Judgement No. 1011/2019/DS-PT dated november 11, 2019 regarding tenancy contract dispute

PEOPLE’S COURT OF HO CHI MINH CITY

JUDGEMENT NO. 1011/2019/DS-PT DATED NOVEMBER 11, 2019 REGARDING TENANCY CONTRACT DISPUTE

On December 11, 2019, at the headquarter of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City, the open appellate trial of the civil case No. 417/DSPT, regarding “Tenancy contract dispute”, entertained on September 5, 2019, takes place.

Owing to the fact that the preliminary ruling No. 228/2019/DSST dated July 9, 2019 of the People’s Court of District R., Ho Chi Minh city, is appealed. 

Pursuant to the Decision to try the case No. 4372/2019/QDPT-DS dated September 23, 2019 and the Decision on dismissal of the trial No. 8499/2019/QDPT-DS dated October 21, 2019 between litigants:

*Plaintiff: Mr. Phan Van Q, born in 1967.

Address: No. 182/4, street A, ward L, district X, Ho Chi Minh city.

Plaintiff’s legal representatives:

1. Mr. Nguyen R, born in 1985 – Attorney in fact.  

Address: No. 519/2/9, street S, ward O, district C, Ho Chi Minh city (present).

2. Mrs. Nguyen Thi T, born in 1983 – Attorney in fact. 

Address: Hamlet P, commune M, district V, province E.

(According to the Power of Attorney No.018587 dated October 25, 2019).

*Defendant: Mrs. Tran Thi Y, born in 1963.

Address: No. 152E, street D, ward P, district B, Hanoi city.

Defendant’s legal representative: Mr. Nguyen Xuan U, born in 1976.

Address: Suit No. 02.04, 2^nd Floor, X building, No. 38, street G, ward M, district N, Ho Chi Minh city.

(According to the Power of Attorney No. 003230 in the Register No. 02/TP/CC-SCC/UQ dated August 21, 2019).

Person protecting the plaintiff’s legitimate rights and interests: Mr. Ngo Trong I – Attorney at law of the Bar Association of province S.

*Persons with associated rights and obligations:

1. Mr. Vu Dinh O, born in 1979

Address: No. 155/11, street H, ward K, district Q, Ho Chi Minh city.

Legal representative: Mr. Nguyen Xuan U, born in 1976 – Attorney in fact (Power of Attorney No. 09002631 dated March 16, 2016). 

Address: No. 16, street K, ward I, district E, Ho Chi Minh city.

1. Mr. Nguyen Ba P, born in 1984

Address: No. 194/17, street A, ward L, district X, Ho Chi Minh city.

Legal representative: Mr. Nguyen Xuan U, born in 1976 – Attorney in fact (Power of Attorney No. 09002630 dated March 16, 2016). 

Address: No. 16, street K, ward I, district E, Ho Chi Minh city.

Appellant: Defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y.

CASE DETAILS

* In the petition to sue dated June 8, 2015 and the pre-trial process, the legal representative of the plaintiff Mr. Phan Van Q made the following statement:

Mr. Phan Van Q is the owner of the house at the address No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city according to the Land Use Right Certificate No. AG 981280, numbered H 02039 in the Register of issued Certificates, issued by the People's Committee of district R, Ho Chi Minh city to Mr. Vo Van A and Mrs. Tang Thi S on October 3, 2006; this property has been acquired by Mr. Phan Van Q through transfer under the Contract No. 9620 made at the Notary Public Office E on April 25, 2008, and the change of the owner of this property has been updated on May 23, 2008. At the same time, Mr. Phan Van Q is the legal representative of N Hotel Single-Member Limited Liability Company, head office: No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city, including hotel business as its main business lines.

On August 28, 2013, Mr. Phan Van Q and Mrs. Tran Thi Y signed a contract for rental of hotel and associated property located at No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city. According to terms and conditions of the contract, Mr. Q agrees to rent the entire land plot located at No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city out to Mrs. Y for her to do hotel business with the term of tenancy of 5 years starting on September 10, 2013 and ending on September 9, 2018, the rental price applicable from September 10, 2013 to September 9, 2014, from September 10, 2014 to September 9, 2015, and from September 10, 2015 to September 9, 2018, which is VND 80,000,000/month, USD 4,000/month, and USD 4,400/month, respectively. All rents must be paid in Vietnamese dong. Because the house for rent was mortgaged for a bank loan by Mr. Q at the time the parties made the tenancy contract, the contracting parties only entered into an unnotarized contract. On the same day, Mrs. Y also paid Mr. Q a deposit of VND 500,000,000 to secure the tenancy contract. However, due to the above-stated reason, both parties could not make a deposit contract at the notary public, so they made a loan contract at the notary office E instead.

In fact, Mr. Q rented his property to Mrs. Y on an individual basis. However, because Mr. Q obtained his hotel business registration and was granted the Enterprise Registration Certificate by the Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City for Hotel N which is legally represented by Mr. Q, in addition to renting his property to Mrs. Y, he let her to use his enterprise registration certificate to do the hotel business.

During the implementation of the contract, Mrs. Y only paid Mr. Q a 1 month's rent of 80,000,000 VND and made none of payments since then. Although the plaintiff has repeatedly contacted, Mrs. Y has not made any payment of the rent as agreed on the contract. On the other hand, Mr. Q discovered that Mrs. Y did not directly run the business at the hotel, but assigned others to manage it. At the same time, Mrs. Y arbitrarily handed over the Business Registration Certificate to Mr. Nguyen Ba P and Mr. P forged documents required to apply for the Department of Planning and Investment’s consent to changing the legal representative of Single-member Limited Liability Company Hotel N to Mr. Nguyen Ba P. Based on the denunciation and petition filed by Mr. Q, the Department of Planning and Investment of Ho Chi Minh City has rechecked and reviewed and, after receipt of the conclusion of the Investigation Police - Ho Chi Minh City’s Police Department - determining that Mr. Q's signature in the application for enterprise change registration is fake, has revoked the 5^th Business Registration Certificate (where the legal representative is Nguyen Ba P) and restored the 4^th Business Registration Certificate (where the legal representative is Mr. Phan Van Q).

Besides, during the process of renting the property by Mrs. Y, she allowed the suspect Nguyen Tien D to perform the act of "Illegal business" at the rented property. The Investigation Police Commission of District R has issued a decision to initiate legal proceedings and issue the wanted notice against this suspect.

On August 10, 2016, Mrs. Y, Mr. O and Mr. P officially left the house No. 39, street L, district R, and handed over the house to Mr. Q for his care and management.

At the first instance trial, the plaintiff petitioned the court to declare that the hotel and property tenancy contract dated August 28, 2013 between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid; force the defendant to pay the outstanding rent owed from September 10, 2013 to August 10, 2016 (after the deposit of VND 500,000,000 and 01 month's rent of 80,000,000 Mrs. Y had paid was deducted) which equaled 2,220,000,000 VND. Lump-sum payment had to be made on the effective date of the court judgement. The plaintiff agreed and managed to pay property appraisal fee of VND 3,000,000.

In addition, the plaintiff petitioned the Court to maintain the interim injunction "Prohibiting the act of travelling abroad" against Mrs. Tran Thi Y under the Decision on application of the interim injunction No. 69/2016/QD-BPKCTT dated September 5, 2016 of the People's Court of District R to guarantee the enforcement of the court judgment.

* The defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y made the following statement:

She admitted that she entered into the tenancy contract with Mr. Phan Van Q on August 28, 2013 at for the rented hotel and property located at No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city, and she made an advance payment of VND 80,000,000. Payment method and the deposit of VND 500,000,000 used as guarantee for the tenancy contract were the same as what the plaintiff stated. After that, because she often went to take business trips abroad and did not have time to manage the hotel, on October 1, 2013, she handed over the entire hotel to Mr. Nguyen Ba P and Vu Dinh O by making a power of attorney under which Mr. P and Mr. O were allowed to manage the hotel in her trust. On November 24, 2013, she and her representative discussed a reduction of the rent to VND 50,000,000/month with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff rejected and requested the contract termination. From November 24, 2013, as Mr. Q hindered business, she had to report to the local authority and sealed the hotel up and no more business activities were performed since then.

In the pre-trial process, the defendant agreed to terminate the tenancy contract with the plaintiff and only agreed to pay the plaintiff 02 months’ rent. After the deduction of the defendant's deposit, the deposit that the plaintiff had to repay the defendant equals VND 340,000,000. This claim has not yet been approved through the Court’s permission for the advance payment of the legal costs and has not yet been settled by the Court.   However, at the trial, the defendant withdrew the aforesaid claim, not petitioning the Court to adjourn the court trial of the case. In good faith, the defendant agreed to deduct all the deposit amount of VND 500,000,000 to repay Mr. Q's outstanding rent to terminate the signed contract. If the plaintiff does not agree, she will agree to terminate the contract, but disagree on the repayment of the outstanding rent of VND 2,220,000,000 as claimed by the plaintiff.

* As persons with associated rights and obligations, Mr. Vu Dinh O and Nguyen Ba P authorized Mr. Nguyen Xuan U to act on their behalf to make the following statement:

On August 28, 2013, Mrs. Tran Thi Y signed a contract for the rental of hotel and associated property located at No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city with Mr. Phan Van Q., which has the term of 5 years starting on September 10, 2013 and expiring on September 9, 2018.

Before entering into this contract, since Mrs. Y wished to do business with Mr. O and Mr. P, on August 5, 2013, Mrs. Y entered into a cooperation agreement with both Mr. O and Mr. P with the main terms and conditions under which the contracting parties agreed to cooperate in hotel investment and business activities. Then Mr. P was designated to run the business and the revenue gained from the business each month was remitted to Mrs. Y to repay Mr. Q the rent.

During the term of tenancy, Mrs. Y, Mr. O and Mr. P did not violate the lessee’s obligations o and respected the agreements under the signed contract. The enterprise registration certificate for Single-Member Limited Liability Company Hotel N, legally represented by Mr. Nguyen Ba P, was revoked through the plaintiff's fault. In reality, Mrs. Y, Mr. P and Mr. O could not do their business due to the competent authority’s inspection and sanctioning. Mr. O also requested the bailiff to issue the certified written minutes regarding temporary business closure starting on December 19, 2015. In the process of resolving the case, Mr. O and Mr. P made a claim for Mr. Q’s compensation for loss of business investment costs. However, after the Court sent the notice of the advance payment of legal costs, upon deeming it not necessary, Mr. O and Mr. P did not request the Court to resolve the above claim. As for the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, Mr. O and Mr. P had no opinion. Mr. O and Mr. P also confirmed that, on August 10, 2016, he officially left the house No. 39, street L, district R, and handed over the house to the plaintiff for his care and management.

According to the preliminary ruling No. 228/2019/DS-ST dated July 9, 2019 of the People’s Court of district R, the Court made the following pronouncement:

Pursuant to Clause 3 of Article 26; Point a of Clause 1 of Article 35; point g of Clause 1 of Article 40, 195, 200, 202; point b of Clause 2 of Article 227; Article 271 and Clause 1 of Article 273 in the 2015 Civil Procedures Code;

Pursuant to Articles 127, 134, 137 and 492 in the 2005 Civil Code; Pursuant to Clause 3 of Article 93 in the 2005 Housing Law;

Pursuant to the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee, providing instructions about application of several regulations of laws on legal costs and Court fees;

Pursuant to the 2008 Law on Civil Judgement Enforcement.

 Accepting the plaintiff's entire petition to sue regarding:

Declaring that the tenancy contract for the hotel and associated property dated August 28, 2013 between Mr. Phan Van Q and Ms. Tran Thi Y is invalid.

Forcing the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y to pay the plaintiff Mr. Phan Van Q the outstanding rent of VND 2,220,000,000 as soon as the judgment takes legal effect.

The parties must execute the judgement under the supervision of the competent civil judgment enforcement agency.

From the date on which the creditor’s petition for judgment execution is made until the obligations to pay sums of money are fully executed, the obligor must bear the interest of the outstanding sum paid for discharge of payment obligations every month at the rate specified in Clause 2 of Article 468 in the 2015 Civil Code.

Maintaining the interim injunction applied under the Decision on application of the interim injunction No. 69/2016/QD-BPKCTT dated September 5, 2016 of the People's Court of District R to guarantee the judgment execution.

In addition, the preliminary ruling made an official pronouncement on legal costs and the rights to appeal of litigants.

On July 22, 2019, the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y filed an appeal to request the cancellation of the entire judgement No. 228/2019/DS-ST dated July 9, 2019 of the People's Court of District R, Ho Chi Minh city.

At the appellate court:

The plaintiff refused to withdraw the petition to sue.

The defendant upheld the petition to appeal to request the cancellation of the entire first-instance judgment for re-trial because he found that the defendant was at no fault in making the tenancy contract invalidated, and that the first-instance court had applied legislative regulations unduly.

Persons with associated rights and obligations did not request any appeal.

Litigants failed to reach any agreement on case resolution.

The representative of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh city participating in the court session gave the following opinions:

Regarding formalities: As the litigants’ appeal is made within the prescribed time limit, it must be valid and the Court must accept it. The trial panel and court participants strictly abide by the provisions of law during the settlement of the case at the appellate trial stage.

Regarding case contents:  A tenancy contract dated August 28, 2013 between the involved parties violates the formality requirements as it is not notarized or authenticated. Because of that, the contract must be made invalid. As the fault lies with both parties, compensation responsibilities do not exist.  In fact, after renting the house, because Mrs. Y received the house and, till August 10, 2016, returned the house to the plaintiff, shall be liable for the rent as agreed upon between the parties. Requesting the Trial Panel not to accept the defendant’s appeal and uphold the preliminary ruling.

COURT’S COMMENTS

After studying documents and evidence available in the case file which have been examined and based on the arguments and the Procuracy Representative’s opinions raised at the court session, the Trial Panel forms the following judgements:

[1] In terms of the form and time limit of the appeal: On July 9, 2019, the People’s Court of District R tried and issued the Judgement No. 228/2019/DS-ST. On July 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed the appeal to request the dismissal of the preliminary ruling. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 1 of Article 273 in the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, the defendant's appeal still falls within the legal time limit and is valid.

[2] Considering the contents of the defendant’s appeal to request the dismissal of the entire preliminary ruling, the Trial Panel finds that

[2.1] Regarding the legal process:

In terms of the jurisdiction to settle the case by the first-instance Court:  The plaintiff chose People's Court of District R as the contract execution venue. The defendant and the defender of the defendant’s legitimate rights and interests argued that, because the defendant is a foreigner, no longer Vietnamese nationality, not residing in Vietnam at the time the People's Court of District R accepted the case, and settled down abroad, the case is not under the jurisdiction of the People's Court of District R but under the jurisdiction of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City. Based on the tenancy contract and documents included in the case file showing that the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y resided at 152E D Street, Ward P, District B, Hanoi City. Mrs. Y was granted the passport No. N1580089 issued by the Vietnam’s Embassy in Poland on March 28, 2012. This passport was issued by a competent authority to a person with Vietnamese nationality; Pursuant to the Official Dispatch providing immigration information No. 2219 CV/QLXNC- P4 dated August 10, 2016 of the Immigration Department – the Ministry of Public Security, they determined that Mrs. Y used the passport No. N1580089 in Vietnam multiple times and, at the time the People's Court of District R accepted the case on November 2, 2015, Mrs. Y entered Vietnam from July 18, 2015 and then left on November 29, 2015. After that, Mrs. Y continued to enter and exit in multiple times. In the process of settling the case by the People's Court of District R, Mrs. Y directly participated in the court proceedings, authorizing the representative, Mr. Ngo Trong I, to participate in the legal proceedings and present her opinions to fully exercise her procedural rights and obligations. Therefore, the People's Court of District R’s acceptance and settlement of the first instance civil case in accordance with Clause 3 of Article 26; Point a of Clause 1 of Article 35; Point g of Clause 1 of Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Code, falls within their jurisdiction.

[2.2] Regarding case contents:

[2.2.1]. For the plaintiff's request for pronouncement of the invalidation of the tenancy contract:

On August 28, 2013, Mr. Phan Van Q and Mrs. Tran Thi Y signed a tenancy contract for rental of the hotel and associated property which had the main terms and conditions under which Mr. Q agreed to rent the house located at No. 39, street L, ward U, district R, Ho Chi Minh city to Mrs. Y without notarization or authentication. In order to secure the above contract, Mrs. Y gave a deposit of VND 500,000,000 to Mr. Q in the form of Mrs. Y’s lending of money to Mr. Q under a notarized loan contract. The placement of the deposit and the deposit amount existing in the form of a loan contract has been admitted by both parties.

The contract that the parties entered into is essentially a lease with a term of more than 6 months but the parties have not complied with the formality requirement by not obtaining notarization or authentication, and have not registered as prescribed in Article 492 of the 2005 Civil Code and Clause 3 of Article 93 of the 2005 Housing Law. Therefore, the first-instance Court’s pronouncement of the invalidation of the contract between the signatory parties from the time of signing due to the violation of the formality requirement as prescribed in Articles 127; Article 134 of the 2005 Civil Code, is founded. As the fault leading to the invalidation of the contract lies with both litigants, compensation responsibilities do not exist.  The Court of First Instance also explained about the invalidated civil transaction, and neither involved parties has requested any compensation or any remedy against consequences of such invalidation in accordance with Article 137 of the 2005 Civil Code in Viet Nam.

[2.2.2]. For the plaintiff's claim for the defendant's repayment of the outstanding rent:

Due to the invalidation of the civil transaction, the parties are obliged to return to each other what they received. However, after signing the tenancy contract, as the defendant Mrs. Y received the house and actually used it, she must fulfill her obligation to pay the rent to the plaintiff for the period from the use of the house to the return of the house. Mrs. Y confirmed that she signed a business cooperation agreement with Mr. O and Mr. P at 39, L Street, District R. All parties agreed to designate Mr. P to manage the business and the rent was paid by Mrs. Y on behalf of Mr. Q. Notwithstanding such agreement, Mrs. Y violated her obligation to pay the rent. Mr. P and Mr. O's use of Mr. Q's house for business is, in fact, the use of the right to use the house rented by Mrs. Y from Mr. Q. This means that Mrs. Y is still obliged to pay the rent according to the terms and conditions of the cooperation agreement. The first-instance court’s acceptance of the plaintiff's request for compulsion of the defendant’s payment of the rent according to the actual time during which the defendant managed and used the house is founded.

The litigants all confirmed that, even though the People's Court of District R issued the Decision on application of the interim injunction No. 03/2017/QD-BPKCTT on January 5, 2017 with terms and conditions under which Mr. Phan Van Q is entitled to manage and maintain the current state of the house No. 39, L Street, Ward U, District R, Ho Chi Minh City, Mrs. Y, Mr. O and Mr. P, in fact, gave the house back to Mr. Q on August 10, 2016. Therefore, the Court of First Instance determination that Mrs. Y must be responsible to pay the rent owed to Mr. Q from September 10, 2013 to the end of August 10, 2016 (35 months) after subtraction of the deposit sum of 500,000,000 VND and 01 month’s rent of 80,000,000 VND that Mrs. Y already paid, and its recognition of the plaintiff's willingness to demand the payment of the rent of 80,000,000 VND/month only, are founded. The sum that the defendant has to pay to the plaintiff is calculated as follows:  (80,000,000 dong x 35 months) – (500,000,000 dong + 80,000,000 dong) = 2,220,000,000 dong.

Because persons with related rights and obligations, Mr. O and Mr. P, had no independent claim in the case, the dispute related to the investment cooperation between Mrs. Y, Mr. O and Mr. P will be resolved in other lawsuits upon request.

[2.2.3] The first-instance civil case was accepted on November 2, 2015. When the Court tried the case, it consulted the 2009 Ordinance on legal costs and court fees in Viet Nam to calculate the legal costs of this case. The Court of First Instance made its pronouncement according to the Resolution 326/2016 UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on the rate, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of legal costs and court fees. However, the amount of first-instance court costs that the involved parties had to bear was calculated correctly according to the calculation formula specified in the Ordinance on court costs and court fees. From that fact, since the Trial Panel finds that this mistake does not affect the right interests of the involved parties and does not change the contents of the case, they advise the Court of First Instance to draw from such experience.

[3] At the appellate court hearing, the involved parties do not add any other documents and evidence; Considering that the first-instance court’s full investigation, verification and invoking of the provisions of law to accept the plaintiff's petition to sue are founded.

Considering the petition of the representative of the People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City for the Trial Panel’s rejection of the defendant’s appeal and upholding of the preliminary ruling.

From the above analyses, the Appellate Trial Panel finds that the petition to appeal of the defendant for the dismissal of the entire preliminary ruling is not founded.

[4] In terms of court costs:

Regarding the first-instance court costs: Pursuant to the Ordinance on Court costs and fees, the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y must bear first-instance civil court costs with a value of 200,000 VND and the first-instance civil court cost with quota of VND 76,400,000. Mr. Phan Van Q is not liable for the court cost.

Regarding the appellate court costs: Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 1 of Article 29 in the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly, stipulating rates, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of court costs and fees, as the defendant’s appeal is not accepted, the defendant must bear the appellate civil court cost.

[5] Regarding other legal procedures: Recognizing the plaintiff's willingness to pay the full amount of the advance payment of property price appraisal fee which is worth VND 3,000,000.

In light of the aforesaid arguments,

HEREBY DECIDES

- Pursuant to Clause 1 of Article 308; Clause 1 of Article 310 in the 2015 Civil Procedures Code in Viet Nam;

- Pursuant to Article 127, 134, 137 and 492 in the 2005 Civil Procedures Code;

- Pursuant to Clause 3 of Article 93 in the 2005 Housing Law in Viet Nam; 

- Pursuant to the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 in Viet Nam dated December 30, 2016 of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee, providing instructions about application of several regulations of laws on court costs and fees;

- Pursuant to the 2008 Law on Civil Judgement Enforcement in Viet Nam.

Making the following pronouncements:

1. Reject the appeal of the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y.

2. Uphold the preliminary ruling No. 228/2019/DSST dated July 9, 2019 of the People’s Court of District R., Ho Chi Minh city as follows: 

Declaring that the tenancy contract for the hotel and associated property dated August 28, 2013 between Mr. Phan Van Q and Ms. Tran Thi Y is invalid.

Forcing the defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y to bear responsibility to pay the plaintiff Mr. Phan Van Q the outstanding rent of VND 2,220,000,000 (two billion and two hundred twenty million dong) as soon as the judgment takes legal effect.

The parties must execute the judgement under the supervision of the competent civil judgment enforcement agency.

From the date on which the creditor’s petition for judgment execution is made until the obligations to pay sums of money are fully executed, the obligor must bear the interest of the outstanding sum paid for the discharge of payment obligations at the rate specified in Clause 2 of Article 468 in the 2015 Civil Code in Viet Nam.

Uphold the decision on the interim injunction No. 69/2016/QD-BPKCTT dated September 5, 2016 of the People's Court of District R, regarding "Prohibiting the act of travelling abroad".

3. Regarding the first-instance civil court costs: The defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y must bear the first-instance civil court cost with a non-quota value of VND 200,000 (two hundred thousand dong) and the first-instance civil court cost with the quota value of VND 76,400,000 (seventy six million and four hundred thousand dong). Mr. Phan Van Q is exempted from the court cost. Refund the advance amount of the court cost of VND 200,000 (two hundred thousand dong) to Mr. Phan Van Q according to the receipt of the advance payment of the court cost No. AE/2014/0005460 dated November 2, 2015 and VND 30,000,000 (thirty million dong) according to the receipt of the advance payment of the court cost No. AE/2014/0005461 dated November 2, 2015 of the Civil Judgment Execution Department of District R, Ho Chi Minh city.

Regarding the appellate civil court costs: The defendant Mrs. Tran Thi Y must be liable for the appellate civil court cost of VND 300,000 (three hundred thousand dong), which can be offset against the amount of the advance payment of VND 300,000 (three hundred thousand dong) already paid according to the receipt of the advance payment of the court cost or fee No. 000788 dated July 25, 2019 of the Civil Judgment Execution Department of District R, Ho Chi Minh city.

In cases where the court judgement is executed under the provisions of Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Execution, the obligee and the obligor to the execution of the civil judgment may negotiate about how the judgment is executed, the right to request the judgment execution, the voluntary execution of the court judgement or shall be subject to law enforcement processes under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Execution; the time limit for the execution of the court judgement shall be subject to the regulations laid down in Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgement Execution.

The Appellate Judgement shall enter into force from the pronouncement date.