Unbelievable! Disputes caused by beach subcontracting contract： two endings in the same case

　　Cctv newsIt is basic legal knowledge that the court decides a case and serves the plaintiff and the defendant with the same judgment document. However, in a contract dispute case tried by Suizhong County People’s Court in Liaoning Province, the original defendant and the defendant actually got two completely different judgment documents.

　　What is even more incredible is that the same group of judges tried this case, and the judgment documents with different results have exactly the same case number. How did such an absurd thing happen?

　　In order to find out why this case happened, the reporter first found the plaintiff, Zhao Hongli. Zhao Hongli told the reporter that the cause of this case was a dispute between him and the defendant Li Guofa on the beach subcontracting contract.

　　Judging from the beach subcontracting contract provided by Zhao Hongli, the 50 mu of land was indeed leased in the name of Zhao Hongli.

　　Zhao Hongli told reporters that after he subcontracted 10 mu of beach land to Li Guofa, he found that Li Guofa had not fulfilled the promise between them, but subletted the 10 mu of beach land to a third party.

　　In 2012, Zhao Hongli filed a lawsuit with Suizhong County People’s Court as the plaintiff, and took Li Guofa and other three defendants to court. In fact, the case of this beach subcontract dispute is not complicated, but Zhao Hongli said that he has not waited for the court’s trial result for more than a year since the case was filed. Therefore, Zhao Hongli decided to apply for withdrawing the prosecution.

　　On July 16, 2013, Zhao Hongli filed an application to the Suizhong County People’s Court to withdraw the lawsuit. On the same day, Suizhong County People’s Court granted the request to withdraw the lawsuit and served him with a civil ruling granting the withdrawal of the lawsuit. Although the lawsuit was withdrawn, the contract dispute was not resolved. For this reason, two years after receiving the written decision to withdraw the lawsuit, Zhao Hongli once again brought Li Guofa and others to court for other reasons. Suizhong County People’s Court also filed a case again and held a hearing. However, in this trial, the defendant produced the judgment of that case in 2012.

　　Zhao Hongli told reporters that it was the first time he knew that the defendant had a verdict. At this time, it has been more than two years since the first lawsuit was withdrawn and closed.

　　These are the two judgment documents in this case, one for the defendant and the other for the plaintiff. The verdict in the judgment issued by the defendant Li Guofa is that the plaintiff Zhao Hongli knew that the land had been transferred, not that the plaintiff didn’t know it, so the court did not support the plaintiff Zhao Hongli’s request to return the right to use the beach land. The verdict is as follows: the plaintiff Zhao Hongli’s claim is rejected. Presiding judge: Li Lincheng, judges: Liu Yanshun and Gao Yunshan; Time: May 29th, 2013.

　　On the other hand, it is written in the civil ruling issued by the plaintiff. On July 16th, 2013, the plaintiff filed an application to withdraw the lawsuit. The court thinks that the plaintiff’s application is in compliance with the law, and according to Article 145 of the Civil Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC), the ruling is as follows: Zhao Hongli, the plaintiff, is allowed to withdraw the lawsuit. The presiding judge and the judge are the same as those in the judgment, namely: Li Lincheng, Liu Yanshun and Gao Yunshan. Time: July 16th, 2013.

　　It can be seen from these two judgment documents that not only the case number is the same, but also the undertaker of the case. It’s just that the time is different. The verdict comes first and the lawsuit is dropped last. So how did this judgment come from? To this end, the reporter dialed the telephone of the defendant Li Guofa.

　　The phone couldn’t get through, and the reporter went to Li Guofa again, trying to find Li Guofa to understand the situation.

　　Later, the reporter called Fu Jinling, the second defendant in the case, but the phone could not get through.

　　Why are there two different judgment documents in the same case?

　　In order to verify the authenticity of this judgment, the reporter followed Zhao Hongli to the Suizhong County People’s Court and retrieved the case file of the second prosecution in 2015.

　　In the evidence of this case file, the reporter found this judgment. It seems that this judgment was indeed presented and submitted to the court as evidence. Then the question comes, why are there two completely different judgment documents in the same case?

　　According to the president of Suizhong County People’s Court, the case in 2012 should have been closed by judgment, but why the case was closed by judgment was allowed to be withdrawn? The president’s answer was faltering. The judgment was not served on the plaintiff, and Li Guofa was the only one of the three defendants who had this judgment. If this judgment came into effect, then why was the plaintiff allowed to withdraw the lawsuit? Faced with these doubts, a vice president of Suizhong County People’s Court gave a new statement.

　　In fact, if you want to judge which of the two ruling documents in this case in 2012 is effective, the key is to see whether the court finally closes the case by judgment or by withdrawing the lawsuit. Subsequently, Suizhong County People’s Court took out the case file of this case in 2012, from which it can be seen that this case was indeed closed by withdrawing the lawsuit.

　　According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, after the court makes a judgment on the case, the case should be closed by judgment, but it is strange that the Suizhong County People’s Court did not close the case by judgment, but closed the case by withdrawing the lawsuit. Why is this?

　　From this point of view, the judgment was only served to one of the three defendants, and perhaps only the undertaker of the case at that time, the presiding judge Li Lincheng, knew the secrets best.

　　When the reporter asked to see the undertaker of this case, that is, the presiding judge Li Lincheng, the Suizhong County People’s Court refused us for various reasons.

　　The judgment document was obviously wrong and passed the examination.

　　The president and vice president of Suizhong County People’s Court have successively admitted that these two completely different judgment documents were indeed issued by Suizhong County People’s Court. Let’s look at these two co-accused judgment documents. Both the judgment and the ruling on withdrawal of the case are stamped with the seal of Suizhong County People’s Court.

　　In a case with the same case number, there are two completely different judgment documents. Did they go through the audit procedure before being sealed? How did the court seal it?

　　Why hasn’t Suizhong County People’s Court handled such an obvious mistake since the case was closed in 2013?

　　In fact, it can be seen from the trial transcript when Zhao Hongli sued again in 2015 that in the cross-examination of the defendant, the second evidence produced by the defendant was: a judgment of Sui Min Sha Chu Zi No.00363 in 2012. At that time, the plaintiff’s attorney pointed out: how can a judgment be issued? I provide the withdrawal ruling in this case to prove it. In court, the presiding judge responded: it is indeed a case number. And put this judgment as evidence in the case file.

　　When the reporter asked how the Suizhong County People’s Court would solve the two judgment documents in this case, the president of the court replied to the reporter like this.

　　However, on November 21, 2018, the plaintiff Zhao Hongli received a civil ruling from the Suizhong County People’s Court. This ruling reads: The civil ruling (2012) Sui Min Sha Chu Zi No.00363 made by our hospital on July 16, 2013 on the case of fishery contract dispute between Zhao Hongli, the plaintiff in the original trial, and Li Guofa, the defendant in the original trial, has taken legal effect. After the president of our hospital submitted it to the judicial Committee for discussion, it was considered that the ruling was indeed wrong and should be retried.

　　It is puzzling that the case that was originally settled by withdrawing the lawsuit, according to the former vice president of Suizhong County People’s Court, the judgment in this case is invalid and should be withdrawn. Then why didn’t the Judicial Committee of Suizhong County People’s Court correct the previous judgment, but decided that the legally effective ruling on withdrawal of the lawsuit was wrong, and what was the purpose of doing so?

　　Why did it go wrong? Why make mistakes again and again?

　　Justice is first and foremost a procedure. To make people feel fair and just from the case, we must first ensure the procedural justice of the judiciary. In a civil case with obvious errors in trial procedure, Suizhong County People’s Court turned a blind eye for several years. Instead of actively correcting the errors, it misinterpreted the provisions of the law on trial procedure.

　　A series of obvious questions, it seems that the court staff in the film can’t give an answer. In a big way, this not only affects everyone’s trust in the judiciary, but also affects everyone’s confidence in judicial justice. In daily work, handle cases strictly according to law; In the face of mistakes, we can take the initiative to correct them, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and defend the dignity of the law.