Is it hard to apologize to Qiong Yao for Yu Zhengs infringement case?

category:Global
 Is it hard to apologize to Qiong Yao for Yu Zhengs infringement case?


According to the official WeChat public number of the Beijing court, Beijing law network revealed that Yu Zheng refused to perform the obligation to apologize publicly to Chen Zhe (Qiong Yao) and eliminate the influence in the courts judgment, and Chen Zhe applied for enforcement according to law. The third intermediate court of Beijing implemented the case in April 26th, and published the main contents of the judgment in the Legal Daily. As early as in December 25, 2015, Beijing third intermediate peoples court declared, palace lock Liancheng violated the adaptation of Mei Hua brand, Yu Zheng was asked to make an apology to Qiong Yao publicly, and the five defendants were awarded a total of 5 million yuan. Since the courts verdict has come into effect long ago, the losing party must be conscientiously fulfilled, and the legal obligations that should be done here are not only material and moral, but the purpose is not only to compensate for the economic loss of the other side, but also to the spiritual trauma. Perhaps, in the eyes of positive, such as the apology, elimination of influence and other legal obligations, do not ignore the influence, but the peoples court can not ignore. According to the eleventh article of the Supreme Peoples Court on several questions on the case of the right to hear the right of reputation, the infringer refuses to perform the effective judgment, does not restore the reputation of the other party and eliminates the influence, the peoples court may announce the main contents and related circumstances of the decision by announcements and announcements, and the expenses shall be carried out by the executor. Take it. That is to say, it is reasonable for the court to enforce the case in accordance with the law. Now, the case has been enforced, is it time to tie up the knot? Has Yu Zheng passed? Of course not. Behind the above judicial interpretation, there is another article, which can be dealt with in accordance with the sixth provisions of the 102nd article of the civil procedure law. That is to say, the peoples court may impose a fine or detention on the basis of the seriousness of the case; if it constitutes a crime, it may be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law. In this case, the courts verdict has come into effect, the executive judge, by dialing telephone, judicial post, and micro-blog informing, has been sent to Yu Zhengs company to deliver legal documents, and has been rejected by various excuses. The latter has refused to perform the people. The court has already made a verdict of legal effect. In addition to forcing the newspaper to be published, the court may impose a fine, detention or even criminal liability on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case. Not only that, the 232nd article of the civil procedure law also stipulates that the Executor shall double payment of the debt interest during the period of delay in performance of the obligation of payment without the time specified by the judgment, ruling and other legal documents, the executor does not perform it in the period specified by the judgment, the ruling and other legal documents. If he is under the obligation, he shall pay the delay in performance. Yu Zheng, who was convicted of infringement, should be required to pay the delay in performance despite the refusal to perform any other obligation other than monetary obligations. In fact, the enforcement of Qiong Yao is also a difficult judicial problem for a long time. In 2016, the supreme law issued the work outline for implementing the basic solution to the difficulty of implementation in two to three years. Subsequently, all over the country continued to innovate in the punishment of old Lai and gained some results. Yu Zheng was forced to publish newspapers by the court, owing to the Qiong Yaos courage and the support of the judiciary. But justice should not stop here. Since the law stipulates explicitly, we should let the disrespect of the judiciary and the failure of the obligation pay a heavier price. The law must be punished and the law enforcement must be strict. Only by deep learning can we frighten the old Lai and gradually reduce the difficulty of execution. The source of this article: surging news writer: Ouyang Chen Yu responsibility editor: Ji Ke _b6492 Not only that, the 232nd article of the civil procedure law also stipulates that the Executor shall double payment of the debt interest during the period of delay in performance of the obligation of payment without the time specified by the judgment, ruling and other legal documents, the executor does not perform it in the period specified by the judgment, the ruling and other legal documents. If he is under the obligation, he shall pay the delay in performance. Yu Zheng, who was convicted of infringement, should be required to pay the delay in performance despite the refusal to perform any other obligation other than monetary obligations. In fact, the enforcement of Qiong Yao is also a difficult judicial problem for a long time. In 2016, the supreme law issued the work outline for implementing the basic solution to the difficulty of implementation in two to three years. Subsequently, all over the country continued to innovate in the punishment of old Lai and gained some results. Yu Zheng was forced to publish newspapers by the court, owing to the Qiong Yaos courage and the support of the judiciary. But justice should not stop here. Since the law stipulates explicitly, we should let the disrespect of the judiciary and the failure of the obligation pay a heavier price. The law must be punished and the law enforcement must be strict. Only by deep learning can we frighten the old Lai and gradually reduce the difficulty of execution.