>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Liu Li v. Tao Li et al. for Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of a Foreign Court
刘利与陶莉等申请承认和执行外国法院民事判决纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Liu Li v. Tao Li et al. for Recognition and Enforcement of a Civil Judgment of a Foreign Court 刘利与陶莉等申请承认和执行外国法院民事判决纠纷案

Intermediate People's Court of Wuhan, Hubei Province

 湖北省武汉市中级人民法院

Civil Ruling
 民事裁定书
(No. 00026 [2015], civil and commercial, foreign-related, original, IPC, Wuhan, Hubei) (2015)鄂武汉中民商外初字第00026号
Applicant: Liu Li 申请人:刘利。
Represented by Chen Guanlin, attorney of Hunan Jinqiu Law Firm 委托诉讼代理人:陈观林,湖南金球律师事务所律师。
Respondent: Tao Li 被申请人:陶莉。
Represented by Chen Hang, attorney of Hubei S&H Law Firm 委托诉讼代理人:陈航,湖北山河律师事务律师。
Respondent: Tong Wu 被申请人:童武。
Represented by Chen Hang, attorney of Hubei S&H Law Firm 委托诉讼代理人:陈航,湖北山河律师事务律师。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
After accepting an application of Liu Li for recognition and enforcement of a civil judgment of a foreign court against Tao Li and Tong Wu on October 19, 2015, this Court formed a collegial bench as legally required, and held two sessions to examine the application on December 25, 2015, and March 15, 2016, respectively. Liu Li and her attorney, Chen Guanlin, and Tao Li and Tong Wu and their attorney, Chen Hang, attended the sessions. The hearing of the case has been concluded. 申请人刘利与被申请人陶莉、童武申请承认和执行外国法院民事判决一案,本院于2015年10月19日受理后,依法组成合议庭,于2015年12月25日、2016年3月15日组织听证会对该申请进行了审查。申请人刘利和其委托诉讼代理人陈观林,被申请人陶莉、童武的共同委托诉讼代理人陈航到庭参加听证会。本案现已审查终结。
BASIC FACTS 
Applicant Liu Li claims that: On September 22, 2013, she entered into an equity transfer agreement with the two respondents, under which the latter should transfer 50% of the shares of Jiajia Management Inc., an American company, to the applicant for 150,000 U.S. dollars. However, after Liu Li paid 125,000 U.S. dollars according to the agreement, the respondents disappeared with the money. Liu Li called the police, but they were nowhere to be found. Later, she lodged a lawsuit with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, which decided in a judgment (No. EC062608) on July 24, 2015, that the respondents should refund 125,000 U.S. dollars to the applicant, with prejudgment interest (from September 25, 2013, to May 25, 2015) of 20,818 U.S. dollars and court costs of 1,674 U.S. dollars, totaling 147,492 U.S. dollars. The judgment has taken effect, but the respondents fail to comply with the judgment. The respondents, who now live in a condo located in Jianghan District, Wuhan, Hubei province, own property for enforcement. The American court's judgment No. EC062608 does not contravene the fundamental principles of Chinese law and the national interest and security and public interest of China. To protect the lawful rights and interests of the applicant, the applicant requests the court to: (1) recognize the legal force in the territory of the People's Republic of China of the judgment No. EC062608 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA; (2) enforce the payment by the respondents to the applicant of 125,000 U.S. dollars with prejudgment interest (from September 25, 2013, to May 25, 2015) of 20,818 U.S. dollars and court costs of 1,674 U.S. dollars, totaling 147,492 U.S. dollars or 940,040.26 Chinese yuan (at the exchange rate on September 12, 2015), as well as post-judgment interest from May 25, 2015, to the end of the enforcement; and (3) order the respondents to assume the enforcement costs. 申请人刘利申请称:申请人与被申请人于2013年09年22日签订股权转让协议,被申请人以150000美元的价格将其在美国JIAJIAMANAGEMENTINC50%股权转让给申请人。在申请人依约支付125000美元后,被申请人携款潜逃。申请人在当地报警未果后依法向美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院提起诉讼,该院于2015年7月24日作出第EC062608号判决,判令被申请人返还申请人125000美元及审判前(2013年9月25日至2015年5月25日)利息20818美元和审判成本1674美元,总共147492美元。该判决已经生效,被申请人未按判决履行。被申请人现居住在湖北省武汉市江汉区唐家墩路15号武汉菱角湖万达广场B.C区7栋4层A室并有可供执行的财产。美国法院作出的EC062608号判决不违反我国法律的基本原则和国家主权、安全、社会利益,为维护申请人的合法权益,特请求裁定:1、承认美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院第EC062608号判决在中华人民共和国境内具有法律效力;2、依美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院第EC062608号判决内容强制被申请人给付申请人125000美元及审判前(2013年9月25日至2015年5月25日)利息20818美元和审判成本1674美元,总共147492美元,计人民币940040.26元(以2015年9月12日汇率)和2015年5月25日至执行终结前的逾期利息;3、由被申请人承担本案执行费用。
Respondents Tao Li and Tong Wu plead that: The judgment No. EC062608 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, has no legal force whatsoever in the territory of the People's Republic of China, and they received no notice of attending the legal proceedings in the American court. The Equity Transfer Agreement signed by the applicant and the respondents is true and legally binding, and the respondents should not refund the transfer price to the applicant. The application should be rejected. 被申请人陶莉和童武陈述意见称,1、美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院第EC062608号判决在中华人民共和国境内不具有法律效力,被申请人在美国法院诉讼时并未接到参加诉讼的通知;2、申请人与被申请人所签订的《股权转让协议》真实、合法、有效,被申请人不应当向申请人返还股权转让价款。为此,请求驳回申请人的申请。
This Court has found that: Respondent Tao Li and applicant Liu Li entered into an Equity Transfer Agreement on September 22, 2013, under which Tao Li should transfer to Liu Li 50% of the shares of Jiajia Management Inc., a company registered in California, United States of America. Liu Li paid a total of 125,000 U.S. dollars to the respondents on September 22 and 25, 2013. Respondent Tong Wu is the husband of respondent Tao Li. Tong Wu's bank account information as submitted by Liu Li shows that a total of 125,000 U.S. dollars entered his account between September 14, 2013, and October 16, 2013. On July 17, 2014, Liu Li lodged a lawsuit (case number EC062608) with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, against the two respondents, alleging that they obtained 125,000 U.S. dollars by false equity transfer. On October 7, 2014, Rolan, an American service process company, issued an investigative report on the personal information and address of Tao Li and Tong Wu within the United States of America. The attorney hired by Liu Li in the United States of America posted the process to the address of the two respondents shown in the investigative report, but the two respondents could not be reached. On January 8, 2015, judge William D. Stewart of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, issued an order of publication to serve the summons and notices related to the case by publication on SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE. The service by publication was made four times on SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE on January 15, 22 and 29 and February 5, 2015. On July 24, 2015, judge William D. Stewart of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, issued a default judgment, since the court considered that the two respondents had received summons in due procedures but failed to appear in court to respond to the suit. The court decided that Tao Li and Tong Wu should, jointly and severally, repay Liu Li 125,000 U.S. dollars with prejudgment interest of 20,818 U.S. dollars (from September 25, 2013, to May 25, 2015, at the rate of 34.24 U.S. dollars per day) and court costs of 1,674 U.S. dollars, totaling 147,492 U.S. dollars. The attorney hired by Liu Li in the United States of America underwent the judgment registration and notification procedures on the date of the aforesaid judgment. A news report, “First Chinese Court Judgment Recognized and Enforced in the United States” (published on China Legal Journals, January 2010), states that an American court has recognized and enforced a civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province for the case of Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industry Co., Ltd. and Hubei Pinghu Tour Boat Co., Ltd. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, USA. 经审查认定:被申请人陶莉与申请人刘利于2013年9月22日在美国签订《股权转让协议》一份,约定陶莉将其持有的在美国加利福尼亚州注册登记的JIAJIAMANAGEMENTINC50%股权转让给刘利。刘利先后在2013年9月22日、9月25日向被申请人付款12.5万美元。被申请人童武系被申请人陶莉的丈夫,申请人刘利提交的童武银行账户信息显示其银行账户在2013年9月14日至10月16日期间有12.5万美元的进账。后申请人刘利以两被申请人利用虚假股权转让事由获取其12.5万美元钱款为由,在2014年7月17日向美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院提起诉讼,案件编号EC062608。2014年10月7日,美国Rolan送达公司就被申请人陶莉、童武在美国境内的个人信息、联系地址等出具调查报告。申请人刘利在美国的委托律师按调查报告所载两被申请人地址邮寄送达诉讼资料未果。2015年1月8日,美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院法官WilliamD.Stewart作出公告命令,决定该案相关传票、通知通过在《圣盖博谷论坛》(SANGABRIELVALLEYTRIBUNE)上刊登公告方式送达。该送达公告随后于2015年1月15日、1月22日、1月29日和2月5日连续四次在《圣盖博谷论坛》上刊登。2015年7月24日,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院法官WilliamD.Stewart作出缺席判决,该法庭认为两被申请人已按程序收到传票,而未出庭回应申请人之起诉,构成缺席。因此,法庭就本案所涉事项判决被申请人陶莉和童武连带偿还申请人刘利12.5万美元并承担判决前利息20818美元(自2013年9月25日至2015年5月25日,按日息34.24美元计算),且应支付费用1674美元,判决金额共计147492美元。申请人刘利在美国的委托律师在判决当日就上述判决办理了判决登记通知手续。申请人提交的《首例中国法院判决在美国得到承认与执行案》(载《中国法律期刊》2010年1月)报道记载,湖北省高级人民法院作出的湖北葛洲坝三联实业股份有限公司、湖北平湖旅游船有限公司诉美国罗宾逊直升机有限公司产品侵权纠纷案民事判决,已获美国法院承认与执行。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
In the opinion of this Court: 本院认为:
This case involves the recognition and enforcement of a judgment of a foreign court. Article 281我我我什么都没做 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides: “Where an effective judgment or ruling of a foreign court requires recognition and enforcement by a people's court of the People's Republic of China, a party may apply directly to the intermediate people's court of the People's Republic of China having jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement or apply to the foreign court for the foreign court to request recognition and enforcement by the people's court in accordance with the provisions of an international treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or under the principle of reciprocity.” Article 282 thereof provides: “After examining an application or request for recognition and enforcement of an effective judgment or ruling of a foreign court in accordance with an international treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or under the principle of reciprocity, a people's court shall issue a ruling to recognize the legal force of the judgment or ruling and issue an order for enforcement as needed to enforce the judgment or ruling according to the relevant provisions of this Law if the people's court deems that the judgment or ruling does not violate the basic principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China and the sovereignty, security and public interest of the People's Republic of China. If the judgment or ruling violates the fundamental principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China or the sovereignty, security or public interest of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall not grant recognition and enforcement.” In this case, respondents Tao Li and Tong Wu own properties in Wuhan, and this Court, at the place of such properties and the place of habitual residence of the respondents, has jurisdiction over this case according to the law. 本案系申请承认和执行外国法院判决纠纷案件。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十一条北京大学互联网法律中心规定,外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定,需要中华人民共和国人民法院承认和执行的,可以由当事人直接向中华人民共和国有管辖权的中级人民法院申请承认和执行,也可以由外国法院依照该国与中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约的规定,或者按照互惠原则,请求人民法院承认和执行。第二百八十二条规定,人民法院对申请或者请求承认和执行的外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定,依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约,或者按照互惠原则进行审查后,认为不违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的,裁定承认其效力,需要执行的,发出执行令,依照本法的有关规定执行。违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的,不予承认和执行。本案中,被申请人陶莉、童武在湖北省武汉市内拥有房产,本院作为被申请人财产所在地和经常居住地法院,对本案依法享有管辖权。
When applicant Liu Li lodged her application for recognition and enforcement with this Court, she also submitted the certified duplicate and Chinese version of the judgment No. EC062608 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, satisfying the form requirement for applying for recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts. As United States of America and China have not concluded or jointly acceded to any international treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts, her application should be examined under the principle of reciprocity. The evidence provided by the applicant proves that there is a precedent that an America court has recognized and enforced a civil judgment of a Chinese court. It may be determined that there is a reciprocal relationship between both sides in the recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. The aforesaid judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, is regarding a contractual relationship between the parties to an equity transfer, and recognizing and enforcing the civil judgment would not contravene the fundamental principles of the laws of China or the sovereignty, security, or public interest of China. The argument of the respondents that they received no notice of attending the suit should not be supported by this Court, because the aforesaid judgment clearly states that it is a default judgment, and the applicant has submitted to this Court supporting documents including an investigative report on the respondents, the court order of service by publication, and newspapers carrying the service of process by publication. It may be determined that the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, legally summonsed the two respondents. The argument of the respondents that they should not refund the transfer price for the Equity Transfer Agreement is true and legally binding should not be supported by this Court either, because this case is a case of judicial assistance, not involving any examination of the substantive rights and obligations of the parties, which, however, have been decided by the American court. Therefore, this Court should support Liu Li's application for recognition and enforcement of the aforesaid judgment of the American court. The applicant's claim for post-judgment interest from May 25, 2015, to the end of enforcement should not be supported by this Court, because it is outside of the procedures for applying for recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts. 申请人刘利在向本院递交申请承认和执行申请书时,已向本院提交经证明无误的美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院作出的编号EC062608判决副本及中文译本,符合申请承认和执行外国法院判决的形式要件。因美国同我国之间并未缔结也未共同参加相互承认和执行民事判决的国际条约,申请人的申请应否予以支持应依据互惠关系原则进行审查。经审查,申请人提交的证据已证实美国有承认和执行我国法院民事判决的先例存在,可以认定双方之间存在相互承认和执行民事判决的互惠关系。同时,上述美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院判决系对申请人与被申请人之间有关股权转让的合同关系作出,承认该民事判决并不违反我国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益。对两被申请人辩称的未接到美国法院参加诉讼通知的辩称理由,经审查,上述判决中已明确记载该案判决系缺席判决,且申请人已向本院提交了对被申请人进行调查、法院准许公告送达命令、报纸刊登的送达公告等证明文件,可以确定美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院已对两被申请人进行了合法传唤,对两被申请人的该项辩称理由不予支持。对两被申请人主张的有关《股权转让协议》真实、合法、有效,不应当向申请人返还股权转让价款的辩称主张,因本案属于司法协助案件,并不涉及对双方实体权利义务关系的审查,在相关美国法院已就此作出判决的情况下,对被申请人的该项辩称主张本院亦不予以支持。因此,对申请人提出承认和执行美国法院判决的请求,本院予以支持。对申请人主张的2015年5月25日美国法院判决日至执行终结前的逾期利息,不属于申请承认和执行外国法院判决的范畴,本案中不予支持。
JUDGMENT 
After deliberation by the collegial bench, in accordance with paragraph 1(11) of Article 154, Article 281
画风不对,如何相爱
, and Article 282 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and paragraph 1 of Article 543 and paragraph 1 of Article 546 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court hereby rules:
 经合议庭评议,依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十四条第一款第(十一)项、第二百八十一条、第二百八十二条,《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第< a="">五百四十三条第一款、第五百四十六条第一款的规定,裁定如下:
The judgment No. EC062608 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, CA, U.S.A., should be recognized and enforced. 一、承认并执行美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县高等法院第EC062608号判决;
The other claims of applicant Liu Li should be dismissed. 二、驳回申请人刘利的其他请求。
The application fee of 100 Chinese yuan should be assumed by respondents Tao Li and Tong Wu. 本案申请费人民币100元,由被申请人陶莉、童武负担。
Presiding Judge: Zhao Qianxi 审判长  赵千喜
Judge: Yu Jie 审判员  余 杰
Judge: Xiong Yanhong 审判员  熊艳红
June 30, 2017 二〇一七年六月三十日
Clerk: Xu Lei 书记员  徐 蕾
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese