(2000) Final Chat Line No.57
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Yao Huaping, male,/kloc-0, born in August 1962, Han nationality, primary school education, farmer, living in Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian.
Lawyer: Ge Runmin, legal worker of Dongchangfu Law Firm.
Lawyer: Xing Tianhua, same occupation.
Appellee (the first defendant), Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.
Legal Representative: Yue Qixiang, mayor of this town.
Attorney: Ru Yan owes money to the director of Qingshui judicial organ in guanxian.
The appellant appealed to the People's Court of guanxian (16 1) because he refused to accept the agricultural administrative law enforcement. Our college has formed a collegial panel to hear the case.
The People's Court of guanxian tried this case and found out: At the beginning of the fifth lunar month 1998, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian refused to pay the Xia Zheng fee for Pingyao Agriculture, and the tractor forcibly seized was owned by Du Gongxue, Yaocun. Whether there is any legal basis or not, the court will not support its administrative actions. Plaintiff Pingyao sued Toolbox for cash of RMB 10000, but no evidence was found, which was rejected by the court. 1999,1February 22, 1999, guanxian people's court ruled that: 1. The compulsory administrative action of the defendant Qingshui Town Government of guanxian to detain the horizontal tractor of Hua Yao restricted the defendant guanxian Qingshui. 400 yuan, the case acceptance fee, shall be borne by Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.
The appellant Yao Huaping's first-instance judgment found the facts clearly in the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court (Zi ChuNo. 16 1), so he made a wrong decision to appeal and requested the court to revise the judgment according to law.
Appeal to the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian for reply. If the court of first instance finds that the facts are clear, the procedure is legal and the applicable law is correct, the judgment is correct according to law and the court of second instance will uphold it.
The People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian held a trial in the first instance, and our court conducted cross-examination and rechecked the evidence submitted by the appellee. The main evidence, the appellee Qingshui Town Government: 1, Li Dui's investigation record; 2. Li Chunling's testimony; 3 Investigate Du Jifeng's report card; According to the transcript submitted by Li Chunze, the above evidence proves that the appellant Yao Ping had no cash in the tractor tools. Investigate Li Shuling and Chen Ren to enjoy the transcript; Investigation of Fan Yuling's report card proves that the tractor of the appellant Du Yao Gong Xue's family was detained. Evidence objection
The appellant Yao guanxian was the agent of Qingshui Town People's Government, and submitted the following evidence: 1, Du's transcript; 2. Xu Feng asked the transcript; 3. The testimony of Tuyue people. The above evidence shows that the employee was forcibly detained by the appellant Du driving a tractor in Yao Ming on May/KLOC-0 by the appellant Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.
Court: On 1 May, 1998/KLOC-0, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the appellee refused to pay the detention money of the appellant Yao Pingqiang during the lunar summer, and the fact that the appellant Yao tractor went home can be confirmed. It is an administrative act without legal basis, that is, it is illegal and the court does not support it. The appellee shall return the seized tractor. Appellant Yao Ping v tractor toolbox cash 10000 yuan. If there is sufficient evidence to provide the reasons for its request, the town government of Shuitui cannot be established, and our hospital will not support it. The original judgment was not improper and should be upheld. According to Article 6 1 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
1. The acceptance fee for the case of second instance is 100 yuan, and each paragraph is 100 yuan, which belongs to the appellee guanxian People's Government and the appellant Yao Ping respectively.
The verdict is final.
/a & gt；
Presiding judge: Zhang is on record.
Judgment: Xue Zhen is the first.
Judge: "Ling
June 3(rd), 2000
Acting Registrar: Duke University Law School.