?

Selected model essays on objection application in 2022 1

? Applicant: _ _ _ _ _ _, male, Han nationality, born on _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

? Yongchuan County Rural Credit Cooperative Union (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) v. the applicant for a loan contract dispute, which was tried by the Yongchuan People's Court of Chongqing in absentia, made a first-instance judgment of (20__) Yong Min Chu ZiNo.. 1683, which has taken legal effect and has entered the execution procedure. According to the ruling of Y.Z. (20__) No.00020-4, your institute has taken measures to freeze and transfer the applicant's bank deposits. The applicant believes that the original effective judgment found the facts wrong and infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, and hereby raises an objection.

? Requested items:

? I ruling to suspend the execution of ruling (20__) No.00020-4;

? Two, suspend the payment to the plaintiff has been deducted from the applicant's funds, so as not to cause the applicant's loss is irreparable;

? Three, unblock the frozen account of the applicant, so as not to expand the loss of the applicant.

? Facts and reasons:

? In the past 20 years, the applicant's bank account was sealed and frozen, and some funds were deducted, which caused great damage to the applicant's property and reputation. After learning from your institute, we learned that Yongchuan Rural Credit Cooperative Union v. the applicant for a loan contract dispute was tried by your institute in absentia, and a trial judgment of (_ _ _ _) Yong Min Chu Zi No. 1683, which has entered the execution procedure. The applicant is deeply indignant about this case, and the reasons for objecting to this effective judgment are as follows:

? 1. The applicant has never borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the applicant knows nothing about the plaintiff and borrowing 40,000 yuan from the plaintiff. Starting from _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

? 2. The applicant has never received the litigation documents and notices about this case from your hospital, and knows nothing about the progress of the litigation procedure in this case. It is hasty and wrong for the court to make a judgment by default without receiving any litigation documents and notices.

? The applicant has been living at No.08-/KLOC-0-3 Shengli Road, Yongchuan City for many years, and my family and children also live here. The plaintiff never left during the litigation. As long as the plaintiff and the court want to get in touch with the applicant, they can get the communication method and address through various channels; If the court can fulfill its obligation to inform, there is no reason for the applicant not to know about the loan or even the lawsuit. The court only relied on the sentence "the applicant's whereabouts are unknown" in the plaintiff's interrogation record, which violated the rigor and authority of the law and was obviously reckless and irresponsible.

? 3. The applicant has never borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the applicant has never entrusted others to borrow money from the plaintiff.

? After the applicant copied the relevant materials from the court, after careful identification, the applicant did not sign the loan application, mortgage loan contract, real estate mortgage contract, loan receipt and other documents, and the signatures on these documents were all signed by others using their own names. At the same time, the applicant did not entrust anyone to borrow money from the plaintiff. Accordingly, the applicant should not bear any legal responsibility for repayment, and the judgment of the court of first instance on the applicant's repayment lacks factual and legal basis.

? Four, the plaintiff's loan application, mortgage loan contract, real estate mortgage contract, loan receipt and other documents used to prove the "loan relationship" with the applicant, should not be used as the basis for judgment. My signature in the above-mentioned evidence submitted by the plaintiff was forged by others. Therefore, it is against common sense and law to make a judgment by default without fulfilling the obligation of informing without verifying the authenticity of the evidence.

? V. The evidence provided by the plaintiff shows that it is wrong for the court to bring a lawsuit on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

? To sum up, the applicant believes that the original effective judgment found the facts wrong, and now it is based on

? I am here to convey

? Yongchuan people's court

? Applicant:

? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

? Selected demonstration papers on application for execution objection in 2022 II

? Applicant: Yang Hui (chairman and shareholder of Hefei Fengtian Yutong Equipment Co., Ltd.), female, born in 1972, Han nationality, living in Room 102, Building 5, Wenjing Yaju, Ma 'anshan South Road, Hefei.

? Xiang Xinghai (shareholder of Hefei Fengtian Yutong Equipment Co., Ltd.), male, born in197/kloc-0, Han nationality, with the same address as above. Tel: * *.

? Authorized Agent: Xu Qingsheng, legal officer of Anhui Kai 'an Law Firm.

? Respondent: Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd.

? apply for a project

? 1. There is objection to adding Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsider) as the executors of the arbitration award application for arrears dispute between Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. and Hefeng Tianyutong Equipment Co., Ltd.;

? 2. Have objections to the property execution of Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsiders)-seal up the property of Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsiders).

? Facts and reasons

? 20xx65438+On February 29th, the respondent Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. filed an application with Hefei Intermediate People's Court, requesting: 1, adding Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai as the respondent Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. to apply for the execution of the case of Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. [(20xx) He Zhi Shen Zi No.66]. 2. Applicant Yang Hui made a false contribution of 445,000 yuan to Xinghai, and the debts owed to the applicant within the scope of false contribution shall be borne by the two respondents.

? Hefei Intermediate People's Court (Ye Hongwei [[20xx]], presiding judge of CoCo Lee City, Wu Tao) ruled that the joint trial word No.02 was as follows: 1. Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai were added as the executors in this case; 2. The unpaid part of the debt confirmed by Hefei Arbitration Commission (20xx) Hezongzi No.092 award is Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai's false capital contribution. Within the scope of 50,000 yuan, * * * shall be responsible for repayment. If you refuse to accept this ruling, you can apply for reconsideration to the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province through our hospital within ten days from the date of service of this ruling.

? Applicants Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsiders) reviewed the case in the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province. The Higher People's Court of Anhui Province ruled that the civil ruling of Hefei Intermediate People's Court (20xx) No.02 was revoked.

? [20xx] On July 10, Hefei Intermediate People's Court ruled as follows: 1. Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai were added as the executors of this case; 2. The unpaid part of the debt confirmed by Hefei Arbitration Commission (20xx) Hezongzi No.092 award is Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai's false capital contribution. Within the scope of 50,000 yuan, * * * shall be responsible for repayment. Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai shall fulfill the above repayment obligations to Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd., the application executor, within ten days from the effective date of this ruling. If the above obligations are not fulfilled within the time limit, the court will enforce them according to law. This ruling shall take legal effect as of the date of service.

? On August 13, 20xx, Hefei Intermediate People's Court (executed by Zhang Yong) issued a civil ruling to Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd., Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai, and sealed up Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsider) (20xx). [20xx] On August 13, 20xx, the administrative ruling Shenzi No.66 and the civil ruling Shenzi No.66 stayed in the finance office of Chuzhou Sanhuan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd.!

? The applicant for execution objection thinks that:

? 1. The above-mentioned behavior procedure of Hefei Intermediate People's Court was wrong.

? 1. Hefei Intermediate People's Court (the presiding judge, judges Chen Zhong and He Jin did not hold a hearing, nor did they give the applicants Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai the right to argue, so they executed the ruling [[20xx]] No.66-3] and deprived the applicants Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsiders) of the right to argue.

? 2.[[20xx]] Juzhi Shenzi No.66-3 ruled that Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai were illegally deprived of all litigation rights by arbitration instead of judgment!

? 3. [[20xx]] No.66-3 ruled that Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsiders) were added as the executors of this case, and no objection period was given to them, which was illegal.

? 4. [20xx] No.66-3 executive ruling and (20xx) No.66 civil ruling were delivered illegally. Chuzhou Sanhuan Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. is neither an executed person nor an interested party, so the so-called lien service is not applicable at all-the executed person Zhang Yong stayed in the finance office of Chuzhou Sanhuan Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. on August 20xx 13!

? 2. Hefei Intermediate People's Court found that the above-mentioned behaviors were entity errors.

? 1. Defendant Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. submitted the Capital Verification Report of Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. to the collegial panel in the trial procedure of Hefei Intermediate People's Court (presiding judge Ye Hongwei, judge CoCo Lee, judge Wu Tao [[20xx]] Heshen No.02): regarding the contribution in kind, the capital verification has been completed, and the mobile phone has been transferred to Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd.!

? 2. The respondent Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. has no evidence to prove that: a. After Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. (the executed person) was revoked, cancelled or closed, Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (the outsider) accepted the property of the executed person for free, which caused the executed person to be unable to perform; B. Yang Hui and Xiang Xinghai (outsider) did not fully contribute to Hefu Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd. (in fact, all the contributions have been put in place and verified by Anhui Zhongan Certified Public Accountants).

? 3. The respondent Anhui Guo Xin Communication Co., Ltd. has no evidence to prove that the person subjected to execution (Hefei Feng Tianyu Communication Equipment Co., Ltd.) can't pay off the debts, but the people's court may, upon the application of the applicant or the person subjected to execution, issue a notice to the third party to pay off the debts due.

? 3. Hefei Intermediate People's Court applied legal errors to the above acts.

? The following laws shall apply:

? 1. Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) * * * If the parties or interested parties think that the enforcement act violates the law, they may file a written objection to the people's court responsible for enforcement. If a party or interested party raises a written objection, the people's court shall conduct an examination within 15 days from the date of receiving the written objection. If the reason is established, it shall make a ruling to cancel or correct it; If the reason cannot be established, the ruling shall be rejected. If a party or interested party refuses to accept the award, it may apply to the people's court at the next higher level for reconsideration within ten days from the date of service of the award.

? 2. [the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Execution Procedure of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC)] During the execution of Articles 5 and 16 of Suzhi (20xx)No. 13, if the parties and interested parties think that the execution of the court violates the law, they may raise objections in accordance with the provisions of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law. The execution court shall make a ruling within fifteen days from the date of receiving the written objection when examining and handling the execution objection. During the period of examining the objection of the outsider, the people's court shall not punish the subject matter of execution.

? 3. In the process of execution, if the person subjected to execution with enterprise legal person status cannot pay off the debts due, the people's court may declare the person subjected to execution bankrupt according to law-suspend execution!

? Request the people's court to find out the facts and arbitrate according to law.

? I am here to convey

?

Selected essays on application for execution of objections in 2022 3

? Applicant: xxxxx Company.

? Place of registration: xx City

? Address: xx City

? Xx Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) v. the applicant's enterprise loan dispute, which was tried by your hospital in absentia, made the final judgment of (XXX)- Zhong Minzi Chu, which has taken legal effect and entered the execution procedure. According to the (XXX)- medium ruling, your hospital has taken measures to freeze and transfer the bank deposits of the applicant. The applicant thinks that the original effective judgment found the facts wrong and infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, and hereby raises an objection.

? Requested items:

? I. Ruling to suspend execution of rulingNo. 1 in (xxx);

? Two, suspend the payment to the plaintiff has been deducted from the applicant's funds, so as not to cause the applicant's loss is irreparable;

? Third, the applicant's account has been frozen, so as not to increase the applicant's losses.

? Facts and reasons:

? In xxx, the bank account of the applicant's company was seized and frozen, and part of the money was deducted, which caused great damage to the company's property and goodwill. Upon learning from your institute, we learned that the case of xx Company v. Applicant's enterprise loan dispute was tried by your institute in absentia, and the final judgment of (xxx) Zhong Min Chu ZiNo. 1 was made, which has entered the execution procedure. The applicant is deeply indignant about this and raises objections to this effective judgment for the following reasons:

? 1. The applicant never borrowed money from the plaintiff, and knew nothing about the plaintiff and the fact that he borrowed 3 million yuan from the plaintiff. For more than ten years, the plaintiff never telegraphed, wrote or asked for a loan, and the applicant never received a dunning notice or other written documents from the plaintiff.

? 2. The applicant has never received the litigation documents and notices about this case from your hospital, and knows nothing about the progress of the litigation procedure in this case. It is hasty and wrong for the court to make a judgment by default without receiving any litigation documents and notices.

? The applicant moved to xx at the beginning of xxx and has been operating normally here (the whole office area is 1200m2, which is owned by our company). Company personnel, including legal representatives, have public office telephone numbers and mobile phone numbers, and the company has resident personnel in various offices in the city. Enterprise information can be obtained through industrial and commercial registration and the website. In recent years, the applicant has developed a number of real estate projects in xx, which has a certain market visibility. As long as the plaintiff wants to get in touch with the applicant, he can obtain the communication method and address through the above channels; If the court can fulfill its obligation to inform, there is no reason for the applicant not to know about the loan or even the lawsuit.

? 3. The agent that the plaintiff said that the applicant borrowed money from him has nothing to do with the applicant, that is, someone is not an employee of the applicant's company, and the applicant has never entrusted this person as an agent for inter-enterprise lending.

? Four. The IOUs, invoices and agreements used by the plaintiff to prove the "loan relationship" with the applicant are only photocopies and should not be used as the basis for judgment. The original submitted by the plaintiff and the official seal in the undertaking are forged. Therefore, it is against common sense and law to fail to fulfill the obligation of informing and make a judgment by default without verifying the authenticity of the evidence and only having a copy of the relevant evidence.

? Someone used the forged official seal of the applicant to borrow money from the plaintiff in the name of the applicant, which has been suspected of fraud. The plaintiff has never claimed the creditor's rights from the applicant since its self-proclaimed "loan relationship" was established for more than ten years. The applicant has reason to suspect that the plaintiff colluded with someone to defraud. The applicant has applied to your hospital for file transfer according to the situation of this case and will report the case to the public security organ.

? To sum up, the applicant believes that the original effective judgment found the facts wrong, and now it is based on

? I am here to convey

? Xx Municipal People's Court

? Applicant: xx Company.

? April 8, xxx

? Selected Model Documents for Application for Enforcement Objection in 2022 4

? Objection: Fang×××, female, Han nationality, born on1963××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××

? In the process of executing the civil judgment of (xxxx 1) Sui Nan Fa Min Yi Chu Zi No. 14 1, your hospital mistakenly identified the property outside the case of the dissident, that is, the property located at No. Xx Avenue, xx District, XX City. The dissenter raises an execution objection according to law.

? Requested items:

? Immediately stop the execution and return the property of the dissident to the property located at No. Xxxx Avenue, xx Street, xx District, xx City.

? Facts and reasons

? On April 65438+2, 2002, xxx, the dissident Fang Xx and the executor xxxx Industrial Development Company signed the Real Estate Sales Contract, stipulating that the executor would sell his house located in the house of XX. According to Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Attachment, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts, the executor sold all the property that needed to be registered for transfer to a third party, and the third party had paid part or all of it. The people's court shall not seal up, detain or freeze a third person who has paid the full price and actually possessed it, but has not gone through the transfer registration formalities, and the third person is not at fault.

? To sum up, the dissident is an outsider, and it is obviously wrong for your hospital to enforce the property of the dissident. In accordance with the provisions of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law, we raise an objection. Please immediately stop the execution of the above-mentioned property and make a comeback to effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the dissidents.

? I am here to convey

? Xx District People's Court of xx City

? Against:

? August 24, 32