Typical Cases of People's Courts (4 in total)

catalogue

1. Sand Port Company v. Kaitian Company for Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan

2. Dispute case between Zhang Fengchun and the medical service contract of Tai'an Central Hospital

3. Zhao Chunlian's Application for Execution of Zhang Yuhao's Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Case

4. Pan Wencai's Application for the Execution of the Dispute over the Contract for the Transfer of Creditor's Rights

1、 Sha Gang Company v. Kai Tian Company for Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 11, 2010, the Songjiang Court issued a civil judgment (2010) Songmin'er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 275, stating that Rongcheng Company should pay the payment and corresponding interest losses to Shagang Company. After the judgment in Case No. 275 came into effect, the execution process was terminated due to the failure to verify the property clues available for execution by Rongcheng Company. After the cancellation of Rongcheng Company, Shagang Company applied for resumption of execution, and the Songjiang Court ruled to resume execution. The shareholders of Rongcheng Company, Kaitian Company and 7 natural person shareholders, were added as the executors, and they were responsible to Shagang Company within the scope of their respective false contributions. A total of 696505.68 yuan (including 450000 yuan of insufficient contributions from Kaitian Company) was deducted from the funds of Kaitian Company and 4 natural person shareholders. On July 18, 2012, the court filed two lawsuits against Kaitian Company: (2012) Songmin Er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 1436 case and (2012) Songmin San (Min) Chu Zi No. 2084 case. Kaitian Company required 8 shareholders of Rongcheng Company to bear joint and several liability for the debt owed by Rongcheng Company to Kaitian Company of RMB 10000, as well as corresponding interest, housing rent, and corresponding overdue payment penalty, within the scope of their respective false capital contributions. After the judgments in both cases take effect, they enter the execution process.

On February 27, 2013, Shagang Company received the "Distribution Plan for Additional Shareholders' Execution Funds of the Executed Person Rongcheng Company" sent by the Executive Bureau of Songjiang Court. The distribution plan table consolidates the three cases mentioned above, and determines that the execution amount of 696505.68 yuan will be distributed in the same proportion as 31.825% after the first repayment of the litigation costs in the three cases. In the future, the execution will continue until the payment is distributed. Shagang Company later submitted an "Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan" to the Songjiang Court, stating that Kaitian Company cannot participate in the distribution of the funds deducted due to insufficient capital contributions, and does not recognize the failure of the distribution plan to include double interest on overdue payments as the subject matter of execution. Kaitian Company raised objections to Shagang Company's aforementioned implementation of the distribution plan and requested that it be distributed according to the original plan. The Songjiang Court filed this letter with Shagang Company. On April 27, 2013, the Songjiang Court accepted the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Shagang Company in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, it has been found that the above-mentioned three cases' judgment documents have determined the amount of registered capital that each shareholder of Rongcheng Company should pay and the actual amount paid.

（2） Judgment results

The court held in the first instance that this case is an objection to the implementation of the distribution plan. There are two controversial points between the plaintiff and defendant in this case regarding the relevant execution distribution plan. Firstly, regarding the deduction of 450000 yuan by the court due to the untrue investment of Kaitian Company, can Kaitian Company jointly distribute this part of the execution payment with Shagang Company on the grounds that it also has a debt to the company; The second is whether the subject matter of execution should include double payment of debt interest during the delayed performance period. Regarding the first focus of controversy, the company law clearly stipulates that shareholders of a limited liability company shall be liable to the company to the extent of their subscribed capital contributions. The 450000 yuan deducted by Kaitian Company due to false investment should first supplement the liability assets of Rongcheng Company to repay the plaintiff Shagang Company as an external creditor of the company. Kaitian Company demands to participate in the distribution of its own deducted funds due to its creditor's rights towards Rongcheng Company, which is unfair to external creditors of the company and contradicts the legal principle that shareholders of the company are responsible for the company based on their capital contributions. The suggestion that 450000 yuan of the execution fee of 696505.68 yuan should be compensated by the plaintiff first, and the remaining amount should be distributed proportionally should be adopted. Regarding the second focus of controversy, the relevant civil judgments in cases 275, 1436, and 2084 have all ordered that if the debtor fails to fulfill the monetary debt within the specified period, the debt interest during the delayed performance period must be doubled. Therefore, the plaintiff Shagang Company's claim that the subject matter of execution should include double payment of interest during the period of delayed performance of the debt is adopted. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have clarified the calculation method for the double interest claimed during the delayed performance period. The plaintiff Shagang Company's claim for the disputed execution distribution plan is basically valid, and the court has made adjustments in accordance with the law. After the first instance judgment, if no party has filed an appeal, the first instance judgment shall take effect.

（3） Typical significance

The main dispute between the parties involved in this case regarding the implementation of the distribution plan lies in whether the shareholders who make false contributions can distribute the above-mentioned funds with external creditors based on their creditor's rights to the company after assuming shareholder responsibility for the false contributions to external creditors of the company and being deducted funds. In this regard, Chinese law has not yet clearly stipulated it, and the principle of equitable subordination established in the Deep Stone case in American history has certain reference significance for the handling of this case. In the trial practice of such cases, allowing shareholders with false capital contributions to be in the same order of repayment as external creditors for their debts to the company will not only result in unfair treatment of external creditors of the company, but also contradict the legal responsibilities imposed by the company law on shareholders with false capital contributions. Therefore, this case ultimately denied the claim that shareholders with false capital contributions should receive equal compensation in order, which has a good social effect and has good reference significance for the handling of similar cases.

2、 Zhang Fengchun and the Medical Service Contract Dispute Case of Tai'an Central Hospital

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Zhang Fengchun was injured in a road traffic accident and hospitalized at Tai'an Central Hospital in Shandong Province. The diagnosis of the injury was multiple soft tissue injuries throughout the body, and he was hospitalized for 43 days. During the hospitalization, he spent 16747.64 yuan on medical expenses and 4 yuan on examination fees, totaling 16751.64 yuan. After leaving the hospital, the plaintiff sued the infringer Kong Fanzhong and China United Insurance Tai'an Branch Company to the People's Court of Mount Taishan District, Tai'an City for compensation for their economic losses caused by the traffic accident on the ground of motor vehicle traffic accident liability. During the trial process of this case, China United Insurance Taian Branch applied to review the rationality of the plaintiff's medication during hospitalization, and excluded medication unrelated to the injuries caused by traffic accidents. The judicial appraisal opinion issued by the Tai'an Dongyue Judicial Appraisal Institute believes that the indication for the medication used by Zhang Fengchun during his hospitalization, ozagrel sodium, is to treat acute thrombotic cerebral infarction and the movement disorders accompanying cerebral infarction. The traffic accident injury of the appraised person was diagnosed as multiple soft tissue contusions throughout the body. Therefore, ozagrel sodium is an unreasonable medication in the treatment of this injury, and the cost should be removed at 7250.40 yuan. The plaintiff raised objections to the appraisal conclusion and applied for judicial appraiser Yang Fengqiang to appear in court for questioning. At the same time, they applied for their attending physicians Lou Yanhua and Wang Zhen to testify in court. The plaintiff's attending physicians also failed to clearly prove the rationality and necessity between the use of the drug Ozagrel sodium and the treatment of the plaintiff's injury. The court accepted the appraisal opinion and ruled that the 7250.40 yuan spent on the use of ozagrel sodium during the plaintiff's hospitalization for injury was unreasonable medication and should be deducted within the compensation scope. Therefore, the plaintiff informed the court and requested the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital to compensate for the economic losses suffered due to unreasonable medication.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tai'an District, Tai'an City, after trial, found that the plaintiff was hospitalized at the defendant's place for treatment, and a medical service contract relationship was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant should use drugs based on the plaintiff's condition and provide medical services to the plaintiff in the correct way and means. According to the appraisal opinion and civil judgment of the Tai'an Dongyue Judicial Appraisal Institute, it is sufficient to determine that the drug Ozagrel sodium used by the plaintiff Zhang Fengchun during his hospitalization due to traffic accident injury is unreasonable. The indication for the drug ozagrel sodium is to treat acute thrombotic cerebral infarction and motor disorders associated with cerebral infarction. The plaintiff stated that they did not have a history of acute thrombotic cerebral infarction or related diseases, and there were no records of the plaintiff suffering from or having suffered from the aforementioned diseases in the current and past medical records provided by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital did not provide reasonable and appropriate medical services to the plaintiff based on their condition. The plaintiff should compensate for the losses caused by the defendant's unreasonable medication behavior during the treatment process. The court ruled that Tai'an Central Hospital compensated the plaintiff Zhang Fengchun with a total of 7750.40 yuan in economic losses. The defendant has fulfilled the judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Medical service contracts are contracts that adjust the rights and obligations between medical institutions and patients. At present, the number of medical disputes in China is increasing, which not only affects the psychology of patients and their families, but also increases the psychological pressure of medical personnel, reducing the reputation and image of medical units and medical personnel in society. In practice, there are indeed some medical institutions or personnel who prescribe expensive or unnecessary drugs to patients in pursuit of economic benefits, which increases the economic burden on patients. This case orders the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses caused by the plaintiff's unreasonable drug use behavior. Through this case, it is reminded that medical institutions should adhere to the principle of "saving lives and injuries, treating diseases and saving people" in the process of providing services to patients, provide appropriate treatment plans for patients based on necessary and reasonable principles, strengthen communication with patients and their families, fully respect patients' right to know, and build a harmonious doctor-patient relationship.

3、 Zhao Chunlian's Application for Execution of Zhang Yuhao's Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

At 21:41 on July 31, 2010, Li Fusheng had a motor vehicle traffic accident with the respondent Zhang Yuhao while driving a tricycle (later taking the applicant Zhao Chunlian). The accident caused Zhao Chunlian to suffer from traumatic brain injury and schizophrenia, with first degree disability and loss of litigation ability. After appraisal by the traffic management department, Zhang Yuhao is fully responsible for the accident. In March 2011, Li Fusheng, the husband of Zhao Chunlian, filed a lawsuit on his behalf to the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing. The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing: Zhang Yuhao compensated Zhao Chunlian with a total of over 1.29 million yuan in medical expenses, work delay expenses, disability compensation, and hospitalization food subsidies. After the judgment was made, Zhang Yuhao appealed to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, which issued a civil mediation agreement that determined that Zhang Yuhao would pay Zhao Chunlian a total of 900000 yuan in compensation in installments. Zhang Yuhao paid Zhao Chunlian 200000 yuan on the day of the mediation agreement, and the remaining compensation will no longer be paid according to the mediation agreement. Therefore, Li Fusheng, on behalf of Zhao Chunlian, applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing on July 23, 2012, which was accepted in accordance with the law.

During the execution process, the court promptly issued a notice of execution and repeatedly summoned the person subjected to execution, Zhang Yuhao. Zhang Yuhao refused to appear or hide his whereabouts. The presiding judge visited the person's residence multiple times to search for Zhang Yuhao, but did not find his whereabouts. The accident vehicle under Zhang Yuhao's name has been sealed down according to law, but the vehicle cannot be found. The balance of seven bank accounts under his name is zero or only a few tens of yuan, and there is no real estate registration information under his name. The case has not made actual progress. The person applying for execution in this case, Zhao Chunlian, lost his ability to work and was unable to take care of himself. The refusal of the person being executed resulted in a difficult life for the applicant's family. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement, the court has increased its efforts to search for clues about the property of the executed person Zhang Yuhao. The presiding judge has visited insurance companies, banks, and other institutions to inquire about Zhang Yuhao's insurance claim withdrawal and financial transactions. It was found that Zhang Yuhao received the 100000 yuan commercial third-party liability insurance claim paid by the insurance company before applying for enforcement after mediation in the second instance, but did not pay it to the applicant for enforcement. At the same time, it was found that although there were no deposits in his bank account, he had a monthly record of over 5000 yuan. After investigating the above situation, the presiding judge immediately contacted the father of the executed person Zhang Yuhao and demanded that Zhang Yuhao fulfill his obligations as soon as possible. Zhang Yuhao's father claimed that Zhang Yuhao was not in Beijing and was unable to fulfill his obligations, while Zhang Yuhao himself still refused to appear. In view of Zhang Yuhao's above-mentioned behavior of transferring property and evading execution, in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, on October 18, 2014, the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing transferred the case to the Fengtai Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau for investigation on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

（2） Execution results

After the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing accepted the case, the person subjected to execution, Zhang Yuhao, refused to appear, transferred his property, and evaded execution, suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. After the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing transferred the evidence clues of the case to the public security organs for investigation, Zhang Yuhao voluntarily paid 100000 yuan in the case. After being criminally detained, Zhang Yuhao's relatives handed over the remaining 600000 yuan in execution to the court, and the case was successfully concluded. At the same time, the Fengtai Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau transferred Zhang Yuhao to the Fengtai District People's Procuratorate of Beijing for prosecution on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. On February 4, 2015, the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing sentenced Zhang Yuhao to six months in prison with a one-year reprieve in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the person being executed refuses to execute and the criminal clues are transferred to the public security organs to pursue their criminal responsibility. The subject matter of this case is relatively large, so considering the ability of the person to be executed to perform, the mediation agreement of the second instance court determines that the defendant Zhang Yuhao will perform in installments. But the defendant Zhang Yuhao did not actively fulfill his obligations after the mediation agreement came into effect, disregarding the court's judgment and disregarding judicial authority. After the applicant Zhao Chunlian applied for execution, the executed person Zhang Yuhao intentionally concealed his whereabouts and transferred his property to evade execution, with obvious subjective malice, which further expanded the damage caused by the accident to the applicant and caused extreme hardship to his family life. After the judge obtained evidence of the defendant's transfer of property and evasion of execution, he again demanded that the person subjected to execution fulfill his obligations and informed him that if he continued to evade execution, he would bear criminal responsibility. However, the person subjected to execution still refused to appear, resisted court execution, and disregarded judicial authority. In view of the above-mentioned actions of the person subjected to execution, the presiding judge shall, in accordance with relevant legal provisions, transfer the evidence and clues of their refusal to execute the effective judgment of the court to the public security organs for investigation and investigation, and hold them criminally responsible. In the end, under the deterrence of criminal punishment, the executed person voluntarily fulfilled the judgment obligation, which also proves from another aspect that they actually have the ability to fulfill. The executed person Zhang Yuhao will inevitably pay a heavy price for his actions that damage judicial authority and disrupt judicial order. This case has upheld the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, safeguarded the dignity of the law and the judiciary, and warned and deterred all executed persons who intend to refuse to fulfill their obligations or refuse to fulfill the obligations determined by court judgments and rulings.

4、 Pan Wencai's Application for Execution of the Dispute over the Contract for Transfer of Creditor's Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

The applicant Pan Wenchai, based on the civil judgment made by the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, applies to the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing for enforcement. The respondent, Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. Beijing Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch (hereinafter referred to as Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch), is required to pay the payment, penalty, and debt interest during the delayed performance period, totaling over 1.15 million yuan. The execution court found through relevant inquiries and on-site inspections that the Road Tong Tai Construction Branch is unable to fulfill all its debts.

（2） Execution results

After investigation by the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, it has been found that the defendant, Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch, is a branch of an enterprise legal person and does not have the legal personality to independently bear civil liability. Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. is an enterprise legal person, which is the founding unit of the executed person Road Tong Tai Construction Branch. When the branch established by Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. is unable to repay its debts to the outside world, the enterprise legal person shall be responsible for the repayment of the branch established by it to the outside world. Therefore, it is ruled in accordance with the law that Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. shall be added as the person to be executed in this case. Subsequently, the People's Court of Tongzhou District in Beijing took a series of compulsory enforcement measures against Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd., and the case was concluded.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a dispute over a debt transfer contract between an individual and a branch, which is a typical execution case where the branch is unable to repay and the head office assumes responsibility. After adding Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongfu Construction Company) as the subject of execution, the enterprise neglected to fulfill its debts, evaded execution, and seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant. The enforcement court has taken a series of enforcement measures against Zhongfu Construction Company. Among them, a dishonest executor system with execution linkage effect is adopted, and Zhongfu Construction Company is included in the list of dishonest executors and announced to the whole society. At the same time, the Zhongfu Construction Company is restricted from high consumption, and the legal representative Zhuang Qingliang, who is directly responsible, is restricted from high consumption and fined for punishment. Zhongfu Construction Company was unable to carry out bidding business due to being included in the dishonest list, and the legal representative Zhuang Qingliang was personally punished. The company took the initiative to negotiate with the applicant Pan Wenchai, reached a settlement agreement, and fulfilled the relevant debts as agreed.

In the execution of this case, the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing upheld the rights and interests of the applicant by adding the executed person in accordance with the law. The executing judge adopts various execution measures and relevant linkage mechanisms to deter the executed person and legal representative, and promote their active performance of debts. At the same time, relevant enterprises can recognize the legal responsibility of the head office and the legal risks involved from this case, which can to some extent regulate the behavior of relevant enterprises.