(1) Repeated litigation
Case 1, Lin XX v. Zheng XX. Lin XX, the plaintiff, and Zheng XX, the defendant, were involved in a dispute over the equity of Yongding Company in Yongding County, Fujian Province. On April 1994, 1, a civil lawsuit was filed in Taipei District Court, demanding that Zheng XX be ordered to compensate for the investment. 1994165438+1October 30th, the Taipei District Court ruled that Zheng XX intentionally violated Lin XX's property rights and should compensate Lin XX for his investment. Zheng XX refused to accept the appeal. In June 1995, the "High Court" of Taiwan Province Province ruled that Lin XX was aware of the damage when he filed a criminal complaint against Zheng XX in June 199 1, but it was not until June 1994 that he filed a civil lawsuit, and his claim was more than two years old. The appellant Zheng XX refused to pay the compensation on the grounds that the prescription was invalid. Therefore, the first-instance judgment of Taipei District Court was revoked and Lin XX's claim was rejected. Lin XX refused to accept the appeal. 199665438+On February 7th, the Supreme Court of Taiwan Province Province sent the judgment back to the High Court of Taiwan Province Province for retrial on the grounds that the facts were unclear. 1September 199715th, the "High Court" of Taiwan Province Province made a retrial judgment, holding that Lin XX had filed a civil lawsuit for more than two years, and dismissed Lin XX's claim on this ground. Lin XX refused to accept the appeal. While Lin XX filed a lawsuit in Taiwan Province Province, he also filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Longyan City, Fujian Province. Longyan Intermediate People's Court held through trial that although the plaintiff Lin XX filed a civil lawsuit with the Taipei District Court of Taiwan Province Province on April 1994, and the "High Court" made a judgment of second instance, Lin XX refused to accept the judgment of second instance, but the case has not been finalized and is in an uncertain state, and Yongding Heju Company, the object of litigation in this case, is located in Yongding County, Longyan City, Fujian Province, and the court where the object of litigation in Longyan Middle School is located has jurisdiction over this case; Allow plaintiff Lin XX to file a lawsuit against the same litigation object; Defendant Zheng XX filed a second complaint in Lin XX's case, which violated the agreement of "one thing shall not be dealt with again", and the defense reason of not accepting or dismissing the prosecution should not be established.
Case 2: Taiwan Province Gao Hui Express Co., Ltd. v. Taiwan Province Uchida Electronics Co., Ltd. and Uchida Electric Appliance Manufacturing (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. .. 1993 10. Taiwan Province Gao Hui Express Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gao Hui Company") was entrusted by Taiwan Province Uchida Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Uchida Company") to deliver the goods, and both parties agreed to pay for it. After the goods arrived in Xiamen, Gao Hui Company sued the court on the grounds that Uchida Co., Ltd. failed to pay the freight after repeated reminders. On February 1994, Kaohsiung District Court of Taiwan Province Province issued a payment order to Uchida Co., Ltd., ordering it to pay all the freight and interest to Gao Hui Company. Because Uchida Co., Ltd. failed to pay all the money according to the payment order, and the company applied to the Chamber of Commerce in Kaohsiung County, Taiwan Province Province for pre-bankruptcy settlement 1994 on July 4, and because Uchida Co., Ltd. and Uchida Electric Manufacturing (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Uchida Xiamen Company") were established by Japanese Uchida Co., Ltd., Gao Hui Company cheated with Uchida Xiamen Company and Uchida Co., Ltd. After the judgment of the first instance, Uchida Xiamen Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province. The Higher People's Court of Fujian Province holds that the freight dispute in this case has been applied to Kaohsiung District Court of Taiwan Province by Gao Hui Company, and a payment order has been issued, which has been partially fulfilled. Now Gao Hui Company is suing another court with the same facts and different causes of action, which is obviously inappropriate. Accordingly, the Fujian Provincial High Court decided to revoke the first-instance judgment of Xiamen Intermediate People's Court in August 1995; Gao Hui's claim was rejected.
(2) Antagonistic litigation
Case 3: Li XX v. Sun XX divorce case. Li XX, the plaintiff, is a resident, and Sun XX, the defendant, is a resident of Taiwan Province Province. When the People's Court of Hanjiang District, Putian City, Fujian Province tried the divorce case of Li XX v. Sun XX, because the defendant had filed a divorce lawsuit with the relevant court in Taiwan Province Province before the plaintiff sued, the plaintiff applied to the court to withdraw the lawsuit. The court held that the plaintiff's application for withdrawal of the lawsuit was an expression of his true intention, in line with relevant laws and regulations, and ruled that the lawsuit was allowed to be withdrawn.
Case 4: divorce case of Lin XX v. defendant Cai XX. Lin XX, the plaintiff, is a resident of mainland China, and Cai XX, the defendant, is a resident of Taiwan Province Province. After plaintiff Lin XX filed a divorce lawsuit in Dongshan County People's Court of Fujian Province, defendant Cai XX also filed a lawsuit in a court in Taiwan Province Province. Dongshan County Court accepted the case later than the Taiwan Province Provincial Court, and exercised jurisdiction over the case with reference to Article 15 of the Supreme Court's Opinions on Implementing the Civil Procedure Law. After the trial, the courts of the two places made separate judgments. The Taiwan Province Provincial Court made a judgment before the Dongshan County Court, and decided that Lin XX and Cai XX must perform their husband and wife obligations; Dongshan county court ruled that divorce was not allowed. A year later, Lin XX filed a lawsuit with Dongshan County Court again. The court ruled that both the defendant and the defendant were not allowed to live apart for one year after divorce, and failed to fulfill their obligations as husband and wife. After the verdict, neither party appealed.
Case 5: divorce case of Huang XX v. Xu XX. The plaintiff Huang XX is a resident and the defendant Xu XX is a resident of Taiwan Province Province. The People's Court of Jiaocheng District, Ningde City, Fujian Province held a public hearing in accordance with the summary procedure to hear the divorce case of Huang XX v. Xu XX, and the defendant Xu XX refused to appear in court to participate in the proceedings without justifiable reasons after being legally summoned. The plaintiff asked for a divorce from the defendant on the grounds that the relationship between husband and wife had indeed broken down. The defendant did not reply. The evidence submitted and confirmed by the plaintiff to our court includes the copy of the civil complaint filed by the defendant in Changhua District Court of Taiwan Province Province on June 5438+ 10, 2003 and the copy of the notice of the Family Court of Changhua District Court. The court ruled that the plaintiff Huang XX divorced the defendant Xu XX according to law.