The death allowance for placement was interrupted and the court decided to continue.

category:Global
 The death allowance for placement was interrupted and the court decided to continue.


In 2014, Zhou Army (pseudonym) and a Real Estate Company, a cooperative signed the housing housing demolition compensation and resettlement agreement, a total of 8 people, including the daughter Zhou Fang (pseudonym) of a fetus. Soon, Zhou Fang aborted, so the other side did not pay the money before signing the agreement. Therefore, Zhou Jun sued a Real Estate Company and a cooperative to the court and asked the two party to pay the turnover subsidy to 37500 yuan. Recently, the Tongzhou Court concluded the case and sentenced the two defendants to pay 34500 yuan for the weekly turnover subsidy. Whether a subsidy is issued after the death of a fetus is dissension In 2014, the Zhou army, a Real Estate Company and a cooperative signed the agreement on compensation and resettlement of housing demolition (hereinafter referred to as the settlement agreement). It agreed that a total of 8 people (including a fetus) who enjoyed the housing resettlement from the residential buildings in the Zhou army were 8 people (including a fetus) in accordance with the villagers subsidy conditions. But after Zhou Fangs abortion, a Real Estate Company and a cooperative did not pay the turnaround fee of the 8 people according to the agreement, but in most months the subsidy was paid by the 7 people. Because the two sides should disagree on whether the birth of the fetus should be paid after the death of the fetus, the Zhou army appealed to the court and asked a Real Estate Company and a cooperative to pay 37500 yuan for the payment of the turnover. A Real Estate Company believes that the policy documents involved in the demolition of the case have stipulated: the baby born in 10 months from the date of the beginning of the reward period, with the certificate issued by the hospital, and the birth of the baby from the date of the beginning of the reward period, and the award period for the demolition projects began in December 21, 2013. After the death of the fetus identified as the resettled population, Zhou Fang became pregnant again and gave birth to a baby boy on 28 December 2014. According to the regulations, the boy does not conform to the conditions of being resettled, so he should not be identified as a resettled population. The dismantlement policy documents on both sides are inconsistent The court found that in January 2014, the Zhou army and the Real Estate Company signed the settlement agreement, which agreed that the turnover allowance was 1000 yuan per person per month, once every half a year. The two sides jointly confirmed that the resettlement personnel included Zhou Fang, the daughter of Zhou Jun and the fetus in Zhou Fangs abdomen when the agreement was signed. Shortly after the agreement was signed, Zhou Fang had a miscarriage. In March of the same year, Zhou Fang became pregnant again, and in December 28, 2014, he had a son (DI). In response, the cooperative explained that no payment of the turnover allowance should be paid before Zhou Jun did not provide legal evidence of the fetus. After the death of the fetus was discovered, the working allowance for the person was stopped immediately, and the working subsidy was actually issued by a Real Estate Company. During the trial, the court found that the demolition policy documents submitted by a Real Estate Company were not consistent with those provided by Zhou Jun. According to the investigation of the Committee on housing construction, the demolition policy documents in the housing construction commission are in agreement with the Zhou army, and the contents of the case described by a Real Estate Company are not contained in the document. The court shall judge the validity of the contract according to 8 persons Yin Bowen, the judge, said that when the two sides signed the settlement agreement, the agreement had been reached according to the population status of the houses removed at that time, and the settlement was determined to be 8, but the two defendant did not pay the turnover allowance in accordance with the agreed full amount, violating the agreement between the two parties. In the period from July 2014 to December 2015, the two defendants paid the turnaround fee to the Zhou army according to the standard of 8, so it was presumed that the two defendant signed the resettlement agreement to confirm that the one family in the Zhou army paid the turnover allowance according to 8 people. But she also mentioned that the two defendants should pay the specific amount of the turnover subsidy based on the courts verification. As for the Real Estate Companys opinion that Xiao Di does not conform to the conditions of resettlement, judge Yin Bowen said that the demolition policy document is only a policy guide and does not have a direct legal binding on the parties signed by the settlement agreement. After the change of Zhou Fangs health condition, the two sides failed to reach a new agreement, so the two defendants should still perform their obligations according to the resettlement agreement. Source: Beiqing Net - Beijing Youth Daily editor: Xun Jianguo _NN7379