Yanbian Leather Factory of Jilin Province v. Mishan Leather Shoes Factory of Heilongjiang Province
(Case of Judicial Detention for Disrupting Civil Proceedings)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Yanbian Leather Factory of Jilin Province@#
Legal Representative: Wang Xiliang, director of the factory.@#
Attorney: Liu Min, manager of the Distribution Company of Yanbian Leather Factory.@#
Defendant: Minshan Leather Shoes Factory of Heilongjiang Province.@#
Legal Representative: Chi Dewen, Director of the factory.@#
Attorney: Guo Xingkui, deputy-director of the factory.@#
From 1990 till April 1991, Yanbian Leather Factory (hereinafter referred to as Leather Factory) and Mishan Leather Shoes Factory (hereinafter referred to as Shoes Factory) had business contact of purchasing and selling leather for many times. The plaintiff provided leather products for the defendant, and the defendant still owed the plaintiff 152,573.89 yuan. On May 20th, 1991, the defendant went to the plaintiff's place and concluded another contract on purchasing and selling leather products and the payment for goods concerned was 116,377.88 yuan. Both parties agreed that the total amount of the payment for goods of this time and those owed before was 268,951.77 yuan and that the defendant shall pay them off before the end of 1991. Thereafter, the defendant picked up the goods by itself. On November 4th, 1991, the plaintiff went to the defendant's place to urge it to pay the owed money. The defendant wrote a payment agreement and expressed that it would pay 100,000 yuan in December 1991, pay another 100,000 yuan in January 1992 and pay off the rest before the end of February and that if it fails to do so, it shall pay interest on the owed money on the basis of bank loan interest rate. After the agreement became due, the plaintiff sent personnel to the defendant's place to request for payment for six times, but the defendant only gave 907.70 yuan to the plaintiff and refused to make any more payment under the pretext that it had no money. Since it seemed hopeless to have all the owed money back, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Longjing City, Jilin Province on February 21st, 1993 requesting the defendant to repay the owed money, the interest thereon and traveling expenses spent therefor, totaling 296,656.33 yuan.@#
．．．．．．

密山市皮鞋厂负责人妨害民事诉讼被司法拘留案@#
@#
原告：吉林省延边皮革厂。@#
法定代表人：王锡亮，厂长。@#
委托代理人：刘民，延边皮革厂经销公司经理。@#
被告：黑龙江省密山市皮鞋厂。@#
法定代表人：迟德文，厂长。@#
委托代理人：郭兴奎，密山市皮鞋厂副厂长。@#
１９９０年至１９９１年４月，原告吉林省延边皮革厂与被告黑龙江省密山市皮鞋厂之间多次发生购销皮革的业务往来，由原告向被告提供皮革制品，经结算被告还拖欠原告货款１５２５７３．８９元。１９９１年５月２０日，被告又到原告处签订皮革购销合同，货款为１１６３７７．８８元。双方商定，此次货款和以前拖欠的货款共计金额２６８９５１．７７元，１９９１年末以前付清。随后，被告即将货物自行提走。１９９１年１１月４日原告去被告处催款，被告写下还款协议书一份，表示在同年１２月付款１０万元，１９９２年１月付款１０万元，２月末前全部付清，如２月末不能付清，按银行贷款利率支付利息。协议到期后，原告先后６次派人去被告处索款，被告仅支付原告９０７．７０元，其余货款均以无款为由拒付。原告在索款无望的情况下，于１９９３年２月２１日向吉林省龙井市人民法院起诉，要求被告偿付拖欠货款、支付利息及为催款所支付的旅差费用，总金额为２９６６５６．３３元。@#
@#
龙井市人民法院受理该案后，第二天就派人前往被告处，首先进行调解，因双方意见分歧较大，调解不成。当法院向被告送达起诉状时，被告表示不书面答辩。之后，龙井市人民法院向被告发出到庭应诉的传票，被告无正当理由拒不到庭。龙井市人民法院经审理认为：原告和被告签订的购销合同有效，双方应自觉履行，被告拒付货款是无理的，应承担全部违约责任。该院依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条之规定，依法缺席判决：被告在判决生效后立即一次性支付拖欠原告货款及应付利息、旅差费总金额为２９６６５６．３３元。案件受理费６９６９．８５元由被告负担。３月２３日法院向被告送达判决书。被告拒绝签收。@#
．．．．．．