60 mu of land changed to 200,000 mu? 317 mistakes in a judgment of Hunan Higher Court

category:Hot
 60 mu of land changed to 200,000 mu? 317 mistakes in a judgment of Hunan Higher Court


More than 60 mu of land was transformed into 200,000 mu in the judgment, spanning four provinces; 38891407 yuan was awarded 38891407 million yuan, tens of millions of debts instantly rose to astronomical figures; Construction Bank 51 Road Branch replaced ICBC 51 Road Branch into a lawsuit.

These errors come from a civil judgment issued by Hunan Provincial Higher Peoples Court on December 11, 2014, which concerns a dispute over the contract for the transfer of the right to the use of state-owned land. The plaintiff of the case, Changsha Jinxia Development and Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinxia Company), pointed out to the reporters of China Times that 317 errors occurred in the 33-page judgment, with an average of 9.6 errors per page. In addition to punctuation symbols, illness sentences and other low-level errors, there are also errors in the names of institutions and the amount of money involved.

More than 3,000 times the land area involved

The plaintiff, Jinxia Company, provided the verdict to reporters. Writing errors have been corrected with red pens, and red handwritten notes on many pages look dense.

One of the mistakes is very striking. The state-owned land in question covers an area of 43000 square meters, about 60 mu, and is located in Kaifu District, Changsha City. According to the judgment, the four coordinates of land are X-106680.328 and Y-49099.555 in the northeast, X-106606.352 and Y-48822.448 in the northwest, X-1066525.352 and Y-49139.335 in the southeast and X-106451.799 and Y-48863.881 in the southwest.

However, Jinxia Company provided a survey and appraisal report of land under its name, which was commissioned by Kaifu District Court to Hunan Wanyuan Land Real Estate Assessment Surveying and Mapping Co., Ltd. in June last year. Among them, the land area enclosed by the above coordinates is 133011362.53 square meters, about 200,000 mu, covering four provinces of Hunan, Hubei, Henan and Shanxi, which is more than 3,000 times larger than the area of the land involved.

The defendant in this case is the Changsha Transportation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Transportation Bureau), which filed a counterclaim in the course of the trial of the case. Their counterclaim to the court was accompanied by the annex Basic Situation of Disputed Land, which indicated four points and eight coordinates of the land involved. During the court hearing, the Transportation Bureau also submitted the Land Division Coordinate Map as evidence, and also indicated the coordinate points of the land involved. The court recognized the authenticity of the traffic bureau evidence and accepted it.

However, the coordinates of the land involved in the judgment are different from those of the two materials. The deviations in data are quite different from the facts.

An average of 9.6 errors per page

If the errors of coordinates 4 to 4 are not easily detected without the measurement by a third-party measuring mechanism, the other errors seem too distracted.

On November 11, 2015, the second instance of the Supreme Court was held. When checking the identity of the original appearing person of the court of first instance, three of the four parties were found to have made mistakes. Among them, the principal agent of the first instance plaintiff is the lawyer of Hunan Xianyun Law Firm, but the verdict writes Chongmin; the defendant Changsha Transportation Bureau is written by Changsha Transportation Administration Bureau; and the third person, Changsha Jiangwan Science and Technology Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiangwan Company) has less investment in the verdict. Jiangwan Company is charged part of the litigation costs by the first instance order, but because of the difference between the two words, they can not pay in the name of the company.

Apart from the mistakes in the names of the three parties, there are also mistakes in the names of the institutions involved in the judgment of the first instance. For example, Changsha Land Administration Bureau was written by Changsha Land Bureau, Changsha Natural Resources and Planning Bureau was written by Changsha Planning Bureau. Jinxia said there were less than 20 units involved in the verdict, but 16 names were incorrect.

The judgment mentions that in a previous contract dispute, the third person, Jiangwan Company, repaid the debt of 38891407 yuan on behalf of Jinxia Company, a branch of ICBC Wuyi Road, and Jinxia Company should pay Jiangwan Company the right to use the land involved. However, in the judgment, 38891407 yuan was awarded as 38891407 million yuan, and the interest 591407 million yuan was written as 591407 yuan, which made the debt of Jinxia company suddenly turn into an astronomical figure of 388.9 billion yuan, and the interest was reduced to the minimum value of RMB which could not be paid.

And the creditor ICBC 51 Road Branch was crowned by Zhang in the judgment, writing Construction Bank 51 Road Branch.

According to the statistics of the plaintiff Jinxia Company, there were 317 mistakes in the civil judgment issued by Hunan Higher Court, including the mistakes of the name of the unit, coordinate points, amount of money, punctuation marks and so on. There were 33 pages of judgement, with an average of 9.6 errors per page.

On November 10, 2015, the Hunan High Court made a verdict of amendment No. 4-3, correcting 25 errors in the first instance verdict. The next day, the second instance of the case was heard in the Supreme Court.

Jinxia said that the actual date of the decision issued by the Hunan High Court was November 27, but the time was reversed to the day before the second instance. Only in this way can we ensure that the second instance is conducted on the basis of the `correctjudgment of the first instance.

At the same time, Jinxia pointed out that the service and return certificate of the corrected ruling has not been seen in the case file. The first instance file is a continuous pagination, but since the first appearance of 162 pages of `service return certificate, there have been many alterations in the page number.

Even if the Supreme Court corrected the errors in the first instance judgment during the second instance, the errors in the coordinate points were not corrected until the execution of the judgment document was discovered.

Lack of responsibility of judges

The collegial panel of the first instance in this case is composed of four persons, the chief judge Tang Yusong, the acting judges Liu Yang and Xiao Fang, and the acting clerk Xiang Ying. The verdict is full of errors, which means that the four members of the collegial panel did not find any problems and sent them directly to the parties, with illness into the second instance procedure.

Fu Yuge, a lawyer at Hebei Haizhiguang Law Firm, believes that so many errors in the verdict are caused by the judges apparent irresponsibility. Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the scope of the ruling includes the correction of written errors in the judgment. Fu Yuge believes that in the case that the Hunan Higher Court has issued a corrective ruling, the judges can only be dealt with within the courts accordingly, in addition, the judges can not be prosecuted in accordance with laws and regulations.

An in-service judge told reporters that a judgment had multiple procedural cross-checks before it was officially issued. The judgment is first deliberated by the collegial panel, then drafted by the undertaking officer, and then submitted to the members of the collegial panel for proofreading. After confirmation, all members sign the judgment, and finally the president approves and issues it. There are many errors in the effective judgment, depending on whether it has an impact on the substantive judgment of the case. If substantive errors occur, the president should bring them to the trial committee for retrial. The disciplinary Department of the court will also be responsible for the consequences of the errors. Serious errors may constitute a wrongful judgment. If it is only written errors that have no effect on the facts, the judgesyear-end performance will be judged according to the number of written errors. There are so many mistakes in writing, which reflects the lack of professional accomplishment and responsibility of judicial staff.

Source of this article: Responsible Editor of China Times: Qian Juanxiao_NBJ10675