Judgment no. 130/2022/DS-PT on Dispute over house reclaim, distribution of inheritance, division of common property, cancellation of declaration of acceptance of the legacy

SUPERIOR PEOPLE’S COURT IN HO CHI MINH CITY

JUDGMENT NO. 130/2022/DS-PT DATED MARCH 15, 2022 ON DISPUTE OVER HOUSE RECLAIM, DISTRIBUTION OF INHERITANCE, DIVISION OF COMMON PROPERTY, CANCELLATION OF DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE LEGACY

On March 8 and 15, 2022, the Superior People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City conducted a public appellate trial of the case No. 622/2020/TLPT-DS dated December 14, 2020 on "Dispute over house reclaim, distribution of inheritance, division of common property, cancellation of declaration of acceptance of the legacy”.

As the first instance civil judgment No. 972/2020/DS-ST dated July 13, 2020 of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City was appealed.

According to Decision to bring the case to appellate trial No. 157/2022/QD-PT dated February 16, 2022 between:

- Petitioner: Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, born in 1938.

Address: H St, C West NSW 2166.

Legal representative authorized by the petitioner:

1/. Ms. Vo Thi Kim Th, born in 1984.

Address: H Street, Ward 15, District T, Ho Chi Minh City.

Authorized representative of Ms. Vo Thi Kim Th:  Mr. Le Dai Th, born in 1988. Address: Q Street, Ward 11, District G, Ho Chi Minh City. (appeared in court)

2/. Mr. Thuong Hoang Ph, born in 1978. (did not appear in court) Address: B Street, Ward 9, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

- Respondent: Ms. Le Thi Kim L, born in 1961. (appeared in court) Address: 664 X Street, Group 1, Quarter 1, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City.

Authorized representative of the respondent:  Mr. Le Xuan H Address: U Street, Quarter 2, Ward T, District Th (now Th City), Ho Chi Minh City. (appeared in court) Defender of the respondent's legitimate rights and interests: Lawyer Hoang Thai L - Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association.  (appeared in court)

- Persons with interests and obligations related to the case:

1/. Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, born in 1968. (did not appear in court)

2/. Ms. Tran Le Vuong Tr, born in 1983. (did not appear in court)

3/. Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, born in 1957. (did not appear in court)

4/. Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, born in 1968. (did not appear in court)

5/. Nguyen Thi Ngoc A, born in 2003.

Guardian: Ms.  Le Thi Thuy Tr, born in 1968.

Co-address: 668 X Street, Group 1, Quarter 1, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City.

6/. Ms. Le Thi H (died in 2018) The successor of Ms. H's procedural rights and obligations:

6.1/. Ms.  Nguyen Thi Th, died in 2014.

6.2/. Ms. Le Thi Kim L, born in 1961. (appeared in court) Address: 664 X Street, Group 1, Quarter 1, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City.

6.3/. Ms. Le Thi Kim V, born in 1959. (did not appear in court) Address:  672 X Street, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City.

6.4/. Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, born in 1968. (did not appear in court)

6.5/. Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, born in 1968. (did not appear in court)

6.6/. Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, born in 1957. (did not appear in court) Co-address: 668 X Street, Group 1, Quarter 1, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City.

6.7/. Mr. Le Van D, born in 1965.

Mr. D’s authorized representative: Ms. Le Thi Kim L, born in 1961. Address: 664 X Street, Group 1, Quarter 1, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City. (appeared in court) The authorized representative of Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Tran Le Vuong Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Nguyen Thi Ngoc A: Ms. Le Thi Kim V, born in 1959, Address: 672 X Street, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City. (did not appear in court)

7/. Public notary office No. 10 (with written request for trial in absentia).

Address: L Street, Ward 2, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City.

- Appellant:  Mr. Thuong Hoang Ph (authorized representative of the petitioner), the respondent Ms. Le Thi Kim L (also the authorized representative of Mr. Le Van D), person with relevant interests and obligations: Ms. Le Thi Kim V (also the authorized representative of Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The petitioner, Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, with an authorized representative, presented:

The house No. 668 on X Street, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City was originally owned by Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N (Mr. N) and his wife, Ms.  Nguyen Thi Th.  Mr. N and Ms.  Th had cohabited before 1986 and they were confirmed by the People's Committee of Ward P as a de facto relationship on February 18, 2014.

In 2014, Ms. Nguyen Thi Th died; after going out of mourning for Ms. Th, he returned to Australia. In Vietnam, Ms. Le Thi H (Ms. Th's mother), Le Thi Kim L (Ms. Th's sister) arbitrarily broke the door lock and brought people to live at the house No. 668 on Street X without Mr. N's consent. After returning home, he repeatedly made notices to reclaim the house, but Ms. H and Ms. L still deliberately occupied this property and did not intend to return it to Mr. N.

In 2014, he sued to ask Ms. Le Thi H and Ms. Le Thi Kim L to return the house to him.

In 2016, Ms. Le Thi H passed away.

In 2019, Mr. N redefined the lawsuit against Ms. Le Thi Kim L according to the following content:  Request for division of marital property which is house No. 668 on Street X, Ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City; it has been currently occupied by Ms. Le Thi Kim L and require an inheritance for Ms. Th's share in the house.  On June 1, 2020, the petitioner has a petition to withdraw the house reclaim.

At the first-instance court hearing, the petitioner's representative redefined the claim, in specific: The claim for division of common property which is a half of the house No. 668 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City and division of inheritance by operation of law for the remaining half of Ms. Th's house because Ms. Th died in 2014. Request to cancel the declaration of acceptance of the legacy made by Ms. Le Thi H at the District 10 Public Notary Office on June 19, 2017.

Respondent, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, presented:

Mr. N's claim that he and Ms. Th had a husband and wife relationship before 1975 was not true, Ms. L's family only knew Mr. N because he has a workshop near their house, and Mr. N had left the country for a long time. Later, he sometimes went back and forth Vietnam and came to the house No. 668 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City many times as friends.  In 2014, Ms. Th died, Mr. N attended the funeral and went into mourning.

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N sued that she arbitrarily unlocked the house to live in and still deliberately did not return the house to Mr. N. It was not true because she has her own house and currently resides at 664 Duong X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City.  The house No. 668 belonged to her sister named Nguyen Thi Th; in 2014, Ms. Th died without a husband and children, leaving no will, so the house located at the above address is automatically inherited by Ms. Th’s mother, who is Ms. Le Thi H.  Mr. N's lawsuit was groundless, so she asked the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City to suspend the case.

Persons with interests and obligations related to the case:

Mr. Le Van D authorized Ms. Le Thi Kim L to represent: Agreed with the respondent's opinion.

Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Tran Le Vuong Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Nguyen Thi Ngoc A together authorized Ms. Le Thi Kim V to represent: Agreed with the respondent's opinion.

Public Notary Office No. 10: had been duly summoned many times by the first-instance court but still did not appear in court during the case settlement process.

In the First instance civil judgment No. 972/2020/DS-ST dated July 13, 2020, the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City judges:

Pursuant to Articles 234, 651, 660 of the Civil Code 2015; pursuant to Clause 2, Article 59 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014; Resolution 35/2000/NQ-QH10 dated June 9, 2000 of the National Assembly;

Joint Circular 01/2001/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP dated January 3, 2001;

Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the National Assembly Standing Committee, stipulating the court fees and charges, collection, exemption, reduction, management, and use thereof;

Declare:

1/. Suspend house reclaim of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N.

2/. Determine the relationship between Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Nguyen Thi Th as a de facto relationship.

3/. Refuse Nguyen Tony Van N's request for the division of common property, which is the house No. 668 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City.

4/. Accept the request to divide the inheritance of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N:

Identify the real estate No. 688 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City as the estate left by Ms. Nguyen Thi Th (the house and land according to the existing condition map of the location provided by the Center of Cartography affiliated to Department of Natural resources and environment (made on September 24, 2018).

The first line of succession of Ms. Nguyen Thi Th includes Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Le Thi H (died in 2018). The first line of succession of Ms. H includes Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, Ms. Le Thi Kim V.

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, Ms. Le Thi Kim V each receives a half of value of the house No. 688 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City at the time of writ of execution.

5/. Cancel the declaration of acceptance of legacy of Ms. Le Thi H made at the District 10 Public Notary Office on June 19, 2017.

The parties shall request the competent Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement to enforce the judgment.  In case the judgment debtor is late in fulfilling the payment obligation, he/she must pay additional interest on the amount of late payment corresponding to the late payment period as prescribed in Articles 357 and 468 of the Civil Code 2015.

In addition, the first-instance judgment also declared court fees, liability for judgment enforcement and the right to appeal according to regulations.

On July 27, 2020, Ms. Le Thi Kim L and Le Thi Kim V filed an appeal against the entire first-instance judgment.

On August 6, 2020, Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N filed an appeal against a part of the first-instance judgment, proposing to amend the first-instance judgment towards accepting the petitioner's request for division of common property.

At the appellate court hearing, the authorized representative of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, Ms. Le Thi Kim L (also the authorized representative of Ms. Le Thi Kim V) presented that the appeal request remained unchanged.

The authorized representative of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N presented: Documents and evidences contained in the case file showed that Mr. N and Ms. Nguyen Thi T had cohabited; had a de facto relationship, in accordance with the provisions of law. From the day he lived with Ms. Th, he followed the law of monogamy.  Regarding the land use right, the petitioner confirmed that it was originally given by Ms. Th's mother before her marriage. Therefore, when Ms. Th died, Mr. N proposed to be divided a half of the value of Ms. Th's estate left to 02 people in the first line of succession, Mr. N and Ms. H. The house which was built during marriage should be the marital property. Mr. N offered to receive a half of the value of the house. Mr. N was eligible to have real estate ownership in Vietnam registered in his name, so he offered to receive the house in kind and reimburse the remaining value to the respondent.

The authorized representative of the respondent presented:  The petitioner's claim that Ms. Th has been economically dependent on the petitioner was incorrect because Ms. H's family and Ms. Th's family are fairly well off.  Ms. Th was just an intermediary to help Mr. N transfer money from abroad to relatives in Vietnam; Mr. N did not transfer money to Ms. Th. Mr. N took care of Ms. Th when she was sick, and went into mourning for Ms. Th just to show gratitude towards Ms. Th for her help; that was not considered as cohabitation and taking care of as husband and wife. Mr. N and Ms. Th were not a de facto relationship.  Before 1978, Mr. N had a wife and children; in 1979, Mr. N crossed the border with his wife and children. The respondent provided 5 written confirmations from people living near Mr. N's house in Vietnam that at that time Mr. N had a wife and children in Vietnam. Therefore, the respondent proposed not to recognize the de facto relationship between Mr. N and Ms. Th; denied the petitioner's claim on the division of common property and inheritance as to the house No. 668, Street X.

Viewpoint of the representative of the Superior People's Procuracy on lawsuit settlement:

- Regarding legal proceedings: The appellate trial panel and the involved parties strictly have complied with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

- With reference to content: The judgment of the first instance trial was rendered well-grounded and lawful.  Propose the Trial Panel not to accept the respondent's appeal proposing dismissal of the petitioner's petition. Regarding the appeal of the petitioner's representative, during the appellate trial, the petitioner could provide new documents to prove that he had sent money to Ms. Th, so propose the Trial Panel to accept a part of the petitioner’s appeal, amend the first-instance judgment towards considering and settling the money Mr. N sent to build a house.

Based on the evidence and documents verified at the trial; the results of the oral argument at the trial on the basis of fully and comprehensively examining evidence and opinions of litigants and the procurator,

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

[1] In terms of court procedures: The appeal of Mr. Thuong Hoang Ph (authorized representative of the petitioner), the respondent Ms. Le Thi Kim L (also the authorized representative of Mr. Le Van D), person with relevant interests and obligations: Ms. Le Thi Kim V (also the authorized representative of Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L) was made within the statutory and valid time limit, so it should be considered by the Trial Panel according to the appellate procedure.

[2]. Regarding the content:

[2.1] The petitioner, Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, sued for division of marital property, division of inheritance by operation of law with respect to the portion of property left by Ms. Nguyen Thi Th as to the house and land No. 688 on Street X, ward P, District 9 (now Th city), Ho Chi Minh City on the grounds that Mr. N and Ms. Th had a de facto relationship, and the house and land are the common property of the couple during their marriage.

Respondent Ms. Le Thi Kim L did not agree with the petitioner's petition on the grounds that Mr. N and Ms. Th had no marital relationship, and the disputed property was legally owned by Ms. Th; and Ms. H (Ms. Th's mother) was the only heir of Ms. Th.

[2.2] Based on documents and evidence in the case file, the Trial Panel considered:

[2.2.1] Regarding the marital relationship between Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Nguyen Thi Th:

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Nguyen Thi Th had cohabited as husband and wife since before 1987, confirmed by families living next to Ms. Th's house, the head of the neighborhood where Ms. Th lived. Mr. N permanently resided in a foreign country but often returned to Vietnam. When he returned, he resided at Ms. Th's house, with a residence period of about 3 months each time. In the declarations of temporary residence registration of Ms. Th for Mr. N during his trips to Vietnam to stay at home with Ms. Th, Ms. Th all recorded her relationship with Mr. N as "Husband". Since 1982, Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N had sent money from abroad to Ms. Th many times, as evidenced by many deposit slips from 1982 to 1994 provided by the petitioner. In the certificate of Ms. Le Thi H (Ms. Th's mother), from 1983, the logbook of money and goods received from abroad recorded Mr. Tony Van N as "grandchild", in the section of relatives. Mr. N himself currently keeps the original records of the house and land No. 668, Street X, which was the house where Ms. Th lived, proving that the two parties have a de facto relationship and they managed the property together. The respondent, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, also admitted that Mr. N visited and took care of Ms. Th when Ms. Th was ill, took care of her funeral, and went into mourning when Ms. Th died.

During the appellate trial, the petitioner provided a certificate of celibacy at the place of residence of New South Wales, consularly legalized, identified according to the archives from October 19, 1979 to May 18, 2014, there was no information on the marriage registration of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N. The respondent provided a commitment letter from people who lived near Mr. N's house in the 1960s, identifying that Mr. N had a wife named Lac and 04 children to prove that Mr. N had had a previous marriage relationship. Considering that, the content of the commitment did not clearly determine the identities of those who are said to be the wife and children of Mr. N or exact duration of their marriage.  This was not one of the legal grounds to prove that Mr. N had another legal marital relationship.

The first-instance court, based on Point a, Clause 3, Resolution 35/2000/NQ-QH10 dated June 9, 2000 of the National Assembly, confirmed that the relationship between Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Nguyen Thi Th was a de facto relationship. That was well-grounded and accordant with law.

[2.2.2] Considering the petitioner's request for division of common property and inheritance by operation of law:

The origin of the land use right at house No. 668, Street X was from Ms. Le Thi H (Ms. Th's mother) as a gift to Ms. Nguyen Thi Th. In 1990, Ms. Th built a house on the land. While cohabiting with Mr. N, Ms. Th did not commingle the separate property with the common property of the husband and wife. The petitioner argued that the land use right and house ownership right at 668 X Street were created during the marriage, with money sent by the petitioner from abroad, so they are marital property. At the appellate court, the authorized representative of the petitioner determined that the land use right was gifted by Ms. Th's mother to Ms. Th, so Mr. N only asked for a half of the land use right. Regarding the source of money to build the house, Mr. N as well as his authorized representative could not provide any direct evidence to confirm that Mr. N transferred money from abroad to Ms. Th, for the purpose of building the house. Therefore, there was no basis to determine that the disputed land and house were the common property of Mr. N and Ms. Th during their marriage period.

The land use right and house ownership at the house No. 688 on Street X were the legal property of Ms. Nguyen Thi Th. In 2014, Ms. Th died without leaving a will. Th's line of succession at that time included Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N as her husband and Ms. Le Thi H as her mother. The first-instance court divided Mr. N and Ms. H each to receive a half of the estate left by Ms. Th; in which the first line of succession of Ms. Le Thi H (died in 2018), including Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, Ms. Le Thi Kim V. H, would receive the legacy of Ms. H. That division was well-grounded and accordant with law.

[2.2.3] Considering the appeal of Ms. Le Thi Kim L and Ms. Le Thi Kim V proposing to reverse the first-instance judgment due to a violation of procedural procedures, the Trial Panel found that: The authorized representative of the respondent, Mr. Dang Tran Tr, participated in the first-instance trial on June 29, 2020, as shown in the Minutes of the first-instance civil trial on June 29, 2020 of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City. The fact that the first-instance judgment did not show Mr. Tr's presence and did not mention Mr. Tr's presentation was erroneous; however, Mr. Tr's presentation was consistent with Ms. Le Thi Kim L's presentation and request and was fully recorded in the court minutes, so that error of the first-instance judgment did not affect the rights of the respondent as well as the objective settlement of the case. The respondent's request to reverse the first-instance judgment for a re-trial based on above-mentioned ground could not be accepted.

[2.2.4] From the above analysis, the Trial Panel considered that the first-instance court's settlement was grounded and accordant with the law, so there was no ground to accept the appeal of the appellants and the first instance judgment should be affirmed.

[3] Other decision portions of first instance judgment having no appeal or protest take legal effect after the expiry of the time limit for appeal or protest.

[4] Because the appeal was not accepted, Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D had to bear the appellate civil court fee.

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Kim V are elderly, so they are exempted from appellate civil court fees.

For the foregoing reasons;

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to Article 1 and Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015;

Refuse the appeal of Mr. Thuong Hoang Ph (authorized representative of the petitioner), the respondent Ms. Le Thi Kim L (also the authorized representative of Mr. Le Van D), person with relevant interests and obligations: Ms. Le Thi Kim V (also the authorized representative of Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L).

Affirm the first instance civil judgment No. 972/2020/DS-ST dated July 13, 2020 of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City.

Pursuant to Articles 234, 651, 660 of the Civil Code 2015; Clause 2, Article 59 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014; Resolution 35/2000/NQ-QH10 dated June 9, 2000 of the National Assembly; Joint Circular 01/2001//TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BTP dated 03/01/2001; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 stipulating the rates of collection, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of court fees and charges of the National Assembly Standing Committee.

Declare:

1/. Suspend the house reclaim of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N.

2/. Determine the relationship between Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Nguyen Thi Th as the de facto relationship.

3/. Refuse Nguyen Tony Van N's request for the division of common property, which is the house No. 668 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City.

4/. Accept the request to divide the inheritance of Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N:

Identify the real estate No. 688 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City as the estate left by Ms. Nguyen Thi Th (the house and land according to the existing condition map of the location provided by the Center of Cartography affiliated to Department of Natural resources and environment (made on September 24, 2018).

The first line of succession of Ms. Nguyen Thi Th includes Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Le Thi H (died in 2018). The first line of succession of Ms. H includes Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, Ms. Le Thi Kim V.

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N and Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, Ms. Le Thi Kim V each received a half of value of the house No. 688 on Street X, Ward P, District 9, Ho Chi Minh City at the time of writ of execution.

5/. Cancel the declaration of acceptance of legacy of Ms. Le Thi H made at the District 10 Public Notary Office on June 19, 2017.

6/. The parties shall request the competent Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement to enforce the judgment.  In case the judgment debtor is late in fulfilling the payment obligation, he/she must pay additional interest on the amount of late payment corresponding to the late payment period as prescribed in Articles 357 and 468 of the Civil Code 2015.

7/. Other decision portions of first instance judgment having no appeal or protest take legal effect after the expiry of the time limit for appeal or protest.

8/. Regarding appellate civil fee:

Ms. Le Thi Thuy Tr, Ms. Le Thi Thuy L, Ms. Le Thi Kim L, Mr. Le Van D, each must bear 300,000 VND; which is deducted from 300,000 VND paid in advance for the court fee according to the receipts No. 0092227, 0092228, 0092229, 0092230 of the same day on August 5, 2020 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Ho Chi Minh City; they paid the court fees in full.

Mr. Nguyen Tony Van N, Mr. Nguyen Thanh L, Ms. Le Thi Kim V are exempted from appellate civil court fees.

9/. The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of pronouncement.

10/. In case the court verdict or decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 of the Law on enforcements of civil judgments, the judgment creditor and judgment debtor are lawfully allowed to reach an agreement on judgment enforcement, request judgment enforcement, be subject to voluntary execution or coercive judgment enforcement in compliance with regulations in Article 6, 7 and 9 of the Law on enforcement of civil judgments, and the effective period of judgment enforcement shall comply within provisions in Article 30 of the Law on enforcement of civil judgments