civil judgment

(20 14) Yanzai Zhongzi No.55

Applicant for retrial (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance): Wang Yonglong, an individual industrial and commercial household.

Authorized Agent: Wang Yu, lawyer of Shandong Ninghai Law Firm.

Applicant for retrial (defendant in first instance and appellee in second instance): Liu Caihong.

Authorized Agent: Wang Xia, lawyer of Shandong Xinghetai Law Firm.

Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Liu Jianjuan, retired worker.

Authorized Agent: Xu Shougang.

The retrial applicants, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, refused to accept the civil judgment of our hospital (20 13)No. 180, and applied to our hospital for retrial. On February 30th, 20 13, 13, our hospital made a civil ruling (20 13) No.258 for smokers, and re-examined the case. Our college formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law. Wang Yu, the entrusted agent of the retrial applicant, Xu Shougang, the entrusted agent of the retrial applicant and Liu Jianjuan, the respondent, attended the proceedings in court. The case has now been closed.

20 12 On May 23rd, the plaintiff Liu Jianjuan filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Muping District, Yantai City, claiming that the two defendants Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong were husband and wife, and * * * borrowed from Liu Jianjuan for family needs 120,000 yuan. Wang Yonglong gave Liu Jianjuan an IOU of 20 1 1, 65438+3,000 respectively, and Liu Jianjuan an IOU of 20 1110,000 respectively. The money owed by Wang Yonglong has not been paid. Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong are now required to pay off the loan of RMB 6,543,800+200,000 immediately, and the defendant shall bear the litigation costs of this case.

Defendant Wang Yonglong did not reply.

Defendant Liu Caihong argued: We don't owe Liu Jianjuan money. My husband's name is "Wang Yonglong", and the IOU submitted by Liu Jianjuan is "Wang Yunlong" instead of "Wang Yonglong", while Wang Yonglong has been away from home since August 20 10 and has never returned home. We know nothing about what Wang Yonglong did. Liu Jianjuan had no evidence to prove that Wang Yonglong owed him money and asked the court to dismiss Liu Jianjuan's claim according to law.

The People's Court of Muping District of Yantai City found through trial that the original defendant and the defendant were friends, and the two defendants, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, were husband and wife. 2011165438 On March 3, the defendant Wang Yonglong borrowed 20,000 yuan from the plaintiff Liu Jianjuan for business needs, and issued a debit note with the following contents: "Today, I owe Liu Jianjuan 20,000 yuan, and 20,000 yuan is Wang Yonglong 201/kloc-. After that, Wang Yonglong borrowed 654.38+10,000 yuan from Liu Jianjuan several times in a row, and issued a debit note to Liu Jianjuan on June 2, 2065.438+065.438+0, with the following contents: "I owe Liu Jianjuan RMB100,000 * * and Wang Yonglong 2065.438+0 1. Liu Jianjuan said that "because my mother is in hospital" in the IOU dated 20 1 1 was only one reason for Wang Yonglong to borrow money, and the other money was also borrowed in the name of doing business. Liu Caihong did not recognize the signature of "Wang Yonglong" on the two IOUs submitted by Liu Jianjuan, and thought it was "Wang Yunlong", but there was no evidence to the contrary to refute it, and he did not apply for identification; And said that Wang Yonglong had run away from home since August 20 10 and knew nothing about what Wang Yonglong had done. Therefore, Liu Caihong submitted a certificate issued by her neighbor Yu Ruibo to prove that Wang Yonglong has not returned home since August 20 10. Liu Jianjuan believes that this testimony does not conform to the relevant provisions of the rules of evidence and cannot be used as evidence that Wang Yonglong did not go home.

The People's Court of Muping District, Yantai City held in the first instance that debt is a specific relationship of rights and obligations between the parties according to the contract or the law, and the creditor has the right to require the debtor to perform its obligations according to the contract or the law. If Wang Yonglong refuses to appear in court without justifiable reasons after being legally summoned by the court, it shall be deemed as giving up the right to cross-examine relevant evidence. Liu Caihong thought that the signature on the IOU submitted by Liu Jianjuan was not "Wang Yonglong" but "Wang Yunlong", but there was no evidence to refute it, and he did not apply for identification, so Liu Caihong's defense claim was not supported according to law. Wang Yonglong issued the IOU during the marriage relationship between Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, and the debts incurred should be treated equally with the debts of husband and wife. Liu Jianjuan asked Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong to repay the loan of 654.38 yuan+200,000 yuan, as evidenced by the IOU issued by Wang Yonglong. The reason is justified and the evidence is sufficient, and it is supported according to law. It was signed on July 20 12 in accordance with Article 84 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China (II) and Article 130 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The case acceptance fee is 2,700 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendants Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong; 300 yuan, the announcement fee, shall be borne by the defendant Wang Yonglong.

After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Yonglong refused to accept the original judgment and appealed to our court, saying: First, the original procedure was illegal, depriving the appellant Wang Yonglong of his litigation rights. 1. When the court of first instance put the case on file and served it, the appellee Liu Caihong made it clear that he had separated from Wang Yonglong and could not collect legal documents, but the court of first instance deceived him to collect them, resulting in Wang Yonglong's ignorance of the prosecution and the facts of first instance. 2. At the second trial of the original trial, Wang Yonglong had divorced Liu Caihong, but the court of the original trial did not inform Wang Yonglong or summon Wang Yonglong to appear in court. 3. The appellee Liu Caihong refused to receive the judgment for Wang Yonglong on the grounds of divorce, but the court of first instance sent the judgment to Wang Yonglong by announcement, which violated the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. Second, the court of first instance found that the fact that Wang Yonglong borrowed RMB 6.5438+0.2 million from the appellee Liu Jianjuan was wrong. There is no fact that there is a loan between Wang Yonglong and Liu Jianjuan. The IOU issued by Wang Yonglong was written under duress, not my true meaning. Wang Yonglong's mother died on 20 10, and Wang Yonglong himself was an ordinary worker and didn't need a lot of cash flow, so the so-called borrowing reason was not established. 3. Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong reached a divorce agreement in 2009 and separated on August 20 10. After the separation, there was no economic exchange between the two sides, and Liu Caihong was unaware of the debts involved, which had nothing to do with the husband and wife's life and did not belong to the husband and wife's debts. Requested the court of second instance to find out the facts, and ruled that Wang Yonglong did not undertake the obligation of payment, and the litigation expenses of the first and second instance were borne by the appellee Liu Jianjuan.

The second trial of our hospital found that Wang Yonglong claimed to have reached a divorce agreement with Liu Caihong on June 4th, 20th12nd, and submitted a copy of the divorce agreement. Liu Caihong submitted a divorce certificate to the court, which confirmed that the two parties divorced on June 4, 20 12. After cross-examination, Liu Jianjuan admitted the fact that Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong divorced, but claimed that they divorced to avoid debts.

During the trial, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong claimed that they separated on February 65438, 2009 before the divorce, and the formal separation time was April 38, 1965 +00. After the separation, they didn't keep their original contact information, and they couldn't get in touch. In this regard, Wang Yonglong submitted two divorce agreements signed with Liu Caihong on June 4th, 2009 and June 4th, 2009. After cross-examination, Liu Jianjuan did not recognize it.

After investigation, there were two trials in the original trial. The first trial was held on June 20, 2002, and Wang Yonglong did not appear in court. The court summons was served on May 28th, 20 12, and Liu Caihong signed for Wang Yonglong. Liu Caihong argued that it was signed by fraudulent means, and the sender did not inform the legal consequences of the signing. On July 4th, 20 12, the second court hearing was held, but Wang Yonglong did not appear in court. Liu Jianjuan's court summons was signed by Qu, the entrusted agent, and the delivery place indicated on the receipt of Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong's court summons was Liu Caihong Pharmacy, and the supplementary record was that the parties refused to sign it. At the first trial on June 26th, 2065438, Liu Caihong's lawyer told the court that Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong were husband and wife. In the second court hearing on July 4, 20 12, Liu Caihong's entrusted agent had no objection to the household registration certificates of Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong presented by the court, and in this court hearing, in order to confirm that Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong had separated in August, 20 10, he submitted a written testimony written by witness Yu Ruibo, informing the court that the evidence was intended to be used as evidence for suing for divorce from Wang Yonglong. In both trials, Liu Caihong did not explicitly inform the court that he had divorced Wang Yonglong. In this regard, Liu Caihong argued in the trial of the second instance that the entrusted agent in the first instance informed the borrower that the name was "Wang Yunlong" instead of "Wang Yonglong", and that the prosecution would be dismissed and no one else would be investigated.

During the trial, Wang Yonglong claimed that she had an affair with Liu Jianjuan. The so-called1.2000 yuan loan does not exist, it is a breakup fee. Wang Yonglong made an iou under duress, and submitted an interrogation record of Wang Yonglong with the seal of the government street police station of Muping Branch of Yantai Public Security Bureau. The time is 20 1 1 June 14. In this record, Wang Yonglong Wang Yonglong said: "There is no need for public security organs to investigate for the time being. Because of the debt of120,000 yuan, I will explain the situation and reflect the situation. " Liu Jianjuan admitted that Yu Tao was present when Wang Yonglong issued the IOU, but denied that Wang Yonglong was coerced, saying that after receiving the original judgment, he received a phone call from the police station and went to the police station to make a record. In the transcript, he denied having an affair with Wang Yonglong, and RMB 6,543.8+0.2 million was not a breakup fee. Wang Yonglong said that the Public Security Bureau failed to deal with the fact that he was coerced into writing IOUs.

The facts of other cases ascertained in the second instance of our court are the same as those in the first instance.

The second trial of our court held that regarding whether Wang Yonglong borrowed RMB 6.5438+0.2 million from Liu Jianjuan, our court held that Liu Jianjuan sued Wang Yonglong and his wife to return the loan on the grounds of the IOU issued by Wang Yonglong, and that Liu Jianjuan's claim was legal and well-founded, and should be supported according to law. Although Wang Yonglong claimed that the loan on the IOU involved in the case did not really exist and was issued under duress, he failed to provide sufficient and effective evidence to confirm it, and the fact he claimed was not accepted according to law.

Regarding whether the loan of RMB 6.5438+RMB 2,000 in question belongs to the same debt of Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, our court believes that since the loan occurred during the marriage relationship between Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, Wang Yonglong claimed that the loan does not belong to the debt arising from the husband and wife's common life, and should bear the corresponding burden of proof according to law. In the case that he can't prove it, it is correct to treat it as a husband and wife with the same debt in the first instance, which has factual and legal basis.

Judging from the delivery of the first trial and the trial process, Liu Caihong did not explicitly inform him of his divorce from Wang Yonglong, nor did he provide evidence to prove that he was cheated when signing the first court summons on behalf of Wang Yonglong, which did not affect the substantive handling of the case, so Wang Yonglong's appeal request could not be established.

To sum up, Wang Yonglong's appeal cannot be established, and our court will not support it according to law. The original judgment was correct and should be upheld according to law. On March 2, 2065438, the civil judgment (20 13)No. 180 was made according to the provisions of Article 170, Paragraph 1 (1) and Article 175 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC): the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld. The acceptance fee for the second instance case is 2,700 yuan, which shall be borne by Wang Yonglong.

Wang Yonglong refused to accept the above judgment and applied to our court for retrial, claiming that the basic facts identified in the original judgment lacked evidence. 1. According to the provisions on private lending in the Minutes of Shandong 201Civil Trial Meeting, the lender bears the burden of proof on the existence of the loan relationship, the loan content and whether the money has been delivered to the borrower. For the "IOU" provided by the lender, whether there is a private lending relationship should be determined according to the relevant evidence such as the amount, payment voucher, payment ability, trading habits and the relationship between the parties. During the trial, Liu Jianjuan could not only prove the source of the loan, the number of loans, the amount of each loan and the delivery situation, nor could she prove that she was able to pay the above money. 2. The reason for borrowing is untenable. Wang Yonglong's mother died on June 5, 20 10, and the time of debt was June 2, 201/year, with a difference of one year. Obviously, the reason for borrowing money is inconsistent with the facts. It is illogical to borrow before and borrow after. 20 1 1 year 1 month 65438+3 years Liu Jianjuan asked for money for the first time, and Liu Jianjuan asked someone to force Wang Yonglong to write an IOU of 20,000 yuan. On June 2nd, 2065438+ 0/KLOC-0, five months later, Liu Jianjuan continued to lend 65438+RMB 20,000 in Wang Yonglong. 4. The IOU is not Wang Yonglong's true meaning, but it belongs to the nature of breakup fee and emotional dispute. According to the report made by Wang Yonglong to the Muping District Government Street Police Station on June 4th, 20th1year, and the interrogation record made by the police station to Liu Jianjuan and Liu Jianjuan's witness Yu Tao, it can be seen that there is an extramarital relationship between Wang Yonglong and Liu Jianjuan, and there is no real loan relationship. To sum up, the court only used the IOU issued by Wang Yonglong as evidence, and in the absence of other evidence, it was determined that the loan was established. Requested to cancel the civil judgment of Yantai Intermediate People's Court (20 13)No. 180, and rejected Liu Jianjuan's claim according to law.

Liu Caihong replied that he agreed with Wang Yonglong's retrial request and reasons. In addition, even if the court decides that Wang Yonglong bears part of the payment obligation, it has nothing to do with Liu Caihong.

Liu Caihong applied for retrial, arguing that (1) the original trial was qualitatively wrong, and the cause of action should not be private lending, and the defendant was wrong. At least Liu Caihong should not be the defendant in this case. There are two focuses in this case: First, whether there is private lending between Liu Jianjuan and Wang Yonglong, and whether to lend money to Wang Yonglong. Liu Jianjuan holds two IOUs, not IOUs. There is a significant difference between IOUs and IOUs. The cause of action of IOUs must be private lending, but the cause of action of IOUs may be damages or contract disputes. If it is found to be in arrears, the court should find out the nature, reasons and settlement process of both parties. For IOUs, due to various reasons, the plaintiff bears different burden of proof. In this case, the signature of the IOU was Wang Yunlong, and Liu Caihong refused to recognize it. The judge of first instance imposed the burden of proof on Liu Caihong, demanding that Liu Caihong either provide evidence to prove it or apply for handwriting identification, otherwise Wang Yunlong would be identified as Wang Yonglong. Judges are unfair and illegal in the distribution of burden of proof. The IOU is that Liu Jianjuan, accompanied by three big men, tricked Wang Yonglong out and coerced Wang Yonglong to pay the breakup fee, which is not what Wang Yonglong really meant. This IOU also violates social morality, public order and good customs, and infringes on Liu Caihong's spouse rights. The court only protects the legal creditor-debtor relationship, and the arrears in this case are untrue and illegal and should not be protected. Second, whether the debt belongs to the joint debt of husband and wife needs to be repaid by Liu Caihong. This burden of proof should be borne by the borrower, not Liu Caihong. In this case, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong filed divorce proceedings for the first time in 2000, but the divorce was not completed. The court mediated and settled. In 2009, the two parties reached a divorce agreement and formally divorced on June 4, 20 12. During this period, until now, Liu Caihong and his married daughter's daily living expenses were all borne by Liu Caihong alone, Wang Yonglong failed to fulfill her due support obligations, and Liu Caihong and her daughter never benefited from the arrears. Wang Yonglong's mother had an operation in 2007, which cost 30,000-40,000 yuan. * * * There are 8 children, and each child gets less than 4,000 yuan. In addition, Wang Yonglong's father was an old revolution during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression period. The government gives money to his mother every year. Her mother still has an orchard at home, so there is no need to borrow money. It is impossible to owe Liu Jianjuan's mother 654.38+10,000 yuan for hospitalization. The court should not automatically think that as long as the relationship between husband and wife exists, one party's external debt, whether the other party knows or recognizes it, is regarded as the husband and wife's joint debt. Neither Wang Yonglong nor Liu Caihong admitted the authenticity of the debt. According to the provisions of Article 41 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China, it should be the standard to judge whether the debts of husband and wife are used for the life of husband and wife. Liu Jianjuan has no evidence to prove that the money owed by Wang Yonglong is used for the family's life, and it is unfounded to ask Liu Caihong to bear the repayment. If it is determined that there is a debt, it is also a personal debt of Wang Yonglong, which has nothing to do with Liu Caihong and should be borne by Wang Yonglong personally. (2) Judging from the original case file, the evidence is obviously insufficient. There are only two so-called IOUs in the first instance. Liu Jianjuan did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the fact of arrears in the first instance, which Liu Caihong did not admit or know. In the absence of Wang Yonglong, the basic facts are unclear, and the first instance should not be judged by default. The interrogation transcripts of Wang Yonglong, Yu Tao and Liu Jianjuan obtained in the second trial are of great significance to this case, which can prove that Wang Yonglong was coerced by Liu Jianjuan, and the court did not hold another hearing for cross-examination, which is a perverted judgment. In the second trial, Wang Yonglong submitted the divorce agreement reached between Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong on June 5438+February 65438+February 2009, which proved that the husband and wife had separated before two IOUs, and the last one clearly stipulated that Wang Yonglong's life outside had nothing to do with Liu Caihong. The undertaker of the second instance does not accept evidence and cross-examination. The judge may think that this evidence is irrelevant to the case and cannot be used against a third person. Husband and wife's life is private, only one of them knows it best, and no one else can know it. Neighborhood certificate provided by Liu Caihong can prove that Wang Yonglong has never been home, which is true and objective. To sum up, request to cancel the original judgment, reject Liu Jianjuan's claim, or at least order Liu Caihong not to bear the debt of 6.5438+0.2 million yuan; Liu Jianjuan bears the litigation costs of all cases.

Wang Yonglong replied that he agreed with Liu Caihong's retrial request and reasons. The money involved in this case simply does not exist and is not established. To say the least, even if the court finds that the debt relationship is established, it is also a debt relationship with Liu Jianjuan formed during the separation of Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, and should not be considered as the same debt between Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong.

Liu Jianjuan replied to Wang Yonglong's and Liu Caihong's retrial applications, saying 1. The IOU was borrowed by Wang Yonglong for many times by Liu Jianjuan. The IOU was written by Wang Yonglong himself, and it was found in the original trial. Wang Yonglong reported the case to the public security organ. Wang Yonglong just explained to the public security organs whether this was an emotional dispute or not, and whether it was just the story of Wang Yonglong. The public security organs did not deal with the situation reflected by them, which cannot be used as the basis for the qualitative analysis of this case. 3. These two IOUs were written by Wang Yonglong himself when Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong lived together. Whether the money is used for family life should be provided by Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong. If the corresponding evidence is not provided, it should be considered as a joint debt of husband and wife, and Liu Jianjuan should not provide evidence. To sum up, the original judgment found the facts clear and requested to maintain them.

Our hospital found out that on 20 12 and 10, the government street police station of Yantai Public Security Bureau made an inquiry record of Tao, in which Yu Tao stated the process of accompanying Liu Jianjuan in his search. After cross-examination, I have no objection to Tao's transcript. Liu Jianjuan had no objection to the authenticity of Tao's transcript, but claimed that Yu Tao's transcript said, "Liu Jianjuan said how much do you think our long-term relationship is worth, so you can fight.". The meaning of this sentence is not that Liu Jianjuan and Wang Yonglong are extramarital affairs advocated by Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong, but that Liu Jianjuan and Wang Yonglong have known each other for a long time, and they are friends and have a good relationship. At that time, Liu Jianjuan thought that Wang Yonglong could give as much money as possible.

It was also found out that the government street police station of Muping Branch of Yantai Public Security Bureau made an inquiry record for Liu Jianjuan on 201216, in which Liu Jianjuan stated the process of going to Wang Yonglong. After cross-examination, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong had no objection to the authenticity of Liu Jianjuan's notes, but they said that it was wrong for Liu Jianjuan to be calm when he typed the IOUs. In fact, he used threats to make IOUs.

During the trial, Wang Yonglong submitted the following evidence: the medical diagnosis certificate issued by Rushan People's Hospital on June 6, 2016, the medical record of Wang Yonglong's mother Li Peizhen during her hospitalization, and the certificate issued by the villagers' committee of Dagu Village in Yashan Town, Rushan City on June 6, 20 10. It is proved that Li Peizhen died of cancer in Rushan People's Hospital from June 5438+1October 19 to February 16, 2007, and the contents of the loan are inconsistent with the facts. Liu Caihong has no objection to the above evidence. Liu Jianjuan cross-examined that the above three evidences had nothing to do with it.

During the trial, Liu Caihong submitted the following evidence: (2000) 1 Filing Approval Form No.250, which proves that Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong filed a lawsuit for divorce with Muping District People's Court on March 28th, 2000, and the relationship between husband and wife has existed in name only. Wang Yonglong has no objection to this evidence. Liu Jianjuan has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence, but said that in this case, Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong did not divorce, but divorced on 20 12, and the evidence has nothing to do with this case. The Divorce Agreement between Liu Caihong and Wang Yonglong signed by Wang Yonglong on June 4, 20 12, which proves that the IOUs without Liu Caihong's signature were all borne by Wang Yonglong and did not belong to the same debt. Wang Yonglong gave Liu Jianjuan two IOUs, 2011.1./3, 20 1 1.6.2 (reported), which has nothing to do with Liu Caihong. In this case, the debt of 6.5438+0.2 million yuan is not a real creditor-debtor relationship, and it is not used for husband and wife to live together. Wang Yonglong has no objection to this evidence. Liu Jianjuan cross-examined that the certificate was a debt sharing between Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong when they divorced, and it was only an agreement between husband and wife, which could not confront creditors. 3. 1. An audio-visual material, which proves that she lived with Jiang in 2009, and indirectly proves that she had already separated from him. The agent said that he didn't know Yu Yongming or the conversation with Yu Yongming, but it's true that he broke up with Liu Jianjuan and moved in with Jiang. Liu Jianjuan said that because the witness Yu Yongming did not appear in court, it was impossible to verify the authenticity of the evidence.

Other facts we found out in the trial are consistent with the original trial.

We believe that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the loan contract between Liu Jianjuan and Wang Yonglong is valid. Article 210 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The loan contract between natural persons shall come into effect when the lender provides the loan". The nature of private lending contract is a practical contract, that is, the effectiveness of lending contract should be conditional on the lender paying money, and the lender should bear the burden of proof for fulfilling the obligation of "providing loans". In this case, although the IOU held by Liu Jianjuan was issued by Wang Yonglong, because Wang Yonglong denied the existence of the loan fact, the IOU was only the basis for the establishment of the contract, and Liu Jianjuan needed to continue to prove whether the contract was valid, that is, Liu Jianjuan should prove that he had indeed paid the money to Wang Yonglong. Liu Jianjuan claims that the loan amount is 6,543,800 yuan+0.2 million yuan, all of which are paid in cash. However, in the lawsuit, Liu Jianjuan failed to provide the basis of the source of the loan and other evidence of paying Wang Yonglong 6.5438+0.2 million yuan, and only two IOUs could not prove the fact that Liu Jianjuan paid the money. The original judgment only ordered Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong to repay on the basis of two IOUs, and the evidence was insufficient, so our court corrected it.

To sum up, Liu Jianjuan asked Wang Yonglong and Liu Caihong to pay off the loan of RMB 6,543,800+0.2 million, and the evidence was insufficient, so our hospital refused to support it. This case was decided by the judicial committee of our hospital through discussion. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 207 and the second paragraph of the first paragraph of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the verdict is as follows:

1. Revoke the civil judgment of our hospital (20 13)No. 180 for smokers andNo. (20 12) No.284 for Yan Moumin Yichuzi by the Muping District People's Court of Yantai City;

Second, Liu Jianjuan's claim was rejected.

The acceptance fee for the first-instance case is 2700 yuan, and the acceptance fee for the second-instance case is 2700 yuan, totaling 5400 yuan, which shall be borne by Liu Jianjuan. 300 yuan, the announcement fee, shall be borne by Wang Yonglong.

This is the final judgment.

Presiding judge Hao

Judge sun

Judge Zhang Tingting.

201June 9, 4

Clerk Jason Wu