(2000) Chat Line Final Word No.57

Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Yao Huaping, male, born in August, 1962, Han nationality, primary school education, farmer, living in Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Authorized Agent: Ge Runmin, legal worker of Dongchangfu District Central Law Firm in Liaocheng City.

Authorized Agent: Xing Tianhua, with the same occupation.

Appellee (defendant in the original trial): People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Legal Representative: Yue Qixiang, mayor of this town.

Authorized Agent: Yin Rukui, director of guanxian Qingshui Town Judicial Office.

The appellant Yao Huaping appealed to our court because he refused to accept the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court (1999)No. 16 1. Our hospital formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law, and the trial has now ended.

The case was tried by the People's Court of guanxian, and it was found that the People's Government of Qingshui Town of guanxian, the defendant, forcibly detained the tractor of the plaintiff Yao Huaping to Du Village's home on the first day of the fifth lunar month 1998, on the grounds that the plaintiff Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and its administrative action had no legal basis, so our court did not support it. Yao Huaping, the plaintiff, claimed that there was cash 1 10,000 yuan in his toolbox. After investigation, the evidence was insufficient, which was rejected by our court. According to the provisions of Item 3 and Item 4, Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the guanxian People's Court made a judgment with1999,65438:1on February 22nd. Revoke the administrative compulsory act of guanxian Qingshui Town People's Government to detain the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor; Two, the defendant guanxian Qingshui Town People's Government shall return the plaintiff Yao Huaping tractor within five days after the entry into force of this judgment; Three. Reject the plaintiff Yao Huaping's other claims. 400 yuan, the case acceptance fee, shall be borne by Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.

The appellant Yao Huaping refused to accept the judgment of first instance, and appealed on the grounds that the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court (16 1) found the facts unclear and the judgment was wrong, requesting the court of second instance to revise the judgment according to law.

The appealed People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian replied that the court of first instance found that the facts were clear, the procedure was legal, the applicable law was correct and the judgment was appropriate, and requested the court of second instance to uphold it according to law.

The evidence submitted by Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian was examined and cross-examined in the first instance. The main evidences submitted by the people's government of Qingshui Town of the appellee are: 1, Li's investigation record; 2. Li Chunling's testimony; 3. Investigate Du Jifeng's transcript; 4. After checking Li Chunze's transcript, all the above evidences prove that the appellant Yao Huaping had no cash in the tractor toolbox. 5. Investigate the transcripts of Li Shuling and Chen; 6. After checking Fan Yuling's transcript, it is proved that the tractor of the appellant Yao Huaping was detained in Du's home.

The appellant Yao Huaping's entrusted agent objected to the evidence provided by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, and submitted the following evidence: 1, Du's conversation transcript; 2. Xu Yifeng's inquiry record; 3. Testimony of Du Yu 'e and others. All the above evidences prove that the staff of Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian, the appellee, forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Dujia on 1 May, 19981,and refused to release it without paying the money.

We believe that the fact that the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the appellee, forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Dujia on May 1 day of the lunar calendar in 0998 on the grounds that Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng was established. This kind of administrative behavior has no legal basis and is illegal. Our hospital will not support it, and the tractor seized by the Appellee shall be returned. The appellant Yao Huaping claimed that there was cash 1 10,000 yuan in his tractor toolbox, which failed to provide sufficient evidence. The reason why he asked the Qingshui town government to return it could not be established, and our hospital did not support it. The original judgment was not improper and should be upheld according to law. According to Item (1) of Article 61 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

First, the trial fee of the second instance is RMB 100 each, which shall be borne by the Appellee guanxian People's Government and the Appellant Yao Huaping.

This is the final judgment.

Presiding Judge: Zhang

Examiner: Xue

Examiner: Zhang Faling

June 3(rd), 2000

Attorney: Zhou Gongfa.