|
Gao Wenxing v. Lai Jianming et al (disputes over the segmentation of common possessions)
|
|
高文兴等诉赖健明等共有物分割纠纷案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
- Type of Dispute:
Civil--＞Property
- Legal document：
Ruling
- Judgment date：
07-31-2014
- Procedural status：
Retrial
|
|
*尊敬的用户，您好！本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务，如需整篇翻译，请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com，或致电86
(10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the
respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service,
please contact us at: + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com
|
|
|
|
Gao Wenxing v. Lai Jianming et al (disputes over the segmentation of common possessions)
(disputes over the segmentation of common possessions)
高文兴等诉赖健明等共有物分割纠纷案
|
|
[Key Terms]
judgment of the second instance ; procedural error ; apply for retrial
[核心术语]
二审判决;程序错误;申请再审
|
|
[Disputed Issues]
1. Where a party applies for retrial on the grounds that the judgment of the second instance violated the principle of res judicate, the forensic report violated the statutory procedures, the court of second instance violated the provisions of the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fee, and thus there are procedural errors in the second instance, will the application be upheld by the court?
[争议焦点]
1.当事人以二审判决违反了“一事不再理”原则、鉴定报告违反法定程序、二审法院违反《诉讼费用交纳办法》的规定，存在程序错误为由，申请再审，能否获得支持？
|
|
[Case Summary]
A retrial is a procedure to reopen a case in accordance with trial supervision procedure to correct an erroneous judgment or ruling which has become effective. Article 200 of the Civil Procedural Law enumerates thirteen circumstances under which a people's court shall conduct retrial upon the party's application. Items 7 8 9 10 11 of the said Article stipulate circumstances of procedural erroneous. Nonetheless...
[案例要旨]
再审是为纠正已经发生法律效力的错误判决、裁定依照审判监督程序对案件重新进行的审理。《民事诉讼法》第二百条列举了十三类当事人申请再审、人民法院应当再审的情形。这其中的第七至十一项规定了程序不当的情形。但上述规定中并未包含违反“一事不再理”原则、鉴定报告违反法定程序、违反《诉讼费用交纳办法》的规定这几种情形因此...
|
| | 高文兴等诉赖健明等共有物分割纠纷案 |
Full-text is omitted.
| | 最高人民法院 |
| | 民事裁定书 |
| | (2014)民申字第676号 |
| | 再审申请人（一审被告、二审上诉人）：高文兴，台湾地区居民。 |
| | 委托代理人：邵晖，安徽深蓝律师事务所律师。 |
| | 委托代理人：陶小燕，安徽深蓝律师事务所律师。 |
| | 再审申请人（一审被告、二审上诉人）：傅梅玲，安徽省芜湖市真善美双语艺术幼儿园园长。 |
| | 委托代理人：姜健，北京市雄志律师事务所律师。 |
| | 再审申请人（一审被告）：黄先治，台湾地区居民。 |
| | 委托代理人：李贺林。 |
| | 再审申请人（一审被告）：于祖耀，台湾地区居民。 |
| | 委托代理人：李贺林。 |
| | 再审申请人（一审被告）：李贺林。 |
| | 被申请人（一审原告、二审被上诉人）：赖健明。 |
| | 委托代理人：罗妙龄，安徽平衡律师事务所律师。 |
| | 被申请人（一审原告、二审被上诉人）：张金娥。 |
| | 委托代理人：罗妙龄，安徽平衡律师事务所律师。 |
| | 被申请人（一审原告、二审被上诉人）：李季谦，台湾地区居民。 |
| | 法定代理人：张金娥。 |
| | 委托代理人：罗妙龄，安徽平衡律师事务所律师。 |
| | 被申请人（一审原告、二审被上诉人）：李怡瑾，台湾地区居民。 |
| | 法定代理人：张金娥。 |
| | 委托代理人：罗妙龄，安徽平衡律师事务所律师。 |
| | 原审第三人：安徽省芜湖市真善美双语艺术幼儿园。 |
| | 法定代表人：傅梅玲，该园园长。 |
| | 再审申请人高文兴、傅梅玲、黄先治、于祖耀、李贺林因与被申请人赖健明、张金娥、李季谦、李怡瑾及原审第三人安徽省芜湖市真善美双语艺术幼儿园共有物分割纠纷一案，不服安徽省高级人民法院（2013）皖民四终字第00186号民事判决，向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查，现已审查终结。 |
| | 高文兴、傅梅玲、黄先治、于祖耀、李贺林申请再审称：（一）二审判决程序上存在严重错误。1.违反了“一事不再理”原则。在之前的合作办学纠纷案件中，被申请人的第二项诉讼请求就是依法清算并按照55％股份分割不动产、动产及其他收益，其要求分割房产产权的请求被驳回。本案被申请人再次要求分割共有房产，不符合“一事不再理”原则，人民法院应不予受理或者驳回被申请人要求分割房产的请求。2.鉴定报告违反法定程序。在一审对房产进行评估时，申请人不知情，也未到场签字确认，该鉴定报告也缺乏客观、可信的参照材料。申请人在一、二审时均提出重新鉴定申请，但一、二审法院均未予答复。3.二审法院违反《诉讼费用交纳办法》的规定。一审法院判决每位申请人预交的上诉案件诉讼费为15836元，二审法院要求每位申请人交纳全案诉讼费用79018元，损害了申请人的诉讼权利。（二）二审判决认定事实不清，适用法律错误。1.遗漏申请人提交的证据材料，认定被申请人所享有的幼儿园两处房产的产权比例错误。2.支持分割幼儿园房产没有法律依据。3.错误采信不公平合理的估价鉴定报告。4.错误判决向被申请人支付房产占用费。再审申请人依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条第二项、第六项的规定申请再审该案。 |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|