Civil Court Debate Cases 14 _ Classic Cases

Choosing the court in litigation is an essential step, which is often encountered in the process of choosing the court in civil litigation. If you are not clear about the case of the civil litigation court, I will share it with you. Welcome to read:

Case 1 In the civil litigation court, the plaintiff Zhao Xiaomei is the sister of the defendants Zhao Dagang, Zhao Damin and Zhao Daquan, and her mother Wang is now 82 years old. In 2006, due to a dispute over alimony, Wang took four children to court. After mediation, the four brothers and sisters agreed that Wang should be raised by Zhao Dagang, and the medical expenses and funeral expenses would be shared equally by the four brothers and sisters. Two months later, the four men had another dispute over alimony. In the mediation of the police station, four people signed a support agreement, which stipulated: The four brothers and sisters respect their mother's wishes. She can choose to live in any one of the four brothers and sisters, and the four shall not refuse for any reason. No matter who the mother lives in, from the date of reaching an agreement, all expenses related to the mother will be borne by the mother's family and have nothing to do with the other three. ? After the mother's death, the consent of the mother's family must be obtained, otherwise the other three brothers and sisters are not allowed to go to Dai Xiao to attend the funeral. Otherwise, quarrels, fights and other incidents caused by this reason and all consequences shall be borne by those who do not abide by this agreement. ? Before the agreement was signed, Wang went to the police station and expressed his willingness to live in Zhao Dagang's house. After that, the four brothers and sisters signed the above agreement to confirm. On June 29th, 2008, 65438, Zhao Xiaomei filed a lawsuit in Jiangyin City Court on the grounds that the agreement was for her own sake, so that her mother could live a stable life as soon as possible, and requested to confirm that the agreement was invalid.

The court ruled that the above maintenance agreement agreed? After the mother's death, the consent of the mother's family must be obtained, otherwise the other three brothers and sisters are not allowed to go to Dai Xiao to attend the funeral? Any violation of good customs shall be deemed invalid and other parts of the agreement shall be valid.

comment

Parents have the obligation to support minor children, and children have the obligation to support their parents. This is the main content of the rights and obligations between parents and children stipulated in the Marriage Law. These obligations are legal obligations and must be fulfilled. Failure to perform these legal obligations may constitute abandonment. When parents die, children have the right to sacrifice, and no one can deprive them. Some people once questioned the right to sacrifice and thought that there was no such right. In my opinion, the right to sacrifice is the content of the right of identity, and it is the content of the right of identity enjoyed by a specific relative when the other party dies. This right is inalienable. In this case, the four brothers and sisters reached an agreement because of the dispute over support, but later they signed an agreement, and one of them had no right to support other political parties in Dai Xiao. This is actually an agreement that deprives the mother of her right to sacrifice. This agreement not only violates social morality and good customs, but also violates the rights and obligations of the right to identity, which is a violation of the legal agreement. It is completely correct for the court to confirm that such an agreement is invalid, which correctly embodies the basic principle of equality of kinship in civil law.

Zhou Long graduated from Guangxi University in 2007. From June 5, 2006 to February 2006, he attended the job fair held by the school and signed an employment agreement with the defendant company. On July 3, 2007, KLOC-0, the defendant suffered from Zhou Long? Is hepatitis B a small sanyang? And notify it? Not hired? . Zhou Long's family was poor, and she completed her studies with the help of her parents and student loans. This time, because the company broke the contract, he not only lost his job opportunity, but also missed the best opportunity to choose a job. In April 2008, after repeated unsuccessful negotiations with the defendant, Zhou Long took the defendant to court in a rage, requesting to confirm that the defendant's refusal to hire violated the plaintiff's right to equal employment, and should bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract and compensate the plaintiff for mental losses.

The Qinnan District Court of Qinzhou City, Guangxi held that workers have equal employment rights, and the Opinions of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security on Safeguarding the Employment Rights of HBsAg Carriers demanded that the employment rights of HBsAg carriers be protected. The defendant refused to be employed on the grounds that the plaintiff was hepatitis B Xiao Sanyang, which violated the above provisions and violated the plaintiff's equal employment right. The employer was judged to compensate the plaintiff for spiritual comfort 1 10,000 yuan.

comment

Equal employment right is the concrete expression of labor right in personality right. The constitution stipulates that citizens have the right to work, which is a constitutional right. This right is embodied in the Law of Personality Rights, which shows the right to equal employment.

We are drafting a civil code? Experts wrote about this right when they suggested the draft of the Personality Right Law, and its nature is personality right. Infringement of equal employment right is infringement of personality right, which constitutes infringement and should bear tort liability.

What should carriers of hepatitis B surface antigen do? Symptoms? How many young people have been harmed and how many employment opportunities have been lost! Even many young people in love are forcibly intervened by their parents and other relatives, losing the right to pursue happiness, resulting in countless life tragedies.

Zhou Long, the plaintiff in this case, is such a victim. His experience not only deprived him of employment opportunities, but also missed the best opportunity to find other ways of employment.

As a university teacher, I deeply sympathize with his experience and appeal for him. The significance of this case is to confirm that the right to equal employment is a personality right. Xiao sanyang? Refusing to accept workers for some reasons constitutes a violation of the right to equal employment. It is confirmed that the defendant's behavior in this case constitutes tort liability, which not only brings justice to Zhou Long, but also harms people like Zhou Long? Xiao sanyang? Most of the workers advocate justice and fairness. Therefore, the judgment in this case is commendable.

The false plot of Xi 'an TV series infringes on the reputation of the deceased.

The third TV series "Xi Incident" debated in the civil litigation court was jointly produced by Xiying Factory and the Film and Television Department of CCTV Literature and Art Center, and was broadcast on CCTV TV drama channel from June 5438 to February 2007. Feng Qinzai, the real character described in the play, has plots such as bombing coal mines, bribing Qian Dajun and shooting Major General Jiang Tianzheng at will. Feng Qinzai, a former general of the Kuomintang army, joined the League in his early years, followed Sun Yat-sen, participated in the Revolution of 1911, participated in the war to defend the country, the Northern Expedition and the eight-year war of resistance, and served as North China from 65438 to 0949. Full suppression? Deputy Commander-in-Chief, followed by Commander-in-Chief Fu, peacefully revolted in Peiping. Feng Jining, the grandson of Feng Qinzai, saw the play and thought that these plots maliciously fabricated by the An incident had seriously infringed on Feng Qinzai's reputation, demanding that the defendant stop the infringement, restore his reputation, eliminate the influence and apologize.

After investigating the evidence, Xi 'an beilin district Court held that there was no evidence to prove that the three paragraphs about Feng Qinzai in the An incident were historical facts. Among them, the part about Feng Qinzai bribing Qian Dajun devalues Feng Qinzai's personality and infringes on his reputation. Therefore, Xiying Factory was sentenced to stop broadcasting the bribery plot about Feng Qinzai in the Xi incident, and requested Xiying Factory to restore Feng Qinzai's reputation in national newspapers and eliminate the influence and apologize to Feng Jining.

comment

It has long been concluded that literary works infringe the reputation right including the reputation right of the deceased, which can constitute tort liability. However, after the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court finally decided whether the film Huo Yuanjia constituted an infringement lawsuit or not, some people questioned it. Therefore, they also doubt whether this case constitutes infringement. In historical and literary works, the description of historical figures need not stick to historical truth, and it is absolutely impossible to express the theme by proper fictional description. Part of the plot described in the film Huo Yuanjia is not historical facts, but an appropriate fiction made by the screenwriter and director to express the theme of the work. However, as long as these descriptions don't vilify the described characters and belittle their reputation, they can't be regarded as infringement because the facts described are untrue. Therefore, it is well-founded that the film Huo Yuanjia does not constitute Huo Yuanjia's reputation. But this case is different. When describing the plot of Feng Qinzai, the Xi incident fabricated the plot that damaged Feng Qinzai's reputation, belittled Feng Qinzai's personality and infringed on his reputation right. Therefore, it constitutes a tort liability that infringes on the personal interests of the deceased. As the grandson of Feng Qinzai, Feng Jining is the legal protector of Feng Qinzai's reputation rights and interests, and has the right to file a civil lawsuit to investigate the tort liability of his works. The court ruled that the TV drama author should bear the tort liability and give the deceased justice, which embodies the principle of fairness and justice in civil law.

Ning Ming's ignorance drives away the "ghost" infringement case

Case 4 Civil Litigation Court Debate In 2002, farmer Huaisen (75 years old in 2008) from Ningming County, Guangxi moved into his new home at the foot of Zuolan Mountain, a village in Ningming County. Since then, bad luck has continued: in 2002, Nong Huaisen broke his foot and his grandson died; In 2005, Nong Huaisen was hospitalized and spent 5,000 yuan on medical expenses; In 2008, the farmer's family died three times in a row. Nong Huaisen believes that his bad luck comes from two graves on Zuolan Mountain, 300 meters away, which suppressed his fate. He asked the tomb owners Luo and Liang Yandong to move their ancestral graves, but Luo and Liang ignored them.

One day in March 2008, Nong Huaisen dug a hole in Luo Heliang's ancestral grave by himself. Exorcise ghosts? . Luo and Liang are very angry. They sued the court in Ningming County, Guangxi, respectively, demanding confirmation that Nong Huaisen's grave digging was illegal, and compensated 5,000 yuan for economic losses and 5,000 yuan for mental damages.

The court held that Nong Huaisen's excavation of the graves of Luo and Liang's deceased relatives was not only an infringement on the personality of the deceased, but also an infringement on the right of the deceased's close relatives to sacrifice. At the same time, it also violates social morality and public order and good customs, which constitutes infringement. Luo Mou and Liang Mou demanded that Nong Huaisen's lawsuit for compensation for grave repairing expenses and mental damages was reasonable and legal, and sentenced Nong Huaisen to compensate Luo Mou and Liang Mou for their losses in 200 yuan and mental damages 1000.

comment

My evaluation of this case is: ignorance.

In fact, in recent years, cases of digging other people's ancestral graves are common, but most of them are based on architectural needs or other purposes. It is not common to dig other people's ancestral graves for the purpose of exorcising ghosts. Probably because the old man is old.

What should be studied is which rights are violated by digging ancestral graves. The judgment of this case holds that it infringes on the personality of the deceased and also infringes on the right of sacrifice of the close relatives of the deceased. This determination is reasonable. However, the act of digging ancestral graves not only infringes on the personal interests of the deceased and the right of sacrifice of close relatives, but also infringes on the property rights of ancestral graves. Ancestral graves belong to real estate and structures in civil law. Above the ancestral graves, there are both the ownership of structures and the right to use the occupied land.

Therefore, privately excavating the ancestral graves of others is an illegal infringement of real estate and constitutes an infringement of property rights. If we make a comprehensive observation, the act of excavating others' ancestral graves without authorization is not only an illegal infringement on real estate, but also an infringement on the personal interests of the deceased and the right of sacrifice of the deceased's close relatives, which is a fact of multiple rights damage. These factors should be considered when determining tort liability.

The unregistered sellers in Zhengzhou have the obligation to assist in purchasing houses.

In 2007, Chang Liang bought a second-hand house from Song Ping through a friend's introduction. When handling the house transfer formalities, he found that the house had changed hands three times, and he was the fourth owner, registered on the real estate license? Homeowner? I don't know where to go, and there are no standardized transfer and sale procedures between the two former homeowners who can be found.

Unable to handle the transfer procedures, Chang Liang appealed to the court and asked the first three homeowners to assist him in handling the property transfer procedures.

Zhengzhou Zhongyuan District People's Court found through trial that the private property of the house involved was given to Qin Xia free of charge in the form of 1990 notarization, and the original was delivered to Qin Xia; Qin Xia transferred the house to Song Ping and handed over the original documents to Song Ping. In 2007, Song Ping sold the house to Chang Liang.

None of the above transfer procedures have been transferred.

The court held that according to the provisions of the Property Law, the acquisition and transfer of real estate ownership must be registered by the housing management department, and property rights will not be transferred without transfer registration. However, the house transfer agreement signed by the original and the defendant is a valid contract, and the plaintiff has the right to require the defendant to perform the contract and go through the transfer procedures. In June 2008, three owners before the judgment of the house assisted Chang Liang to handle the transfer formalities within 60 days after the judgment came into effect.

comment

I choose this case to comment, which is intended to make readers clear the importance of real estate sales transfer registration procedures.

Buying and selling houses means transferring the ownership and use right of real estate. According to the provisions of the Property Law, the legal consequences of ownership transfer can only occur if the ownership transfer is registered, otherwise, even if the real estate such as houses is occupied, the ownership of houses or land use rights cannot be obtained.

In this case, the traded house and land use right were transferred three times, but none of them went through the registration of property right change. Therefore, even if Chang Liang occupies the house, he does not enjoy its ownership and the corresponding land use right.

Chang Liang is smart and knows how to obtain this right according to law in this case to prevent his legitimate rights and interests from being infringed. The first two buyers were confused and didn't know how to defend their rights.

It should be noted that the rights of real estate can not be obtained only through the notarization of the ownership transfer contract of real estate. Only by registering according to law can we obtain the right of real estate. The court's decision is correct. As the transferor of real estate property rights, the original owner has the obligation to assist the buyer to go through the registration procedures for the transfer of real estate ownership, so as to ensure that the buyer can buy the traded real estate rights.

Beijing should compensate for fraudulent upbringing.

& gt& gt& gt More exciting next page? Civil courts debate cases.