In most civil suit, party can submit the evidence that is helpful for oneself to the court,
This give no cause for more criticism.
But, if forge evidence painstakingly to win suit or writ,
Intentional deceive pass a barrier, meet finally not only play away lawsuit, face fine of a huge sum likely still!
For instance the following these two
Because of not the typical case that sincere letter lawsuit is handled by amerce!
Mr Liu of Fosan is an agency that decorates data company, because the company did not pay him due sale price difference on time, mr Liu one paper indictment tells each other the court.
Mr Liu expresses: Oneself sell the PVC plastic product that adorns a company all the time since June 2009. Among them, the business that ready money writtens guarantee now trades directly finish, be not the business that writtens guarantee now to decorate company and client to order by him generation sign a contract and reach the contract give to the public manage. The company delivers the goods to the client directly later and gathering, after part of only responsible follow-up makes work, oneself work, earn sale price difference with this. But arrived in November 2010, because him sale amount is larger and larger, adornment company begins not on time settle accounts price difference. In March 2011, oneself ask to sign a contract with its according to the company. Later via urging for many times, to was being issued on May 30, 2014 just now " statistics of sale price difference " , affirm came in November 2010 oneself sale price difference is aggregate during December 2013 about 680 thousand yuan.
Adornment company is refuse payment price difference, embezzle part of what should be issued undertakes with a lot of and unjustifiable project such as accrual of high specified number, payment for goods in issued price difference statistics, reason requirement company just pays him due sale price difference reachs accrual 680 thousand yuan.
Company one party criterion argue says: Did not default Mr Liu money, and immediately counterclaim. Company one party thinks, the contract that both sides signed in March 2011 agrees Mr Liu sells the product of the company only, the client assumes responsibility of payment for goods by Mr Liu when refuse payment payment for goods. And still did not repay up to now by 4 buying and selling of Mr Liu deal with payment for goods, behoove is deducted from inside Mr Liu earning. Besides, the money such as the advances paragraph and pay for sb and expect to be repaid later social security that the company gives Liu the gentleman, freight also needs to deduct, because the company approbates the sale price difference of Mr Liu to be more than yuan 490 thousand only, after reason deducts afore-mentioned money Mr Liu still owes a company more than yuan 470 thousand.
During first instance, for the view with respective evidence, both sides submitted evidence. Among them, the company just offers " sell list " and " affirmatory book " the doubt that posed Mr Liu, mr Liu applies for judicatory appraisal to the court subsequently. Classics appraisal, in these two files about " the expense of pay for sb and expect to be repaid later that did not deduct to the end of September 2011 " and " balance did not deduct a client debt, accrual, social security, tear open let reach loan " wait for content to belong to later period to attach.
Court of first instance thinks via cognizance, basis " statistics of sale price difference " , mr Liu was more than yuan 680 thousand to the sale price difference December 2013 in November 2010. And the client debt that the company holds and charge of pay for sb and expect to be repaid later are not worth because of evidence, the court does not grant to support. But the money that court of first instance thinks Mr Liu is advanced to the company and account at " statistics of sale price difference " medium " other, food, express, accrual " partial charge needs to give deduct. Adjudicate company direction Mr Liu pays a sale price difference then (deduct each expense) Yu Yuan and 190 thousand accrual, disallow a company square all countercharge request.
Because refuse to obey,adjudicate, both sides all appeals to Fosan quadrangle. Mr Liu appeal says " other, food, express, accrual " charge and part advance a paragraph to need not be deducted. And the company just is opposite amount of sale price difference and should deduct a part to disagree.
Fosan quadrangle 2 careful think, the company advocates Mr Liu agree is carried " other, food, express, accrual " partial charge account at " statistics of sale price difference " in, content admits really without Mr Liu in be being stated however. Although Mr Liu is in those who affirm this statistics is medium in lawsuit " sell amount " " company cost " two content, but cannot think Mr Liu reachs amount to all projects in this statistics accordingly all consentient.
In the meantime, the company just refers " sale list " reach " affirmatory book " in about " board expense " " express is expended " wait for content classics appraisal to belong to later period to attach, because this court is right,these two material do not grant to maintain. Final, fosan quadrangle lawfully company of change the original sentence should pay price difference of Mr Liu sale Yu Yuan and 380 thousand interest.
The behavior that just forges court of significant evidence, cloggy people to hear a case in lawsuit in view of the company already made conduct of cloggy and civil suit, this year in Feburary, fosan quadrangle decides a book to amerce of this company service, fine 100 thousand yuan.
Amerce decides book ▼
Mr Huang of Fosan bought a price to be 3500 yuan pet dog to shop of pet of Nanhai Ou Mou on September 22, 2017, accessary have card of pet health immunity. Because yellow later gentleman is versed in need is away on official business, facilitate with the month 24 days take the dog pet shop to have ask sb to bring up one's child.
But those who make Mr Huang did not think of is, on October 1, 2017 midday, the staff member of pet shop calls him suddenly, the pet dog that informs fosterage is already gone. In negotiate claim for compensation not to have fruit hind, mr Huang chooses to call the police and to lodge a complaint.
Mr Huang thinks: The healthy immunity card that the pet dog that oneself buy carries is false testimony, personnel Lin Mou, Zhao Mou reachs pet store related pet shop (Lin Mou carries for pet shop business charter bright operator, zhao Mou is real operator) tripartite should compensate for him to add up to jointly 38750 yuan (contain retreat compensate of expenses of payment for goods, transportation, 3 times manage, spirit to damage solatium to wait) .
During first instance, litigant agent Peng Mou of Zhao Mou submitted the accredit proxy of Lin Mou of another the accused to the court, entrust litigant agent what Peng Mou becomes 3 defendant jointly, lin Mou did not participate litigation to front courtyard.
On front courtyard, zhao some argue says: After seeing pet dog, at that time just buy Mr Huang certainly, attribute bilateral and voluntary action. And pet shop does not accept fosterage commonly, pet shop mentions expressly on the receipt that issues to Mr Huang at that time help fosterage, but gave problem pet shop to need not be carried duty. In addition, the dog that pet shop sells is northeast and airborne come over, doing not have epidemic prevention card cannot carry into line space.
Graph from the network
Classics cognizance, court of first instance thinks the pet dog of Mr Huang at buying hind arrive during fosterage weak point die namely inside a few days, the behavior of 3 the accused belongs to a flaw to fulfill. Shop of record of the agreement of purchase and sale that offers according to both sides, connection, pet accepts the testimony such as the receipt of fosterage, the request that court of first instance returns the money that buy a dog to Mr Huang gives support, adjudicate 3 the accused assume this case responsibility jointly, need altogether to return 3500 yuan to Mr Huang.
After first instance result gives heat, mr Huang and Zhao Mou all mention to Fosan quadrangle appeal.
Fosan quadrangle contacts Lin Mou to appear in court again in 2 careful process, but Lin Mou states its are right however careful of first instance front courtyard none know the inside story.
Via examining, the court discovers Zhao Mou forged Lin Mou's autograph to issue false accredit a power of attorney with Lin Mou's name in first instance, bring about Lin Mou to fail to join first instance suit. Because fail to reach intercessory agreement between the party of this case, final court decision of first instance of cancel of 2 careful ruling, send heavy careful.
Considering Zhao Mou ill will falsifies litigant document, enroach on the litigant right of another party, wasteful judicatory resource while made conduct of cloggy and civil suit, fosan quadrangle makes punishment decide at the near future, give to Zhao Mou 20 thousand yuan amerce is handled.
