Judgment No. 07/2018/HNGD-PT dated august 31, 2018 on divorce and property dispute in divorce

PEOPLE’S COURT OF NINH BINH PROVINCE

JUDGMENT NO. 07/2018/HNGD-PT DATED AUGUST 31, 2018 ON DIVORCE AND PROPERTY DISPUTE IN DIVORCE

On August 31, 2018, at the office of the People’s Court of Ninh Binh province, a public appellate trial was conducted to hear the Case No. 10/2018/TLPT-HNGD dated June 01, 2018 of divorce and property dispute in divorce.

As the First-Instance Marriage and Family Judgment No. 06/2018/HNGD-ST dated April 24, 2018 by the People’s Court of Y district, Ninh Binh province was appealed.

Under the Decision to Bring the Case to Appellate Court No. 09/2018/QD - PT  dated August 01, 2018 between:

Plaintiff: Mr. D, born in 1955.

Address: neighborhood 1A, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

Defendant: Mrs. L, born in 1965.

Address: neighborhood 5, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

Witnesses:

- Mr. T2; address: neighborhood 8, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mrs. C1; address: neighborhood 4, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mr. L1; address: T neighborhood, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mr. V; address: T neighborhood, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mrs. T3; address: B neighborhood, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mrs. D; address: neighborhood 3, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mrs. T4; address: No. 7, 161 alley, Nguyen Van C Street, T1 ward, Ninh Binh city.

- Mrs. L, hamlet 3b, K commune, Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mr. T5; address: neighborhood 1B, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh.

- Mrs. H; address: neighborhood 1B, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh.

- Mrs. Y5; address: neighborhood 4, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh.

- Mrs. C2; address: M neighborhood, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh.

- Mr. C3; address: N hamlet, Y2 town, Y3 district, Ninh Binh.

Appellant: the defendant - Mrs. L, born in 1965.

Address: neighborhood 5, Y1 town, Y district, Ninh Binh.

At the hearing, the plaintiff and the defendant were present; the witnesses were absent.

THE CASE

Representation in the petition dated February 28, 2017 and deposition made on March 03, 2017 of Mr. D:

Mr. D and Mrs. L got married in 1982 and registered their marriage at the People’s Committee of Y4 commune, K1 district, Ninh Binh province on December 10, 1982. After getting married, they lived together harmoniously for 8 years before they grew to distrust each other and their family faced economic difficulties. In February 1998, Mr. D went to Russia for business purpose until 2013 during which he and his wife still kept in touch and he still fulfilled his responsibilities towards his wife and children. From 2013 to 2015, as they had not lived together for many years and Mr. D’s business was not doing well, Mr. D and Mrs. L no longer kept in touch. In March 2016, after Mr. D had returned to Vietnam for 10 days, he and his eldest daughter went to look for Mrs. L but could not find her. After that, Mr. D went back to Russia for business purpose. In July 2016, Mr. D returned to Vietnam and tried to find Mrs. L again, but as Mrs. L deliberately avoided him, he could not meet her. Mr. D and Mrs. L have been living apart for 20 years and could not rebuild their relationship. Now, Mr. D would like a divorce as their relationship had ended and he could not reunite with Mrs. L.

Regarding common children: Mr. D and Mrs. L have 3 common children: Ms. H1, born in 1983, Ms. H2, born in 1985, and Mr. T6, born in 1987, who are all independent adults, thus, do not require consideration and resolution from the Court.

Regarding common property, debts and agricultural land: Mr. D confirmed that he and Mrs. L have no common property, debt or agricultural land so he did not request consideration and resolution from the Court.

Representation in depositions made on July 17, 2017, July 21, 2017 and July 30, 2017 of Mrs. L:

Mrs. L and Mr. D got married in 1982. No serious dispute arose when they lived together. In 1995, Mrs. L’s family was enforced a debt payment. In 1998, Mr. D, who was then a tontine group leader, was unable to pay members of his tontine group so he fled abroad. Mrs. L did not know that Mr. D was involved in tontine and borrowed money to pay interest as he did not tell her. Mr. D did not send money home often while he was abroad; the total amount of money he sent was VND 40. 000. 000. In 2016, Mr. D returned to Vietnam but he did not find Mrs. L as he claimed. Mrs. L and Mr. D actually did not have any serious dispute that warranted a divorce, but if Mr. D wanted to divorce, Mrs. L would agree.

Regarding common children: Mr. D and Mrs. L have 3 common children: Ms. H1, born in 1983, Ms. H2, born in 1985, and Mr. T6, born in 1987, who are all independent adults, thus, do not require consideration and resolution from the Court.

Regarding property: Mrs. L claimed Mr. D’s deposition that there was no common property was untrue. On August 16, 2017, Mrs. L submitted a request to the Court for resolution of property-related matters with the following specific contents: when living in harmony, Mr. D and Mrs. L had a house and land in neighborhood 3, Y1 town, which were subject to coercive judgment enforcement and used to fully pay judgment creditors. However, at that time, Mr. D was involved in a tontine, ran up debts and lost property owned by both of them. During the Court's resolution process, Mrs. L requested Mr. D to pay her an amount worth half the present value of that house, which was VND 4. 000. 000. 000. Mr. D must pay VND 2. 000. 000. 000 to Mrs. L. After that, in the first-instance trial, Mrs. L redetermined that house and land’s value to be VND 3. 000. 000. 000 and requested Mr. D to pay VND 1. 500. 000. 000 to her. After Mr. D went to another country, Mrs. L and her children had to rent a house at Bach hoa Ninh. In 2000, they rented a house from Mrs. Ngan and Mr. Thuy and, in 2002, rented a house from Mrs. Cuc and her husband and lived there until 2016. Total house rent from 1998 to 2016 amounted to VND 181. 200. 000. Mrs. L requested Mr. D to pay her half of this amount, which was VND 90. 600. 000. Since 1998, Mr. D lived abroad and Mrs. L had to pay all of the costs of raising their children through high school and university totaling VND 90. 600. 000, in which, VND 480. 000. 000 were university expenses and VND 200. 000. 000 were high school expenses. At the first-instance trial, Mrs. L withdrew the request for payment of the costs of raising their children through university, confirmed that Mrs. L had paid VND 340. 000. 000 of high school expenses, and requested Mr. D to pay her half of the high school expenses, which was VND 170. 000. 000. While Mr. D was abroad from 2005 to 2012, all 3 sons had to take care of Mr. D’s mother, who was 90 years old then, and Mrs. L had to take care of Mr. D’s mother for 3 years and spent a total of VND 54. 000. 000 for daily expenses, meals and medications. Mrs. L took care of Mr. D’s mother out of devotion and marital obligations. However, as Mr. D was filing for a divorce, Mrs. L requested Mr. D to pay her the VND 54. 000. 000 that she spent to take care of Mr. D's mother.

- Regarding debts: before going abroad, Mr. D borrowed money and gold to be able to travel abroad, which Mrs. L paid back on behalf of Mr. D. It was not until people came asking that Mrs. L knew Mr. D borrowed such money and gold. Mrs. L paid both principal and interest to each person as follows:

+ Mr. L1: VND 35.600.000, in which, the principal was VND 5. 000. 000 and interest was VND 5. 000. 000.

+ Mr. V: VND 27.600.000, in which, the principal was VND 5. 000. 000 and interest was VND 22. 000. 000.

+ Mr. T2: VND 91.936.000, in which, the principal was VND 13. 600. 000 and interest was VND 78. 336. 000.

+ Mr. C1: VND 25.600.000, in which, the principal was VND 4. 000. 000 and interest was VND 21. 600. 000.

+ Mr. B1: VND 49.800.000, in which, the principal was VND 9. 000. 000 and interest was VND 40. 800. 000.

+ Mrs. M1: VND 2.000.000 of principal.

+ Mrs. D: VND 77.792.000, in which, the principal was VND 10. 400. 000 and interest was VND 67. 392. 000.

+ Mrs. L: VND 109.760.000, in which, the principal was VND 14. 000. 000 and interest was VND 95. 760. 000

+ Mrs. H3 and Mrs. H3’s son Mr. Y6: VND 204.580.000 and 2 maces of 9999 gold, in which, the principal was VND 26.500.000 and interest was VND 178.080.000. To be specific, Mrs. L paid VND 10. 000. 000 in principal and interest to Mrs. H3 by July 2018 and could not recall the specific amount of interest paid by the end of July 2018. After that, Mrs. H3 passed away. In December 2011, Mrs. L made 2 payments totaling VND 20. 000. 000 (VND 10. 000. 000/payment) to Mr. Y6.

+ Mr. T6: VND 94.880.000, in which, the principal was VND 20. 000. 000 and interest was VND 74. 880. 000.

+ Mrs. H: VND 42.160.000, in which, the principal was VND 8. 500. 000 and interest was VND 33. 660. 000.

+ Mrs. T3: VND 5.000.000 in principal and interest.

+ Mr. T7: VND 12.000.000 excluding interest.

+ Mrs. T4: first payment of VND 67.600.000, in which, the principal was VND 10. 000. 000 and interest was VND 57. 600. 000, and second payment of VND 38. 936. 000 in principal and interest.

+ Mrs. C2: 3 maces of 9999 gold.

+ Mr. C4: 2 maces of 9999 gold.

+ Mrs. B2: 6 maces of 9999 gold.

+ Mr. Y6: 2 maces of 9999 gold.

Mr. L paid a total of VND  884.244.000 and 13 maces of 9999 gold on behalf of Mr. D (gold price at the time the trial was conducted was VND 3.500.000/mace, amounting to VND 45.500.000). As these were Mr. D’s personal debts, Mrs. L requested Mr. D to pay her the abovementioned amount of money and gold in full. At the first-instance trial, Mr. L requested Mr. D to pay her VND. 450. 000. 000 and 13 maces of 9999 gold (in which, Mr. D admitted he had borrowed the following amounts: VND 5. 000. 000 with interest rate of 2,4%/month from Mr. T5, VND 2. 000. 000 from Mrs. M1; 2 maces of 9999 gold from Mr. C4 and 6 maces of 9999 gold from Mrs. B2). Mrs. L did not know about and had no relation with the money and gold Mr. D borrowed but, considering their relationship, Mrs. L requested Mr. D to pay her only VND 450. 000. 000 and 13 maces of 9999 gold, not dividing the amount Mrs. L paid on behalf of Mr. D.

Opinions of Mr. D on Mrs. L’s requests in the request dated September 15, 2017 and at the first-instance trial:

- Regarding the VND 1.500.000.000 payment for the house and land requested by Mrs. L: when they lived together from 1994 to 1996, as they participated in a tontine and ran up a lot of debts, all of the house and land were subject to coercive judgment enforcement and used to pay off their common debts. In 1998, when Mr. D went abroad, they had no common debt. They also had no marital property. Thus, Mr. D did not accept Mrs. L’s request.

- Regarding the rent for the house where Mrs. L worked as a photographer and Mrs. L and their children lived while Mr. D was in Russia, which was VND 181.200.000, and Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay her VND 90.600.000: Mr. D did not agree on this amount as it was unfounded. In 1998, Mr. D went abroad to make ends meet for himself and his family. Although not frequently, in the beginning, Mr. D did send money to Mrs. L to cover daily expenses and their children’s tuition. That Mrs. L rent the house for her job was essential to her. Thus, Mr. D had no responsibility to fulfill this request of Mrs. L.

- Regarding VND 340.000.000 of the costs of raising their children through high school and Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay her VND 170.000.000: when Mr. D was abroad, he tried to save and send money to Mrs. L to cover living expenses and their children’s tuition. Mr. D mostly sent money through his friends so it was untrue that Mrs. L claimed to have received only VND 40. 000. 000; thus, Mr. L did not accept this request. At the confrontation on December 18, 2017, Mr. D offered VND 100. 000. 000 to Mrs. L and their children but, at the first-instance trial, Mr. D claimed that Mrs. L caused him prolonged inconvenience, leading to his unemployment, so Mr. D did not have this amount to offer to Mrs. L.

- Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay her VND 54.000.000 used to take care of Mr. D’s mother while he was abroad: Mr. D’s mother had 8 sons and daughters in total and could live independently from her children. When she was sick, Mr. D's siblings took care of her and Mr. D still had responsibilities towards her. Mr. D deemed Mrs. L’s request unfounded and conflicting with the actual situation, thus, he did not agree to pay this amount to Mrs. L.

- Regarding the amounts Mrs. L represented as Mr. D’s personal debts: Mr. D did not agree on it. In 1996, their debts were paid off by selling the house and land. When Mr. D went abroad, he only borrowed VND 5. 000. 000 with interest rate of 2,4%/1 month for 6 months from Mr. T5; VND 2 million from Mrs. M1; 2 maces of 9999 gold from Mr. C4 and 6 maces of 9999 gold from Mrs. B2. Mr. D and Mrs. L had paid off these debts; and Mr. D did not borrow or know from whom, when and for what Mrs. L borrow the remaining amounts. Therefore, Mr. D did not accept any of Mrs. L’s requests.

In the First-Instance Marriage and Family Judgment No. 06/2018/HNGD-ST dated April 24, 2018 by the People’s Court of Y district, Ninh Binh province, it was decided that:

1. Regarding marriage relation: Mr. D and Mrs. L were granted divorce.

2. Mrs. L’s request concerning the amount of money that Mrs. L paid on behalf of Mr. D was accepted as follows:

Mr. D shall repay Mrs. L the amount of money that Mrs. L spent to settle his debts amounting to VND 24.280.000 (twenty four million two hundred eighty thousand) and 08 (eight) maces of 9999 gold paid to Mr. C4 (02 maces of 9999 gold); Mrs. B2 (06 maces of 9999 gold); Mrs. M1 (VND 2.000.000); Mr. T5 (VND 22.280.000, including VND 5.000.000 of principal and VND 17.280.000 of interest).

3. Reject Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay her the following amounts:

- VND 1.500.000.000 of the value of the house and land subject to coercive judgment enforcement.

- VND 90.600.000 of house rent.

- VND 170.000.000 of high school expenses of their children.

- VND 54.000.000 for care of Mr. D’s mother.

- VND 425.720.000 and 05 maces of 9999 gold that Mrs. L spent to settle Mr. D’s debts.

4. Regarding court fees:

- Exempt Mr. D from paying first-instance civil court fees and first-instance divorce court fees. Return to Mr. D VND 300.000 of court fee advance paid per the court fee advance receipt No. AA/2013/0001614 dated March 03, 2017 by the civil judgment enforcement authority of Y district, Ninh Binh province.

- Mrs. L shall incur VND 77. 168. 000 of first-instance civil court fees, which may be deducted from VND 51. 045. 000 of court fee advance paid per the court fee advance receipt No. AA/2013/0001712 dated August 16, 2017 by the civil judgment enforcement authority of Y district, Ninh Binh province. Mrs. L shall pay the remaining VND 26. 123. 000 of first-instance civil court fees.

In addition, the judgment pronounces the right to appeal of litigants as per the law.

On May 08, 2018, Mrs. L submitted an appeal against the entire first-instance judgment No. 06/2018/HNGD-ST dated April 24, 2018 on “divorce and property dispute in divorce” by the People’s Court of Y district. Mrs. L requested the appellate court to reconsider and rehear the entire case regarding all matters related to Mrs. L’s request in the first-instance trial and accept all of Mrs. L’s requests that Mr. D repay her the amounts she stated in the first-instance trial.

At the appellate trial, the defendant upheld her appeal and requested the Appellate Trial Panel to compel the plaintiff to repay her the amounts she stated in the first-instance trial. The plaintiff, Mr. D, upheld his petition, disagreed with the reasons to the defendant’s appeal and requested the Court to uphold the first-instance judgment. The representative of the People's Procuracy of Ninh Binh province expressed the following views on the resolution of the case:

1. Regarding proceedings: the Trial Panel and litigants fully complied with regulations of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Regarding the case: after analyzing facts of the case, the Procurator participating in the trial requested the Trial Panel to apply Clause 1 Article 308 and Clause 1 Article 148 of the Civil Procedure Code and Clause 1 Article 29 of the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on rates, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of Court fees and charges to: reject Mrs. L’s appeal; uphold Judgment No. 06/2018/HNGD-ST dated April 24, 2018 on “divorce and property dispute in divorce” by the People’s Court of Y district, Ninh Binh province; and compel Mrs. L to incur the appellate court fees as per the law.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

 [1] Mrs. L’s appeal was drawn up and submitted by the deadline and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, thus, it may be considered under the procedure for appeals.

 [2] Regarding the contents of Mrs. L's appeal:

2.1. Regarding marriage relation:

Mrs. L and Mr. D got married voluntarily and registered their marriage at the People’s Committee of Y4 commune, K1 district, Ninh Binh province. Thus, Mr. D and Mrs. L’s marriage was lawful. In Mrs. L’s appeal, she claimed that the dispute between her and her husband did not warrant a divorce but if Mr. D wished to divorce her, Mrs. L would agree if Mr. D paid her all of the amounts she proposed in the first-instance trial. In the appellate trial, the litigants all confirmed that Mr. D and Mrs. L had been living separately since 1998. From 2013 until now, Mr. D and Mrs. L do not keep in touch or express concern for each other. Thus, there were sufficient grounds to affirm that Mr. D and Mrs. L had gravely violated the rights and obligations of spouses, resulting in the deterioration of their marriage, preventing them from living together and failing to fulfill the objectives of marriage. There were sufficient grounds for the first-instance trial court to grant them a divorce according to regulations in Clause 1 Article 56 of the Law on Marriage and Family in Viet Nam. The condition for the divorce laid down by Mrs. L was unfounded, thus, it was not accepted.

2.2. Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay half of the present value of the house and land subject to coercive judgment enforcement and used to pay off Mr. D’s personal debts during the marriage period amounting to VND 1.500.000.000:

According to Mrs. L, Mr. D participated in a tontine, ran up debts that she did not know about and lost their marital property so Mr. D must pay her half of the value of the house and land at the time of the first-instance  trial amounting to VND 1.500.000.000. Mr. D disagreed as, when they still lived together, Mrs. L participated in a tontine and they ran up too many debts so the whole house and land were forfeited to pay off their common debts. In working sessions at the Court and in the confrontation record dated December 18, 2017, Mrs. L admitted that, as they borrowed money and participated in tontines in 1989, in 1995, the house and land were forfeited to enforce a judgment. When the civil judgment enforcement authority of Y district seized the house and land to enforce the judgment, Mrs. L had no comment on how their house and land were handled. In the working record dated May 21, 1995 (No. 171), Mrs. L expressed her view on forfeiture of property: ‘…tontines are a social evil that affects many people, the country’s common law, so it's unfair to penalize only me…”. Thus, there is no ground to accept Mrs. L’s appeal for the Court to compel Mr. D to pay her half of the present value of the forfeited house and land amounting to VND 1.500.000.000.

2.3. Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay half of the house rent of the 18 years he was abroad:

When Mr. D and Mrs. L’s house and land were forfeited to enforce a judgment, the judgment creditors bought Mr. D and Mrs. L's family a house to live in. Mr. D and Mrs. L sold that house and then rent another house to ensure their family's business. In 1998, Mr. D went abroad to make a living, hoping to improve their family's situation, with Mrs. L's agreement. While he was overseas, although not frequently, Mr. D did send money to Mrs. L to cover living expenses and their children's tuition. At home, it was essential that Mrs. L and their children rented a house to live. There was no ground to accept Mrs. L's request that Mr. D pay VND  90. 600. 000 of house rent during the marriage period. Therefore, this content in Mrs. L’s petition was rejected.

2.4. Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay half of the costs of raising their 3 common children while they were in high school amounting to VND 170.000.000:

The litigants admitted that, from 1998 to 2016, during which Mr. D was abroad, although not frequently, Mr. D did send money to Mr. L to cover living expenses and their children's tuition. Mr. D mostly sent money through acquaintances so there was no proof of such sending. Mrs. L only confirmed that Mr. D did send money home multiple times totaling VND 40. 000. 000. This proved that Mr. D did not evade his responsibilities towards their common children. On the other hand, both spouses shall take joint responsibilities to raise their common children during the marriage period. Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay her half of the costs of raising their 3 common children through high school upon their divorce was unfounded. Therefore, this content in Mrs. L’s petition was rejected.

2.5. Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay VND 54.000.000 of the costs of taking care of Mr. D’s mother for 3 years:

According to Mrs. C1’s representation and confirmation from the grassroots government, Mrs. L took care of Mr. D’s mother for approximately 1 year as Mr. D’s family took care of Mr. D’s mother in turns. Mrs. L affirmed she took care of Mr. D’s mother out of common sense and her obligation as a daughter-in-law; if Mrs. L and Mr. D were not going to divorce, she would not request Mr. D to pay this amount. In the marriage period, the responsibility for taking care of parents rested with their children. Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay the costs of taking care of Mrs. L’s mother-in-law during the marriage period was unfounded.

2.6. Regarding Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D repay Mrs. L VND 450.000.000 and 13 maces of 9999 gold that Mrs. L paid for Mr. D while he was abroad:

During the resolution of the case at the first-instance court, Mr. D admitted to the following amounts of money and gold that Mr. D and Mrs. L borrowed: 2 maces of 9999 gold from Mr. C4; 6 maces of 9999 gold from Mrs. B2; VND 2 million from Mrs. M1; VND 22.280.000 (including VND 5 million of principal and VND 17.280.000 of interest) from Mr. T5. Mr. D agreed to repay Mrs. L these amounts. However, at the first-instance trial on April 24, 2018, Mr. D once again refused to repay Mrs. L these amounts. Mr. D claimed that the money he sent Mrs. L was enough to pay off these debts but could not present any proof of the amount he sent Mrs. L. There were grounds for the first-instance court to compel Mr. D to repay Mrs. L the VND 24. 280. 000 and 8 maces of 9999 gold that Mrs. L paid to Mrs. Mui, Mr. Thuan. Mr. Co and Mrs. Bay.

As for the remaining debts, Mr. D neither admitted nor agreed to repay these amounts to Mrs. L, including money and gold borrowed from Mrs. H; Mrs. D; Ms. L, Mrs. C1; Mrs. Mai Thi Cau; Ms. T4; Mr. T2; Mrs. Y5; Mr. L1; Mrs. C2; Mr. V; Mr. Dinh Huu Y and Mrs. Dinh Thi Bao. These persons (excluding Mrs. Yen) wrote a confirmation or receipt or signed a confirmation written by Mrs. L specifying that Mr. D borrowed their money before going abroad and Mrs. L was the one who paid off the debts, matching Mrs. L’s representation, but there was nothing proving that Mr. D borrowed their money. Mr. D also submitted a witness letter from Mr. Y6, receipts from Mrs. Duc and Mrs. Hai and written confirmations from Mr. V and Mr. T5 concerning the debts that differed from the confirmation they gave Mrs. L. The first-instance court organized a confrontation and collected statements from the persons who Mrs. L claimed to have lent money to Mr. D and to whom Mrs. L paid the debts, and they all confirmed Mrs. L had paid both principal and interest to them. Mrs. H, Mr. T5, Mrs. D, Ms. L, Mrs. C1, Mrs. Mai Thi Cau, Ms. T4 and Mr. T2 all affirmed to have lend money to Mr. D and Mrs. L for Mr. D to go abroad; Ms. Ỵ5 and Mr. L1 confirmed Mr. D and Mrs. L borrowed their money for business purpose; Mrs. C2 asserted to have lend Mrs. L money; Mr. V stated he did not lend money to Mr. D. Thus, there were grounds for the People’s Court of Y district to reject Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D repaid her VND 425. 720. 000 and 05 maces of 9999 gold, which she used to pay off Mr. D’s debts. This content in Mrs. L’s petition had no valid ground, thus, it was rejected.

2.7. Regarding first-instance civil court fees: Mr. D, born in 1955, was an elderly, thus, he may be exempt from the first-instance civil court fees and first-instance divorce court fees for the VND 24.280.000 and 08 maces of 9999 gold worth VND 28.960.000 (gold price on April 24, 2018: VND 3.620.000/mace) payable to Mrs. L according to regulations in Point dd Clause 1 Article 12 of the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on rates, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of Court fees and charges. Therefore, there was no valid ground for Mrs. L’s petition against the exemption from court fees granted to Mr. D by the first-instance court, thus, it was rejected.

According to regulations in Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Code in Viet Nam, Clause 1 Article 26; and Point b Clause 5 Article 27 of the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 in Viet Nam, Mrs. L shall incur first-instance court fees for the amounts of money rejected by the Court, including VND 1.500.000.000 of half of the value of the forfeited house and land; VND 90. 600. 000 of house rent; VND 170. 000. 000 of the costs of raising their children through high school; VND 54. 000. 000 of the costs of taking care of Mr. D’s mother; and VND 425. 720. 000 and 05 maces of 9999 gold that Mrs. L paid for Mr. D. Total amount of money and gold (converted to money at the time the first-instance trial was conducted) rejected by the Court was VND 2. 258. 420. 000. The court fees incurred by Mrs. L for the amounts of money rejected by the Court were VND 72. 000. 000 + (2% X VND 258. 420. 000 = VND 5. 168. 400) = VND 77. 168. 400. It was lawful for the first-instance court to compel Mrs. L to incur VND 77. 168. 400 of first-instance court fees as per the law. Thus, Mrs. L's petition against the payment of first-instance court fees was rejected. As the view about this content in Mrs. L’ petition of the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Ninh Binh province matched the judgment of the Trial Panel, it was accepted.

 [3] Appellate civil court fees: as the petition was rejected, Mrs. L shall incur appellate civil court fees in accordance with the law.

Based on the abovementioned facts and matters,

HEREBY DECIDES

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 308, Article 147 and Article 148 of the Civil Procedure Code; pursuant to Articles 19, 27, 37, 45, 56 and 71 of the Law on Marriage and Family;

Pursuant to Point dd Clause 1 Article 12, Clause 1 Article 26; Points a and b Clause 5 Article 27; and Clause 1 Article 29 of the Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on rates, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of Court fees and charges.

1. Reject Mrs. L’s appeal. Uphold the First-Instance Judgment No. 06/2018/HNGD-ST dated April 24, 2018 by the People’s Court of Y district, Ninh Binh province. To be specific:

1.1. Grant Mr. D a divorce from Mrs. L.

1.2. Accept a part of Mrs. L’s request concerning the debts that Mrs. L paid for Mr. D:

Mr. D shall repay Mrs. L the amount of money that Mrs. L spent to settle his debts, which included VND  24.280.000 (twenty four million two hundred eighty thousand) and 08 (eight) maces of 9999 gold paid to Mr. C4 (02 maces of 9999 gold); Mrs. B2 (06 maces of 9999 gold); Mrs. M1 (VND 2.000.000); Mr. T5 (VND 22.280.000, including VND 5.000.000 of principal and VND 17.280.000 of interest).

1.3. Reject Mrs. L’s request that Mr. D pay Mrs. L the following amount of money and gold: VND 1.500.000.000 of half of the value of the house and land subject to coercive judgment enforcement during the marriage period, VND 90.600.000 of house rent during the marriage period; VND 170.000.000 of costs of raising their children through high school during the marriage period; VND 54.000.000 for care of Mr. D’s mother during the marriage period; and VND 425.720.000 and 05 maces of 9999 gold that Mrs. L spent to settle Mr. D’s debts during the marriage period.

1.4. Regarding first-instance civil court fees:

Exempt Mr. D from paying first-instance civil court fees and first-instance divorce court fees. Return to Mr. D VND 300.000 of court fee advance paid per the court fee advance receipt No. AA/2013/0001614 dated March 03, 2017 by the civil judgment enforcement authority of Y district, Ninh Binh province. Mrs. L shall incur VND 77. 168. 000 of first-instance civil court fees, which may be deducted from VND 51. 045. 000 of court fee advance paid per the court fee advance receipt No. AA/2013/0001712 dated August 16, 2017 by the civil judgment enforcement authority of Y district, Ninh Binh province. Mrs. L shall pay the remaining VND 26. 123. 000 (twenty six million one hundred twenty three thousand) of first-instance civil court fees.

2. The contents of the first-instance judgment not subject to any petition or appeal come into force from the date of expiry of the time to petition/appeal.

3. Regarding appellate civil court fees: Mrs. L shall incur VND 300.000 (three hundred thousand), which may be deducted from the appellate court fee advance paid per the receipt No. AA/2013/0001831 dated May 11, 2018 by the judgment enforcement authority of Y district, Ninh Binh province. Mrs. L had paid off the appellate civil court fees.

4. Regarding guidelines for civil judgment enforcement: In case the judgment or court decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 of the Law on Enforcements of Civil Judgments in Viet Nam, the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor are lawfully allowed to reach an agreement on judgment enforcement, request judgment enforcement or be subject to voluntary or coercive judgment enforcement in accordance with regulations in Articles 6, 7a, 7b and 9 of the Law on Enforcements of Civil Judgments; and the effective period of judgment enforcement is provided for in Article 30 of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments.

5. This appellate judgment takes effect from the date of pronouncement, which is August 31, 2018.