Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping v. Haikou Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Case about fining Haikou Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd for disrupting the court in trial by falsifying important evidence)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Person being fined: Haikou Nanxing Industry Co., Ltd., of Hainan Province@#
Legal representative: Liu Xiaonan, Manager.@#
On November 2, 1991, the person being fined, Haikou Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd., of Hainan Province (hereinafter referred to as Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd.), introduced by Wu Yuming, purchased from Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping, a medium bus with the brand of “Hua Xi” at the price of 18,000 yuan. At the very day, Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping issued a verification on bus transfer to Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd. And Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd. issued a receipt for having received the bus and a bill in acknowledgment of debt for having not made the payment for the bus. Both parties agreed orally that Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd. would pay off the bus price in the near future. Hereafter, after paying the bus price of 3,900 yuan to Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping, Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd. delayed the payment of the remaining amount 14,100 yuan. Therefore, Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xiuying District, Haikou City, Hainan Province. Hainan Nanxing Industrial Co., Ltd. argued: on the very day of November 2, 1991 when we sold the bus, we wrote and gave a receipt on receiving the bus and a debt bill to the opposing party upon our receipt of the bus, because Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping did not take the bus insurance policy, and both parties agreed that we would make the bus payment to them after Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping provided us with the bus insurance policy. On November 12 of the same year, Chen Dongpo came to our place and said that there was a creditor at his house, and begged that we pay the bus payment first and he would send the bus insurance policy to us later. At that time, we were in sympathy with the opposing party's situation and paid 18,000 yuan to Chen Dingpo then and there and asked Chen Dongpo to write a certification on bus transfer as evidence. We forgot to take back the debt bill for bus payment issued on November 2. Therefore, it is unreasonable for Chen Dongpo and Zhou Yuping to require us to make the bus payment by filing the lawsuit.@#
．．．．．．

海口南兴实业有限公司伪造重要证据妨碍法院审理案件被罚款案@#
@#
被罚款人：海南省海口南兴实业有限公司。@#
法定代表人：刘小南，经理。@#
１９９１年１１月２日，被罚款人海南省海口南兴实业有限公司经吴育明介绍，购买了陈东坡、周玉萍的“华西”牌中型旅行汽车一辆，价款１８０００元。当日，陈东坡、周玉萍向南兴实业有限公司出具了汽车转让证明。南兴实业有限公司向陈东坡、周玉萍出具了收到汽车的收据和未付汽车款的欠条。双方并口头约定，南兴实业有限公司近期将车款付清。此后，南兴实业有限公司除付给陈东坡、周玉萍车款３９００元外，余款１４１００元迟迟拖延不付。为此，陈东坡、周玉萍向海南省海口市秀英区人民法院提起诉讼。海口南兴实业有限公司答辩称：１９９１年１１月２日买卖汽车的当天，由于陈东坡、周玉萍没有带汽车保险单来，我方收到车后，写了一张收到车的收据和车款欠条给对方，双方并约定陈东坡、周玉萍将保险单交我方后再付车款。同年１１月１２日，陈东坡来到我处，言称有债主堵在家门口，请求我方先将车款付给他，随后将汽车保险单送来。当时，我方同情对方处境，当场将１８０００元交给了陈东坡，并让陈东坡写了一张汽车转让证明，予以证明。我方１１月２日出具的车款欠条忘了收回。因此，陈东坡、周玉萍诉讼要求我方付汽车款无理。@#
．．．．．．