accordance with the approved purposes; Stop using the land due to cancellation, relocation and other reasons. Therefore, the land of the retrial applicant does not meet the recovery conditions stipulated by law.
5. Apply for administrative retrial 5. Apply for administrative retrial
Two, the retrial applicant's homestead certificate is legal and valid, and the retrial respondent XX county government issues the collective land construction land use certificate to the retrial respondent Wu XX, which is a duplicate certification.
3.XX The so-called administrative village was carried out by 1998? Village planning? There is no sufficient legal basis to implement the plan, which does not meet the conditions and procedures of village planning. The government has not implemented this administrative act, and there is no relevant approval document. According to Article 14 of the Regulations on the Planning and Construction of Villages and Market Towns, the planning of village construction must be discussed and agreed by the villagers' meeting, and the people's government at the township level shall report it to the people's government at the county level for approval? .
Four. The collective land use certificate (XX Y (20 15)No. XX) issued by the government of XX County, the retrial respondent, to Wu XX is illegal. According to the "Land Management Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)", the rural villagers' residential land was examined by the township (town) people's government and approved by the county-level people's government, but this case was not examined and approved.
Five, the court of first instance confirmed that the evidence was wrong, and the court of first instance ruled? The X evidence provided by the defendant is Wu XX's old cadastral file, which has no date, no official seal, and the cadastral file is incomplete, so it will not be recognized? The evidence was provided by the defendant in the court of first instance, and whether there is an official seal or not does not affect its authenticity. The plaintiff, the defendant and the third party in the first instance have not questioned the authenticity of the evidence, so it is wrong for the court of first instance not to confirm it. Six, XX City Intermediate People's Court made (20 15)xxxx. XX administrative judgment? Is the homestead used by its son XX also issued according to the planned area? This fact has nothing to do with this case and cannot be used as the basis for the court's decision.
To sum up, the people's court is requested to retry according to law, and the collective land use certificate (XX Yong (20 15)No. XX) issued by the people's government of XX County is revoked, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the retrial applicants.
I am here to convey
XX intermediate people's court
Applicant for retrial: XXX
XX year XX month XX day