Yang Qingjian v. Zhou Baomei and Zhou Wenpi
(Case of Dispute over Refund of Bride-price)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff (Defendant in the counterclaim): Yang Qingjian, male, 41, dwelling at Wanda Road, Taipei, Taiwan Province@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the counterclaim): Zhou Baomei, female, 27, dwelling in Jimei District, Xiamen, Fujian Province@#
Defendant (Plaintiff in the counterclaim): Zhou Wenpi, father of the defendant, dwelling in Jimei District, Xiamen, Fujian Province@#
Plaintiff Yang Qingjian initiated a lawsuit in the People's Court of Jimei District of Xiamen City, Fujian Province, due to the dispute over refund of bride-price.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Plaintiff Yang claimed that after defendants Zhou Bao Mei and Zhou wenpi accepted the bride-price in the sum of 230, 000 yuan, Zhou Baomei was unwilling to marry Yang and refused to refund the bride-price to him. He pleads the court to order the defendants to refund the bride-price, return one Pioneer motorcycle which was left at Zhou's home, and pay the litigation fees of this case.@#
The two defendants argued and counterclaimed that the bride-price and motorcycle were given to Zhou Baomei by Yang for getting married. For the bride-price, 174, 000 yuan had already been spent in giving red paper bags of reward to the match-makers, purchasing articles for the wedding, etc. Zhou Baomei and Yang lived together for 2 months and had affection for each other. However, Yang's family members breached the contract again and again, refusing to allow Yang and Zhou Baomei to go through the marriage registration formalities so that the dispute occurred. Because of the plaintiff's breach of contract, the defendants did not have the obligation to refund the bride-price, they even have the right to demand the plaintiff to compensate Zhou Baomei's youth and reputation losses and make an arrangement for her future life. Thus they pleaded the court to order Yang to compensate Zhou Baomei 20, 000 yuan for her youth and reputation losses. In the counterclaim, Yang defended that Zhou Baomei and Zhou Wenpi's counterclaim pleadings were without legal basis, thus they should be dismissed.@#
．．．．．．

杨清坚诉周宝妹、周文皮返还聘金纠纷案@#
@#
原告（反诉被告）：杨清坚，男，41岁，住台湾省台北市万大路。@#
被告（反诉原告）：周宝妹，女，27岁，住福建省厦门市集美区。@#
被告（反诉原告）：周文皮，男，49岁，被告周宝妹之父，住福建省厦门市集美区。@#
原告杨清坚因与被告周宝妹、周文皮发生返还聘金纠纷，向福建省厦门市集美区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
@#
原告诉称：被告周宝妹、周文皮收取了原告23万元的聘金后，周宝妹不愿与原告结婚，还拒不返还聘金。请求判令二被告返还聘金，返还原告存放在其家中的先锋牌摩托车一部，并负担本案诉讼费。@#
二被告答辩并反诉称：聘金和摩托车都是原告杨清坚为结婚送给被告周宝妹的，聘金已经在举办婚礼、给媒人送红包和添置新婚物品等方面花费了17.4万余元。周宝妹和杨清坚共同生活过两个月，双方感情不错。只因杨清坚的家里人一再违反承诺，以各种理由拒绝杨清坚与周宝妹办理婚姻登记手续，以致发生纠纷。这是原告毁约，被告不仅没有返还聘金的义务，还有权要求原告赔偿周宝妹的青春和名誉损失，并为周宝妹今后的生活作出安排。请求判令原告赔偿青春和名誉损失费20万元。杨清坚针对反诉答辩称：周宝妹、周文皮的反诉请求没有法律依据，理应驳回。@#
厦门市集美区人民法院经审理查明：@#
1998年8月，经两位媒人介绍，原告杨清坚与被告周宝妹相识。后经二人的父母同意，双方决定结婚。9月24日，杨清坚给周宝妹聘金23万元。周宝妹和被告周文皮收款后写下一张收据，称：“兹因本人周宝妹于1998年9月24日嫁与台湾杨清坚先生，收其结婚聘金人民币贰拾叁万元正。如有反悔，愿如数退还。恐口无凭，特立此据。收款人：周文皮、周宝妹”。当天中午，女方出钱办了订婚宴，同日举行“婚礼”，晚上二人入住酒店。26日以后，周宝妹随杨清坚到上海，在杨清坚的别墅里以夫妻名义共同居住，杨清坚的父亲杨庆顺对周宝妹也以公公和儿媳相称。期间，杨清坚将其所有的一部先锋90摩托车送至周宝妹家，当时未言明是赠与还是存放。11月24日，周宝妹因与杨清坚的家里人发生争执，返回厦门。后双方协商解除婚约，杨清坚多次要求周宝妹返还聘金，未果，遂提起诉讼。庭审中，原告杨清坚表示：考虑到被告周宝妹、周文皮为“婚礼”的花费，同意其返还聘金15万元，摩托车必须返还。周宝妹则只同意返还2万元。双方当事人对法院认定的以上事实均无异议。@#
厦门市集美区人民法院认为：@#
本案是一起因巨额聘金引发的涉台婚姻纠纷，争议焦点在于判明23万元聘金和摩托车是何种性质的财产，应否返还？要妥善解决这一纠纷，不仅要依照法律规定，还要顾及双方当事人的实际情况。本案原告杨清坚长年居住在台湾省台北市，被告周宝妹、周文皮则生活在福建省农村。双方当事人虽同为中国公民，但来自于不同的法域。这个原因，决定了双方当事人对婚约、婚姻的认识不同，由此产生本案纠纷。@#
．．．．．．