1In May, 999, while working in a restaurant, the young woman Wang met a printing factory worker four years older than her and fell in love with her. After a period of in-depth understanding, Wang thought that the two were incompatible and proposed to dissolve the relationship. Chu firmly opposed this and repeatedly threatened Wang to kill her family if she didn't marry. Fearing Chu's arrogance, in February 200 1 65438, Wang went through the marriage registration formalities with Chu against his wishes. During the life of * * *, I often fought with Wanda at the beginning of the month because of trivial things in life. With the intensification of contradictions, Wang decided to dissolve this painful marriage relationship through legal means, and appealed to the court in June this year, requesting to dissolve the marriage relationship with Chu according to law. After trial, the court held that Wang did have threats, intimidation and other words and deeds before marrying Chu and before marrying Chu. According to the relevant provisions of the Marriage Law, the court ruled that the marriage relationship between Wang and Chu could be revoked and revoked. Comments: Revocable marriage refers to the behavior that one party to a marriage coerces the other party or the relatives and friends of the other party to make a false expression of will against their true wishes by means of violence, threats and intimidation, and marries them. The marriage established by the parties because of the untrue expression of will lacks the elements of marriage. The legally effective marriage relationship loses its legal effect by the party who has the right to cancel it. In this case, when Wang got married by threatening means, Wang filed an application to cancel the marriage within the statutory time limit, which fully complied with the above-mentioned legal provisions. The court's decision to annul this marriage according to law is correct. It should be pointed out that within one year from the date of marriage registration, if one party fails to request the dissolution of the marriage, or the party whose personal freedom is illegally restricted restores his personal freedom, he cannot request the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of coercion, but can only handle it according to divorce proceedings. Application of law: Article 11 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a marriage is coerced, the coerced party may request the marriage registration authority or the people's court to cancel the marriage. If the coerced party requests to dissolve the marriage, it shall do so within one year from the date of marriage registration. If the party whose personal freedom is illegally restricted wants to dissolve the marriage, it shall do so within one year from the date of restoring personal freedom.
_____________________________________________________
Two teenage girls repeatedly lured and coerced a group of female students into prostitution.
Two girls, Hejin from Yongjia County, are young and unable to study well, but they organize a group of female students to engage in prostitution. What awaits them will be wasting their youth in prison. On April 24, the two were prosecuted by the procuratorate to Yongjia County People's Court for organizing prostitution.
In June 2006, 19-year-old and 17-year-old Jin conspired to organize female students to engage in prostitution to make money. Subsequently, Huang and others (handled separately) contacted the surrounding customers to understand the customer situation. When I found it profitable, I found a group of female students such as Lu, Zheng and Pan. The youngest of them is only 14 years old, and the oldest is only 16 years old.
Chen Mou took them to Oubei Town, seduced them with the idea that "people live in this world for money", and threatened them with prostitution with words like "You go to bed with men now, or it will be difficult for us". By the end of 65438+February of that year, Chen Mou and Jin organized this group of female students to engage in prostitution in some hotels in Oubei for many times, and then profited from it.
The procuratorate believes that Chen Mou and Kim organized many people to engage in prostitution by means of inducement or coercion, and the circumstances are serious, so they should be investigated for criminal responsibility for organizing prostitution.
_______________________________________________
Does accusation and accusation constitute coercion?
-From the case of Shen v. Guo's revocation right.
The facts of a legal case
An electronic company was established on198965438+1October 26th. Its original name is a friendship business department,1989165438+10 month. Friendship Business Department was renamed as Hualong Business Department after industrial and commercial registration, and this business department was renamed as Electronic Company after industrial and commercial registration of 1994. The plaintiff Shen is the chairman and shareholder of an electronic company. Defendant Guo is the director and deputy manager of the electronics company. On June 5438+065438+1October 18, 2002, the county public security bureau criminally detained the plaintiff Shen for misappropriation of funds. On June165438+1October 2 1 the same year, the plaintiff was released on bail pending trial. On June 5438, 2002+February 65438, 2002+June 2002, the plaintiff and the defendant Guo signed a memorandum, which was jointly signed by the original defendant and his lawyer. In the same year 65438+February 65438+August, the plaintiff signed an agreement with the defendants Guo and Shen, and the plaintiff, the second defendant and their lawyers signed an agreement. On the same day, the plaintiff issued a letter of commitment. The main contents of the memorandum, agreement and letter of commitment are: (1) All assets, creditor's rights and debts of an electronic company (including an air-conditioning engineering installation company of its subsidiary) shall be enjoyed and borne by the two defendants. (2) The two defendants paid the plaintiff compensation of 800,000 yuan. (3) As Shen Mou, Gu Mou and others did not contribute in the original articles of association of the electronic company, if the registration materials are inconsistent with this agreement, this agreement shall prevail. (4) The original registration error of the property of an electronic company at Renmin Road 1 in a town was in the names of the plaintiff and the two defendants, and the plaintiff cooperated with the two defendants to change the property to the ownership of the two defendants or the electronic company.
After the agreement was signed, the two defendants paid 800,000 yuan to the plaintiff according to its contents before July 15, 2003. On September 25, 2004, the owner of a house in Renmin Road of a town was registered as the second defendant, and the land use right of the house was registered in the name of the second defendant on June 65438+1October 2 1 of the same year. In May 2004, an electronic company applied to the administrative department for industry and commerce for cancellation of registration. On June 17 of the same year, the Industrial and Commercial Bureau approved the cancellation of registration of the electronic company. On the same day, the two defendants established an electrical appliance limited liability company with the two defendants as shareholders.
The plaintiff believes that because of disagreement with the defendant Guo, Guo went to the public security bureau to sue him and he was detained in criminal detention. The agreement of 65438+February 2002 18 was signed by the defendant while he was on bail pending trial, which made him lose his equity in the electronics company and the property right of the house. The agreement was signed against my will without knowing the law. Now that the electronic company has been renamed as an electrical appliance limited liability company, the plaintiff requests the people's court to cancel the agreement signed by both parties on June 5438+February 65438+August 2002, and restore its equity in an electrical appliance company and the property right of a house on Renmin Road in a town.
After trial and investigation, the court of first instance held that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to prove that the two defendants had coerced him. When signing the agreement and memorandum, the original defendant and the defendant were all persons with full capacity for civil conduct, and their intentions were true, and the contents of the agreement did not violate the law and social public interests, so the factual reasons of coercion claimed by the plaintiff could not be established. The plaintiff personally signed the agreement, and a lawyer provided legal aid. The plaintiff should have known the fact of revocation on June 65438+February, 2002, but the plaintiff only brought a lawsuit to the people's court on February 65438+2, 2004, and the statute of limitations exceeded one year, and the plaintiff's right of revocation was extinguished. Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff Shen's claim in accordance with Articles 54 and 55 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law. After the judgment of the first instance, both the original defendant and the defendant accepted the judgment.
Comment and analysis
The right of revocation originated from the "right to abolish the strike" in ancient Roman law, which means that creditors can revoke the debtor's fraudulent creditor's rights through litigation. Article 59 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (hereinafter referred to as the General Principles of the Civil Law) stipulates: "One party has the right to request the people's court or the arbitration organ to modify or cancel the following civil acts: (1) the actor has a major misunderstanding of the content of the act; (2) Obviously unfair. The revoked civil act is invalid from the beginning of the act. " Article 54 of the Contract Law stipulates: "One party has the right to request a people's court or an arbitration institution to modify or terminate the following contracts: (1) a contract concluded due to a major misunderstanding; (2) obviously unfair at the time of conclusion of the contract. If one party leads the other party to conclude a contract against its true meaning by fraud, coercion or taking advantage of others' danger, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or cancel it. The people's court or the arbitration institution shall not revoke the request of the parties. "In addition, the" the Supreme People's Court's Implementation Opinions on Several Issues "stipulates that forcing the other party to make an untrue expression of will by threatening means, causing damage to the life and health, honor, reputation and property of citizens and their relatives and friends, or causing damage to the honor, reputation and property of legal persons, can be considered as coercion. As can be seen from the above provisions, the composition of the right of revocation must have two elements: (1) one party's expression of will is untrue; (2) The signed contract is obviously unfavorable to the party whose intention is untrue, and the performance of the contract will cause losses to it.
In this case, Shen stated that Guo reported and accused to the Public Security Bureau, and the Public Security Bureau released him on bail pending trial after criminal detention. During the period of bail pending trial, his political status was extremely unequal and he did not understand the law. In addition, Guo and others threatened to put him in prison if he didn't sign the agreement, so he signed against his will. His behavior was made under the coercion of Guo and Shen and should be revoked.
It must be made clear that citizens' right to report and accuse is the basic right given to citizens by the Constitution, and the relevant state organs have the responsibility to handle citizens' reports and accusations. Citizens' exercise of the right to report and accuse cannot form a fact that constitutes coercion, and bail pending trial does not limit the civil rights of criminal suspects. When Shen signed the agreement, he entrusted a lawyer to be present and sign it, so Shen's statement of coercion could not be established.
Shen should have known the fact of revocation in June 5438+February 2002, and only brought a lawsuit to the people's court in February 2004. According to Article 55 of the Contract Law: "In any of the following circumstances, the right of cancellation shall be extinguished: (1) The party who knows or should know the reason for cancellation fails to exercise the right of cancellation within one year. (2) After knowing the reasons for the cancellation, the parties to the cancellation right clearly express or give up the cancellation right by their own actions. " When Shen filed a lawsuit, it was more than one year since he should have known the reason for the cancellation, so his cancellation right has been extinguished.
Therefore, the court of first instance rejected the plaintiff Shen's judgment correctly and legally.
To sum up, coercion is an improper act, and it is obviously not protected by law to coerce others by illegal means. The act of reporting and accusing is a basic right given to citizens by the Constitution and a legal act protected by law. From the comparison of the legality of the two, it can be seen that the accusation is not compulsory. If the other party makes a certain expression of will because he is afraid of being sued, sued and losing his illegal interests, this expression of will is also his true expression of will, which does not belong to the scope of revocation stipulated by law.