Execution Objection Application Sample 1,000 words

In the complicated life, there are many occasions where application forms are needed. Generally speaking, when writing an application, you must strictly follow a fixed format. How many application templates have you accumulated? We have specially collected and compiled "Sample Application Form for Objection to Enforcement" for you. Welcome to read it. I hope you all like it! Example of Application for Objection to Enforcement Part 1

Applicant: xx, male, born on xx_month xx_, 20xx, Han nationality, living at No. xx, Village xx, Liyuan District, xx District, xx City.

Respondent: Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee of xx District, xx City

Legal representative: xx, position: Director Address: No. xx Road, xx District, xx City, xx Tel: xxxxxx

Application matters:

1. Contents of requesting your court to stop the execution of the Administrative Ruling on House Demolition Disputes No.

2. Request your court to revoke (xxxx) Tongzhizi No. xx Administrative Ruling. Facts and reasons:

Due to a house demolition dispute between the xx District Center of xx City Land Consolidation and Reserve Center and the applicant, they applied to the respondent for a house demolition dispute ruling. On xx, xx, xx, the respondent made an administrative ruling on house demolition dispute No. xx, Tongjiancaozi (xxxx). On xx, xx, 20xx, the respondent applied to the court for compulsory execution in accordance with the above-mentioned ruling. The court issued the (xxxx) Tongzhi Zi No. xx administrative ruling on xx, xx, xx, and issued the (xxxx) Tongzhi zi No. xx execution notice on xx, xx, xx. The applicant believes that your court's enforcement actions are illegal, and specifically raises objections to the enforcement in writing in accordance with relevant legal provisions. The main reasons are as follows:

1. The Tong Jian Cao wording issued under application for enforcement. (xxxx) Administrative Award No. xx on House Demolition Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the “Award”) is substantively and procedurally illegal, and the People’s Court should rule not to enforce it.

1. The Valuation Report, which is the main factual basis for the ruling, is illegal in both procedural and substantive ways and should not be used as the basis for the ruling.

First of all, the report was not delivered in accordance with the law; secondly, the evaluation results were not disclosed in accordance with the law; and finally, the method of selecting the real estate evaluation agency was illegal. The evaluation agency for this project was entrusted by the demolishers themselves. The demolishers did not negotiate with the respondent to provide evidence of the selection of the evaluation agency, depriving the demolished people of their right to choose.

2. The parties were not organized for mediation or hearing before the ruling.

According to Article xx of the "Adjudication Procedures", before the award is made, the respondent is obliged to organize mediation between the third party and the applicant, hold a hearing, and fully listen to the opinions of both parties. However, the respondent failed to perform the aforementioned obligations according to this provision. Because, from beginning to end, the respondent did not investigate or verify the relevant facts with the applicant, nor did it conduct a hearing.

3. The "Award" was issued without collective discussion and decision by the leadership team.

The respondent did not have any decision or meeting minutes discussed by the leadership team of the bureau before the "Award" was issued. This means that the respondent has made an "Award" without going through this procedure, which violates Article xx of the "Authorization Procedures", which stipulates that "the written award must be decided upon by collective discussion by the leadership team of the housing demolition management department."

4. The "Award" has not taken effect and therefore cannot be used as the basis for applying for enforcement.

First of all, legal documents will only take effect after being served to the parties involved. The respondent did not serve the "Award" to the applicant in accordance with the law after the award was made. Therefore, the "Award" did not take effect on xx, xx, 2020, as the respondent said.

Secondly, after receiving the award, the applicant has filed a reconsideration with the xx City Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee. The award has not taken effect and cannot be used as a basis for enforcement.

2. The administrative ruling No. The rights of the person subject to execution.

1. Your court did not carefully review the Award.

According to Article 95 of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Enforcement": The specific administrative act applied for execution obviously lacks factual basis, obviously lacks legal basis, or is otherwise obviously illegal and harmful to the person being executed. If the executor has legitimate rights and interests, the people's court shall rule not to allow execution. Even though the respondent committed many of the above-mentioned illegal acts, your court still made a ruling granting compulsory execution. Obviously, it did not conduct strict review of the "Award" based on which it was executed.

2. Your court’s execution procedure is illegal and the parties were not notified in writing of their rights and obligations during the execution procedure and other relevant information.

According to Articles 3 and 5 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Disclosure of Enforcement by the People's Courts": After accepting an enforcement case, the People's Court shall promptly report the relevant circumstances of the case filing and the status of the parties during the enforcement proceedings. The rights and obligations as well as possible execution risks, as well as the person in charge of the case or the members of the collegial panel and their contact information shall be informed in writing to both parties. Your court did not inform the applicant in accordance with the law. In fact, it deprived the applicant of the right to make a defense and could not guarantee the legality of the execution.

In summary, there are many illegalities in the basis and procedures for the execution of this case. In order to protect its legitimate interests, the applicant filed a lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law. Execute the objection application and request your court to rule in favor of the applicant's request in accordance with the law.

Sincerely

People’s Court of xx District, xx City

Applicant: xxxx

Sample Application for Objection to Enforcement on xxxx year, month and day 2

Reconsideration applicant: A, male,

Reconsideration respondent: B, male,

Reconsideration respondent: C, male,

Reconsideration respondent: Pingguo, female,

Reconsideration respondent: Yali, female,

Request for reconsideration: To revoke the People’s Disability of a District of Jiangxi Province in accordance with the law The court issued execution ruling No. 21 and No. 22 (20__).

Reasons for reconsideration:

1. It was wrong for the original court to apply Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China when making its ruling, and Article 204 should be applied. Legal requirements.

Article 202 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "If the parties or interested parties believe that the execution violates legal provisions, they may submit written objections to the people's court responsible for execution. The parties , if an interested party raises a written objection, the people's court shall review it within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written objection. If the reason is established, it shall rule to revoke or correct it; if the reason is not established, it shall rule to reject it.

If an interested party is dissatisfied with the ruling, he or she may apply to the higher-level people's court for reconsideration within ten days from the date of delivery of the ruling. This is a provision for "parties and interested parties" to object to execution. And Article 204 stipulates: “During the execution process, if a person outside the case raises a written objection to the subject matter of execution, the People’s Court shall review it within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the written objection. If the reason is established, it shall rule to suspend the execution of the subject matter; the reasons If the decision is not established, the ruling shall be dismissed.

If outsiders or parties are dissatisfied with the ruling and believe that the original judgment or ruling is wrong, the case shall be handled in accordance with the trial supervision procedures; if it has nothing to do with the original judgment or ruling, the decision may be made from the date when the ruling is served. File a lawsuit with the People's Court within fifteen days. This is a requirement for "outsiders" to object to execution. In this case, the applicant for review is a non-party in the execution proceedings. When the original court makes a ruling on objections to execution, the legal provisions of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law should be applied.

2. The court of first instance believed that the reconsideration of the case of respondent C and Apple and the case of reconsideration of respondent B were legal and valid in terms of litigation preservation procedures, which was wrong.

First of all, according to Article 1 of the "Interpretation of Enforcement Procedures of the Civil Procedure Law": "If the person applying for execution applies for execution to the people's court where the property of the person subject to execution is located, he shall provide that there are available execution documents in the jurisdiction of the people's court. Proof of property. "In both cases, the person applying for execution did not provide relevant evidence to prove that the person subject to execution, Yali, had property available for execution at the reconsideration applicant.

Secondly, the person subject to execution in these two cases is Yali, and neither Yali nor her husband Ding has any claims against the applicant for review. The applicant for reconsideration has neither the ability nor the obligation to assist the court in executing the second case. However, the court of first instance served both the enforcement assistance notices in these two cases to the review applicants, and adopted unfair means to get the review applicants to sign the service receipts on August 9, 20__. From a procedural perspective alone, the litigation preservation measures taken by the original court in these two cases were illegal.

Thirdly, even if Yali, the respondent of the review, had claims in a certain mining industry, the court of first instance should not have served a notice of assistance in execution to the applicant for review. As early as August 14, 20__, a certain mining company had changed its legal representative from "Ding" to "civilian". Therefore, the court of first instance should serve a notice of assistance in execution to the civilian who was the legal representative of a certain mining industry at that time.

In summary, the court of first instance held that the reconsideration of the case of respondent C and Apple and the case of reconsideration of respondent B were legal and valid in terms of litigation preservation procedures, which was completely wrong.

3. The court of first instance held that the respondent Yali had creditor’s rights from the applicant, but the matter was unclear and the evidence was insufficient.

First of all, the review respondent Yali has no shares in a certain mining industry. In the registration management files of the Administration for Industry and Commerce, there has never been a legal and valid material showing that the applicant for reconsideration has shares in a certain mining industry.

Secondly, the applicant for reconsideration acquired shares in a certain mining industry from civilians, not from Yali, the respondent for reconsideration. The court of first instance only reviewed what the applicant recognized in the investigation record: “The mine was transferred to X in the name of a civilian, and the total transfer amount was 800,000 yuan. "to be paid in full on the 31st of the month" was used to determine that Yali, the respondent of the review, had creditor's rights from the applicant of the review. This determination lacked factual and legal basis.

In the investigation transcript, it can only be shown that the applicant for review acquired shares in a certain mining industry from civilians. As for whether the shares were acquired by Yali, the respondent for review, in a certain mining industry in the name of a "civilian", and There is no evidence to prove it. Therefore, from a legal point of view, the mining shares acquired by the applicant for review are owned by civilians and are not owned by Yali, the respondent for review. The court of first instance found that the respondent Yali had a creditor's right on the applicant, which was inconsistent with the facts and had no legal basis.

To sum up, the court of first instance held that the facts of the creditor’s rights enjoyed by the respondent under review from the applicant for review were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. In the process of taking litigation preservation measures, the procedures were illegal and the law was wrongly applied. Therefore, the execution ruling No. 21 and No. 22 made by the original court was wrong. In order to safeguard the dignity of the law and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for review, we hereby apply to the People's Court for review and request the court to revoke this ruling!

Sincerely

A People's Court of Jiangxi Province

p>

Reconsideration applicant:

Execution objection application template 3, 201_year_month_day

Objector: XX Company

Legal representative: Zhang XX

The dissenter received your court’s (20xx) Linlan Zhizi No. 3812 execution ruling and the 9209140 enforcement assistance notice, and the dissenter raised objections to this notice. Objection request:

The Notice of Assistance in Enforcement No. 9209140 is revoked in accordance with the law.

Facts and reasons:

Your court asked our company to assist in freezing the salary of Liu XX, the person subject to execution, of 450,000 yuan, but our company is unable to implement it. After investigation, Liu XX, the person subject to execution, has already resigned from our company and is no longer an employee of our company. Our company has no longer paid him wages, and both parties have no other due claims. Therefore, our company cannot freeze the wages of the person subject to execution and assist in the execution. Notification error. Request that the Notice of Assistance in Enforcement No. 9209140 be revoked in accordance with the law.

Sincerely

XX District People’s Court

Objector: XX Company

Application for execution objection on April 10, 2013 Book Sample 4

Applicant: xxx, male, Han nationality, born on July 1, 1971, lives in Qinghe District, Huai'an City, phone number.

Request matters:

The Su HBC950 car is the property owned and used by the applicant. Your court’s execution of the vehicle deprived the applicant of his legal rights. We hereby raise an objection and request the court. The preservation of Su HBC950 car was revoked.

Facts and reasons:

xx and xx borrowed 110,000 yuan from the applicant for business needs on March 11, 20xx. For this purpose, they handed over the Su HBC950 car as collateral to The applicant also delivers the driving license of the vehicle. The two parties agreed by treaty that the applicant would be responsible for vehicle violations. To this end, the applicant spent more than 10,000 yuan to deal with the vehicle violations after getting the vehicle. This situation was proved by IOUs and violation record documents.

The applicant has been using the vehicle since 20xx. In 20xx, the applicant conducted an annual inspection for the vehicle, and the annual inspection fees were handled by the applicant. In addition, the vehicle's compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance are handled by the applicant, and the insurance premiums are also paid by the applicant.

In recent years, the applicant has continuously asked the borrower to return the loan, but the borrower has never returned it. Later, the borrower could not be contacted by phone. The applicant inquired about the whereabouts of the borrower to no avail. Because the borrower xx and xx has never repaid the loan, causing the applicant's rights and interests to be infringed and causing great losses. It is the applicant's legal right to possess and use the vehicle now. It should be protected by law.

To sum up, the applicant requests your court to immediately stop the execution and revoke the preservation of Su HBC950 car in accordance with the law. To protect the legal rights granted to applicants by law.

Sincerely, Huaiyin District People’s Court

Applicant:

Execution Objection Application Sample 5 on April 7, 20xx

Application Person: Wu, female, Han nationality, unemployed.

The relationship between the applicant and the person subject to execution, Zhang, is husband and wife. On July 4, 2019, your court froze Zhang Weixiang’s bank retirement salary card during the enforcement process. Since he has no living expenses, he has now As a result, we two old people cannot live a normal life. The effective legal documents involved in the case are being applied for re-examination. In this regard, the applicant believes that even if the obligations in this case should be fulfilled, the debt is the debt of Zhang, and the applicant's right to support and living expenses should not be infringed and deprived. Your court adopts This enforcement measure has seriously violated legal provisions, so we request that the freeze be lifted immediately in accordance with the law.

Article 243 of my country's Civil Procedure Law clearly stipulates: "If the person subject to execution fails to perform the obligations specified in the legal document in accordance with the execution notice, the people's court has the right to detain or extract the person subject to execution who must perform The income from the obligation shall be retained, but the necessary living expenses of the person subject to execution and his dependent family members shall be retained.

Article 225 If the parties or interested parties believe that the execution violates the provisions of the law, they may file a lawsuit. The People's Court responsible for execution shall file a written objection.

Article 5 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on the Seizure, Seizure, and Freezing of Property During Civil Execution by the People's Court" "The People's Court shall issue a written objection to the person subject to execution and his dependent family members." Necessary living expenses shall not be seized, detained or frozen... If there is a local minimum living security standard, the necessary living expenses shall be determined in accordance with that standard;"

Article 31 "The people's court shall seal up, detain or freeze , if the property of a person outside the case is frozen...a ruling shall be made to lift the seal, seizure, or freezing..."

According to the above relevant provisions, the applicant is both an interested party and a person outside the case, and is also supported by the person subject to execution. The frozen salary card amount is 1,100 yuan, and the salary income is the property of the husband and wife. If it is executed reasonably, the 550 yuan that the applicant should enjoy should not be included in the execution, and the remaining 550 yuan should still be retained. The debt can only be repaid if the person subject to execution has to pay the necessary living expenses.

Please consider the above objections seriously and hope that the law should not be violated.

Sincerely!

Applicant: Wu

Execution Objection Application Sample 6 on July 9, 20__

Applicant: xxx, female, born on xxx, month xxx, xxx , Han nationality, living in Room 402, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx City. Tel:

He is the actual owner of the property to be enforced.

Request Matters

Terminate the auction and execution procedures for the property in Room 602, Lane xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, xxx District, xxx City. Protect the legitimate rights and interests of applicants in accordance with the law.

Facts and reasons

1. The applicant has never received notification of the seizure of the above-mentioned house being executed and the requirement to perform obligations.

Your court sealed the above-mentioned house subject to execution on March xxx, 20xx, and ordered the person subject to execution to perform his obligations before March xxx, 20xx. The applicant has never received the above-mentioned notification of the seizure of the house subject to execution and the requirement to perform obligations, and has no way of knowing whether the person subject to execution has received it. In fact, the person subject to execution, xxx, has been detained in the xxx detention center of xxx city since June xxx, 20xx, and was later transferred to xxx prison. Since the person subject to execution, xxx, is unable to accept the notice and perform this obligation as a normal person, the court is requested to verify the address and signee of the delivery at that time to confirm whether the person subject to execution, xxx, has actually received this notice and whether there has been any failure to perform. Intention of this obligation. It would be extremely unfair to the person subject to execution, xxx, and a great infringement of the applicant's legitimate property if we hastily determine that the person subject to execution, xxx, has not fulfilled this obligation so far and make a decision to forcibly auction his property.

2. The property in Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, xxx District, xxx City, which is to be executed by compulsory auction, belongs to *** before the divorce of the applicant and the person subject to execution, xxx, and shall belong to the applicant after the divorce. Everyone owns it. Forcing the house to be auctioned will seriously damage the legitimate interests of the applicant.

The house in Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, xxx District, Shanghai, was originally a wedding house purchased by *** with the money when both parties were preparing to get married in 1996. It was the property of both parties, and at that time Because the person subject to execution has just started his career, most of the funds to buy the house were raised by the applicant. Among the compensation mentioned in the relocation agreement shown in Evidence 4, xxx yuan was also jointly contributed by both parties. That is, at least half of the increased value of the property, worth xxx yuan, must belong to the applicant.

(Evidence 1: Payment document)

In 20xx, the applicant and the person subject to execution, xxx, divorced by agreement due to a breakdown in relationship and other disputes. For the sake of his son, xxx voluntarily gave up the ownership of his share to the applicant. It is owned by one person and only retains the right to live in it. The property certificate has been seized by the creditor and cannot be transferred. However, this does not affect the actual transfer of the ownership of the house. Therefore, the house in Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, should currently belong to the applicant personally.

(Evidence 2: Voluntary Divorce Agreement)

As to whether the house has been mortgaged to the creditor, the applicant believes that the house has not been mortgaged in any way. First, according to (xxx)xxx Criminal Judgment No. xxx, the applicant has reason to believe that the house has not been mortgaged. At that time, the defender had requested the court to confirm that the mortgage of the house was valid and that the deduction of the corresponding amount from the discount was not illegal fund-raising. However, the court did not confirm that the mortgage of the house was valid and still classified the discount of the house as illegal fund-raising. Secondly, the person subject to execution, xxx, took the initiative to approach the creditor and planned to transfer the house or return part of the money by mortgage and hand over the property certificate. However, the creditor did not agree and did not go to the relevant department to handle the mortgage procedures. Therefore, There is no mortgage on this home.

In addition, there is no basis for some people to claim that the person subject to execution xxx has no right to dispose of the house privately. Because (xxx)xxx Criminal Judgment No. xxx determined that the subject of the crime was the defendant unit, namely xxx Co., Ltd., rather than its legal person. There is still no law that stipulates that when a company is operating in debt, its legal person does not have the right to dispose of its own private property.

3. The applicable legal basis for executing this house auction is wrong.

1. (xxx)xxx Zhi Xing Zi No. xxx "Execution Ruling" is based on (xxx) xxx Xing Chu Zi No. xxx Criminal Judgment. The judgment is as follows: 1. Defendant Unit xxx Co., Ltd. committed the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and was sentenced to a fine of RMB xxx million yuan. 2. ... 3. The proceeds from crimes on record shall be recovered and returned to the victims, and the proceeds from crimes that have not yet been compensated shall be ordered to be returned to the victims.

(Evidence 3: Criminal Judgment of the People’s Court of xxx District, xxx City (xxx)xxx Xingchu Zi No. xxx, pages 6 and 7)

Clearly stated in Article 3 It is to return the "criminal proceeds" to the victim, and the above-mentioned house subject to execution is a wedding house purchased by the applicant and the person subject to execution, xxx, around 1995. It is the legal personal property of the person subject to execution, xxx, and should not be Forced auction.

(Evidence 4: Compensation and resettlement agreement for housing demolition of collective-owned land acquired by xxx city (demolisher: xxx), the compensation time for demolition is xxx, month xxx, 20xx, and the fund-raising behavior occurred in xxx, 20xx. It shows that this house is not a house purchased with illegal gains, but is a legal private property)

2. In addition, (xxx) xxx Criminal Judgment No. xxx identified the "crime of illegally absorbing public deposits" The crime was committed by a unit, that is, the defendant unit listed in the criminal judgment: xxx Co., Ltd., and the obligor ordered to return compensation should also be xxx Co., Ltd. rather than its legal person. The victim should request your court to seal up and liquidate xxx company to recover the losses. There is no legal basis for the forced auction of xxx's only private property.

3. According to the opinion of the People's Court's theoretical version of the article "Issues on the Implementation of Judgments Made in Article 64 of the Criminal Law", it is believed that criminal judgments ordering the return of illegal gains only indicate the state's attitude towards crime-related property The principle of handling is not to determine a specific penalty, nor is it a specific judgment on the civil rights and interests of the parties. The judgment has no enforcement effect. It is for this reason that the Supreme People's Court's "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Work of People's Courts" (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Regulations") do not use criminal judgments as the basis for enforcement by the People's Courts.

Article 2(1) of the "Enforcement Provisions" stipulates that the effective legal documents that the court's enforcement agency is responsible for executing are "civil and administrative judgments, rulings, mediation documents, civil sanction decisions, and payment orders of the People's Court." , as well as civil judgments, rulings, and mediation documents attached to criminal cases", which do not clearly include criminal judgments with the content of "ordering compensation", so the victim's economic losses can only be relieved by filing a separate civil lawsuit.

3. The property located in Room 402, No. xxx, Lane xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, xxx District, xxx City, has no share in the execution of xxx at all. That is, Room 402, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, xxx District, is the personal property of the applicant.

In 20xx, these two houses were basically demolished at the same time. According to the relevant demolition laws, the person subject to execution xxx can only enjoy the demolition policy in one place, so he chose xxx Road xxx, xxx District, xxx City The property in Room 602, Lane No. xxx. Regardless of whether his name is included in the relocation agreement or not, the compensation area for this house in Room 402, No. xxx Lane, xxx Road, xxx District, will not change. That is to say, he has no share at all, and he did not sign the relocation agreement. Later, the applicant divorced xxx, the person subject to execution, and there was no need to retain his name in the relocation agreement. And the relocation agreement will of course be legal and valid based on the latest agreement after the change.

(Evidence 5: Compensation and resettlement agreement for housing demolition of collectively-owned land acquired by xxx City (demolisher: xxx, etc.), the demolition compensation time is xxx, month xxx, 20xx, with Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road The demolition was carried out almost at the same time. And the person subject to execution xxx did not sign, and the modification was confirmed by the People's Government of xxx Town, xxx District, xxx City.)

4. The place to be executed by compulsory auction is located in xxx District, xxx City. Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, is the only residence of the person subject to execution, xxx.

The applicant and the person subject to execution, xxx, have long been divorced. The house provided by the victim at Room 402, Lane xxx, Lane xxx, xxx District, xxx City, is the personal property of the applicant and has nothing to do with the person subject to execution, xxx. Therefore, Room 602, No. xxx, Lane xxx, xxx Road, is the only residence of the person subject to execution, xxx. If the auction process is forcibly continued, the person subject to execution will have nowhere to live and will be homeless. Especially after he is released from prison, he will face huge survival pressure and social pressure at the same time, which will have a huge impact on the already stable social relations, and will definitely create an unstable and disharmonious social impact.

5. The person subject to execution, xxx, also has a minor son who needs to be raised.

The applicant divorced xxx in 20xx, and his son xxx was 10 years old at the time. At that time, it was agreed that xxx would be raised by the applicant, and the person subject to execution would pay alimony of RMB 1,000 per month, but so far none has been paid. If the court must not accept the applicant's statement and continue to forcibly dispose of the only property saved by the person subject to execution, the court is also asked to consider this factor and deduct a total of 96,000 yuan in alimony for 8 years in order to support the son!

In summary, we sincerely request your court to terminate the execution and auction procedures for this house to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant!

Sincerely yours

xx City xxx People's Court Execution Tribunal Enforcement Objection Application Sample 7

Objection Applicant: xxxxxxxxxxx

Objector: xxxxxxxx, male, Han nationality, born on xxxx month xxxx, xxxx year, residence xxxxxxxx, ID number :xxxxxxxx, contact number: xxxxxxxx.

During the enforcement process of the civil judgment No. 01780 of Chang Zhong Min Wei Zhi (20xxx) between the applicant Xiao Weilian and the person subject to execution Wang Shuchun, your court mistakenly misclassified the property of the opponent outside the case. It shall be executed as the property of Wang Shuchun, the person subject to execution. The objector raised an objection to this execution in accordance with the law.

Request matters:

Request the court to rule to suspend the execution of Wang Shuchun’s personal property.

Facts and Reasons

On xx, xx, 2020, the dissenter’s independent old house (including homestead and house) was demolished and resettled by the government. Xiao Weilian (the person applying for execution) and Huang Xuejun (the person subject to execution, son of Huang Shuke) were originally husband and wife. At the time of demolition, Xiao Weilian enjoyed a resettlement quota for self-built houses due to his marriage. On xx, xx, xx, the dissident and his wife Wang Shuchun paid a one-time payment of 230,311.93 yuan for house construction, and then advanced a full amount of 234,523.94 yuan to purchase furniture and decorate the house (see the civil complaint for details). On xx, xx, xx, Xiao Weilian packed up his bags and moved into his new house without paying a penny. After Xiao Weilian divorced Huang Xuejun, he filed a "family separation and property analysis" lawsuit with Huang Xuejun and Wang Shuchun as defendants. On xx, xx, 2018, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment that the fourth floor of Unit C1 of Xinqiao Qinyuan Resettlement Community was owned by Xiao Weilian, and Wang Shuchun should pay Xiao Weilian a discount of 165,240 yuan for the house.

The objector raised objections to the execution of the effective judgment and requested the court to suspend the execution of the judgment. The reasons are as follows:

1. The dissenters Huang Shuke and his wife Wang Shuchun required Xiao Weilian to pay the house construction and decoration costs on the grounds of "unjust enrichment", and there was a real dispute over creditor's rights and debts. Suspension of execution is a necessary means to offset debts and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the dissenter.

2. The execution applicant has no legitimate job and no source of income. In order to avoid being unable to recover the executed funds due to the execution applicant’s extravagant spending, the suspension of execution is the only way to resolve the conflict between the two parties. 3. The effective judgment is objectively There is a situation where the judgment exceeds the claims and has entered the retrial appeal process. The possibility of misjudgment and misjudgment cannot be ruled out. Suspension of execution is an effective guarantee to maintain the correct implementation of the law.

In summary, the opponent is As a non-party to the case, your court made a clear mistake in enforcing the property of the opponent. In accordance with the provisions of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Law, if you raise an objection, please immediately suspend the execution of the above-mentioned property and implement the reversal to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the objector.

Sincerely,

Guangzhou Nansha District People’s Court