Judgment no. 46/2017/HNGD-ST dated september 28, 2017 in dispute over division of common property upon divorce and claim for land use right

PEOPLE’S COURT OF BAC GIANG PROVINCE

JUDGMENT NO. 46/2017/HNGD-ST DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 IN DISPUTE OVER DIVISION OF COMMON PROPERTY UPON DIVORCE AND CLAIM FOR LAND USE RIGHT 

On January 9, 2018, at the office of People’s Court of Ha Giang Province, the first instance trial was conducted to hear the case No. 28/2016/TLST-HNGD dated November 3, 2016 on "Division of common property upon divorce and claim for land use rights “According to the Decision to Bring the Case to Trial No. 74/2017/QDST-DS dated August 25, 2017 and the Decision to suspend the court hearing No. 92/2017/QDST-DS dated September 19, 2017, between the litigants:

1. Plaintiff:

Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H - born in  1965

Address: Number E, floor E, Street N, Ward N, District 1, City H.

Authorized representative: Mr. Vo Trong K, born in 1978 (according to the Letter of Authorization dated July 12, 2016 and June 27, 2017)

Address: No. 7/11, Phan Thanh G Street, Ward 3, City M, Province T (present)

2. Respondent:

Mr. Bui Trong P, born in 1965

Address: Number E, floor E, Street N, Ward N, District 1, City H. (present)

Address: Village T, Commune t, District C, Province T.

3. Persons with related interests and obligations:

- Bui Nhat A, born in 1993; (with the Request for Trial in Absentia)

Address: Number E, floor E, Street N, Ward N, District 1, City H.

- Bui Dai H, born in 1997; (with the Request for Trial in Absentia)

Address: Number E, floor E, Street N, Ward N, District 1, City H.

- Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T), born in 1934;

Address: No. 6164 F 27609 U.S.A.

Authorized representative: Mr. Nguyen Minh Truong S, born in 1977; (according to the Letter of Authorization dated May 4, 2016)

Address: No. 15, Neighborhood A, Ward A, City M, Province T (present)

Protector of legitimate rights and interests of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) of Mr. Nguyen Minh H is a lawyer of Lawyer’s Office Nguyen Minh H, Bar Association of province T (present).

- The People’s Committee of District C, Province T; (with the Request for Trial in Absentia)

Legal representative: Mr. Huynh Van Be H - the President of People’s Committee of District C, Province T.

THE CASE

* Representation of the plaintiff Nguyen Thi My H and authorized representative of the plaintiff Vo Trong K in the lawsuit petition, statements, reconciliation record and depositions made during the procedural process: Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and Mr. Bui Trong P got divorced under the Decision on Recognition of Amicable Divorce No. 56/2014/QDST-HNGD dated April 11, 2014 of People’s Court of District C, City H. However, Mr. P and she have not requested division of their common property which is the right to use 200m2 of residential land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T. This piece of land was bought by them when they have not got divorced and was granted the certificate of land use rights No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 to the household Nguyen Thi My H by the People’s Committee of District C.

She hereby requests division of the common property which is the right to use 200m2 of residential land, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T. She claims a half of the value of the right to use the residential land according to the record of measurement and valuation of property dated March 29, 2017. Regarding Mrs. Le Hanh T’s claim for 900m2 of land and the house of that piece of land (including 700m2 of perennial crops on the land plot 1718 and 200m2 of residential land and the land plot 1786 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T from her and Mr. P and request for cancellation of the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 and the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004), she disagrees because this house and the piece of land are common property of her and Mr. P.

* Representation of the respondent Bui Trong P in the statement, reconciliation record and depositions made during the legal proceedings:

He and Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H had lived together from 1992 to 2014, then they got divorced under the Decision on Recognition of Amicable Divorce No. 56/2014/QDST-HNGD dated April 11, 2014 of People’s Court of District C, City H. In this Decision, the common property between them has not been settled. They have no additional common property. Regarding the piece of land of 200m2 of the land plot No. 1786, the map No. 01, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T in the name of Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H under the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 issued by the People’s Committee of District C on December 21, 2014 originated from Mr. P’s mother, Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T), born in 1934. Address: No. 6164 F 27609 U.S.A, temporarily residing Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T, purchased from Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N. Because his mother is a foreigner who is not eligible for having her name included in the certificate of land use right, so, she asked him and her wife to have their name included in the certificate of land use right on her behalf. After that, his mother built a level-4 house and structures and all the plants on land using her own money.  Therefore, this is her mother’s property, not their marital property. He disagrees with Mrs. H’s claim for division of common property upon divorce. He disagrees with lawsuit request of his mother Mrs. H. Regarding value of the house, the piece of land, structures, plants on land, he agrees with the record of measurement, appraisal and valuation dated March 29, 2017.

* Representation of the person with relevant rights and obligations Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) and Mrs. Le Thi H’s authorized representative, Mr. Nguyen Minh Truong S in the independent request, statement, reconciliation record and depositions during the procedural process:  In 2004, Mrs. H received a transfer of 900m2 of land in Village T, Commune P, District C, Province T (now is Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T) from Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N as a nursing home in her old age, when she returned to Vietnam. The transfer price was 90 taels of 24k gold, she paid Mrs. N in full (the receipt was available).  As a foreigner, she is not eligible for having her name included in the contract for transfer of land use right, she asked Mr. Bui Trong P and Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H who are her son and daughter-in-law to have their name in the certificate of land use right and asked Mr. P to take care of the property on her behalf. On August 23, 2004, the People’s Committee of District C issued a certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD to the household Nguyen Thi My H of the land plot No. 1718, the map No. 1 of 900m2 of crop land. After that, she applied for change in purpose of land use of 200m2 of residential land in 900m2 of crop land and was issued with the certificate of right to use 200m2 of residential land No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 by the People’s Committee of District C of Province T. In 2015, she bought materials and hired masons to build a level-4 house, walls, brick floors, corrugated iron roofs on an area of 200 m2 of residential land as a place of residence whenever she visits her hometown and as a nursing home in her old age. Now, the couple Bui Trong P and Nguyen Thi My H got divorced. Mrs. H requests Bui Trong P and Nguyen Thi My H to return her 900m2 of land (including 700m2 of perennial crops of the land plot 1718 and 200m2 of residential land, of the land plot 1786 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T) and the house, structures, plants on land. Furthermore, she requests cancellation of the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 and the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 issued to the household Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H.

* Representation of persons with relevant rights and obligations Mr. Bui Nhat A, Mr. Bui Dai H:

They are natural children of Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and Mr. Bui Trong P. Regarding the claim for division of common property of Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H, they totally agree and have no opinion.

Regarding Mrs. Le Hanh T’s request claiming Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and Mr. Bui Trong P to return 900m2 of land and the house on land of the land plot 1718 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T, they disagree because this house and this piece of land are owned by their parents Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and Mr. Bui Trong P.

* Person with relevant rights and obligations the People’s Committee of District C submitted the Request for Trial in Absentia during the procedural process.

At the court hearing, the authorized representative of the plaintiff Nguyen Thi My H still upholds the claim for division of common property which is the right to use 200m2 of residential, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T. She claims a half of the right to use residential land according to the record of measurement, valuation of property dated March 29, 2017. Mrs. H disagrees with request of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) claiming her and Mr. P to return 900m2 of land because the above property is their common property created during marriage period. Regarding the house, structures, plants on land as property of Mrs. Le Thi H, Mrs. H does not have any opinion.

The authorized representative of person with relevant rights and obligations who made an independent request Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) Mr. Nguyen Minh Truong S applies for withdrawal of a part of the independent request for cancellation of the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C and provide an additional acceptance # return Mr. P 900m2 of land (including 700m2 of perennial crops of land plot 1718 and 200m2 of residential land, of land plot 1786 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T) and the house, structures, and plants on land.

The respondent Bui Trong P determines that the above property is purchased by Mrs. Le Thi H and she asked him and his wife to have their name in the certificate of land use right, not their marital property, so, he disagrees with the claim of Mrs. My H, he accepts to return Mrs. H such property, at the court hearing, Mrs. Le Thi H's authorized representative accepts to return him the land use right and right to own the property on land. Therefore, he accepts to receive such property.

The lawyer protecting rights and legitimate interests of person with relevant rights and obligations who made the independent request Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) disagrees with the plaintiff’s claim and gives many reasoning and analysis that the origin of 900m2 of land (including 700m2 of perennial crops of the land plot 1718 and 200m2 of residential land, of the land plot 1786 of the map No. 1) located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T) and the house, structures and plants on land are owned and built by Mrs. Le Thi H. As a foreigner, she is not eligible for having her name included in the certificate of land use right, so she asked Mr. P and his wife Mrs. My H to have their names included in the certificate of land use right and asked Mr. P to take care of the property. Therefore, the Trial Panel is proposed not to accept Mrs. My H’s claim, to accept Mrs. Le Thi H’s independent request, to compel Mrs. H, Mr. P and members in the household to return the piece of land to Mrs. H and to recognize Mrs.H’s acceptance to transfer Mr. P the land use right and ownership of property on land as above.

At the court hearing, the representative of the People’s Procuracy states that the Judge, the Trial Panel and procedural participants have complied with regulations of law on procedures from the acceptance time until the deliberation time in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code. With reference to the case: The representative of the People’s Procuracy states that the claim of the plaintiff and independent request of the person with relevant rights and obligations partly has valid grounds. Request the Trial Panel to accept a part of the plaintiff’s claim and a part of the independent request of the person with relevant rights and obligations, and taking account of Mr. P and Mrs. My H’s contribution to preserve the property in dispute to divide for them and then determine that this is their common property to divide as per the law.

Based on the documents and evidence gathered in the case file and examined publicly at the trial.  According to arguments made at the court hearing, adequately taking account of materials and evidence and opinions of litigants, protectors of legal rights and interests of litigants, procurator.

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

[1] In terms of court procedures: Persons with relevant rights and obligations Bui Nhat A, Bui Dai H, the People’s Committee of District C submitted Requests for Trial in Absentia and still uphold their previous opinions, pursuant to Clause 1 Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, the Court adjudicates the case in absence of above mentioned litigants.

[2] At the court hearing, the authorized representative of person with relevant rights and obligations who made the independent request Le Thi H (Le Hanh T), Mr. Nguyen Minh Truong S applies for withdrawal of a part of the independent request for cancellation of certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C. Considering that the application for withdrawal of independent request of the person with relevant rights and obligations is entirely voluntary in accordance with Clause 2 Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Panel accepts and suspend trial of the request withdrawn by the litigant.

[3] Regarding the legal relation in dispute between Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H, Mr. Bui Trong P and Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) is a relation of division of common property upon divorce and dispute over land use right as prescribed in Clause 9 Article 26 and Clause 2 Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 under the Court’s jurisdiction.

[4] With reference to content: The plaintiff Nguyen Thi My H claims for division of 200m2 of residential land, of the land plot 17686 of the map No.1 located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T, according to the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C issued to the household Nguyen Thi My H because this is the common property of her and her husband during the marriage period, and claims for a half of value of land use right according to the record of measurement and valuation of property dated March 29, 2017. Mrs. H disagrees with the request of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) claiming her and Mr. P to return her 900m2 of land because this is the common property of her and Mr. P. The house, structures, plants on land are owned by Mrs. Le Thi H, so, she has no opinion about that.

The authorized representative of person with relevant rights and obligations who made the independent request Le Thi H, Mr. Nguyen Minh Truong S claims that 900m2 of land located in Village T, Commune P, District C, Province T (now is Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T) is owned by Mrs. H as a transfer from Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N for 90 taels of 24 gold. As a foreigner, she is not eligible for having her name included in the certificate of land use right, she asked Mr. P and Mrs. H to have their names included in the certificate of land use right. This is her property, so she disagrees with Mrs. My H’s claim for division of 200m2 of residential land. Furthermore, she requests Mr. P, Mrs. H and members in the household to return 900m2 of land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T. Regarding the property on land not in dispute, she agrees to transfer it to Mr. P the right to use 900m2 of land and right to own the property on land. The respondent P agrees with the representation and request of Mrs. Le Thi H.

The Trial Panel considers that: Although Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H has her name included in the transfer documentation with Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N and was issued with the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 by the People’s Committee of District C for the area of 900m2 of perennial crops, then change the purpose of use of 200m2 of perennial crop land to 200m2 of residential land and was issued with the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004, but Mrs. H fails to prove that where the gold paid to Mrs. N came from, where the gold was paid, how many times and to whom the gold was paid. While Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N was a transferor of the piece of land, she does not confirm the transfer of land to Mrs. My H, she just confirms that in 2004, she transferred the right to use 900m2 of land of the land plot 1718 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C to Mrs. Le Thi H and received gold from Mrs. H two times, totaling 90 taels of SJC gold and the transfer and land documentation are in the name of Mrs. My H (her daughter-in-law) on behalf of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T), because as a foreigner Mrs. H is not eligible for having her name included in the certificate of land.  From above evidence, there are sufficient grounds for determining that 900m2 of land in dispute was bought by Mrs. Le Thi H, Mr. P’s mother) using 90 taels of SJC gold to receive transfer from Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N, Mrs. H and Mr. P are only people who have their names included in the certificate. This is the property of Mrs. Le Thi H, not property created by Mrs. My H and Mr. P as stated by Mrs. My H. Therefore, Mrs. My H’s claim does not have valid grounds and Mr. P, Mrs. My H and members of the household must return Mrs. Le Thi H 900m2 of land located in Village T, Commune T, District C according to the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 and the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 (the actual area is 864.3m2, including 200m2 of residential land).

Regarding the level-4 house, semi-permanent structure, wall, corrugated iron roof, brick foundation, built on an area of 200m2 of residential land and structures, plants on land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T, the litigants all agree that this property is owned by Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T). Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, this is an objective fact and the property belongs to Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh Thi).

At the court hearing, Mrs. Le Thi H’s authorized representative agrees to transfer Mr. P the right to use 900m2 of land and the right to own property on land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T, Mr. P also agrees to receive these property. So, the Trial Panel recognizes it.

Although Mrs. Le Thi H was the person who spent 90 taels of SJC to receive transfer of 900m2 of land of the land plot 1718 of the map No. 1, located in Village T, Commune T, District C from Mrs. Nguyen Thi Anh N on September 14, 2004, the transfer documentation is in the name of Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H. After receiving the transfer, Mrs. H and Mr. P manage this piece of land until 2014 when they got divorced. In 2016, Mrs. My H filed a lawsuit claiming the division of property which is the right to use 200m2 of residential land located in Village T, Commune T, District C according to the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004, but her claim is not accepted as analyzed above. However, Mrs. Le Thi H made an independent request claiming her and Mr. P to return 900m2 bought from Mrs. Nguyet. During the lawsuit settlement process, Mrs. My H only claims for 200m2 of residential land without considering her contribution in preservation, maintenance and restoration of 900m2 of land in her name. Claiming that 900m2 of land is the marital property, she refuses to return it to Mrs. H. According to the Case No. 05/2016/AL chosen from the Cassation Decision No. 39/2014/DS GDT dated October 9, 2014 and announced according to the Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court: “During the lawsuit settlement process, although Mrs. My H does not consider her contribution to preserve, maintain and restore 900m2 of land, she refuses to return it because she claims that this piece of land is her marital property during the marriage period. Accordingly, Mrs.H's claim for her interest is greater than her claim for consideration of her contribution. So, it is advisable to consider her contribution to thoroughly deal with her request”. The Trial Panel considers that the nature, facts and legal events in this case are similar to the facts and legal events in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 1 Article 5; Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and the Case No. 05/2016/AL, there are sufficient grounds for considering the contribution of Mrs. My H and Mr. P in preservation, maintenance, and restoration to increase the value of the land. Based on the Case No. 02/2016/AL chosen from Cassation Decision No. 27/2010/DS-GDT dated July 8, 2010 and announced in Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court: “Although Mrs. Le Thi H was a person who spent gold on transfer of land, but the transfer documentation was in the name of Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and after receiving the transfer, Mr. P and Mrs. My H manage the land. Because Mrs. My H and Mr. P have had contribution in preservation and restoration to increase the value of land, it is supposed to determine that 900m2 of land (including 200m2 of residential land located in Village T, Commune T, District C (after deducting the origin sum equivalent to 90 taels of gold of Mrs. Le Thi H) which is common profit of Mrs. Le Thi H and Mrs. H and Mr. P. Furthermore, their contribution should be determined to divide a part of property to them in order to protect the interests of litigants (the parties should be equally divided in a case where the contribution of guardians of property cannot be determined correctly)”. The Trial Panel considers that the nature, facts and legal events in this case are similar to the facts and legal events in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Article 235 of the Civil Code 2005 and the Case No. 02/2016/AL, there are sufficient grounds for determining that Mrs. My H and Mr. P have contribution in preservation and restoration to increase the value of the land in dispute, their contribution should be paid equivalently. However, there is no material or evidence to correctly determine the contribution of Mrs. H and Mr. P, it is advisable to determine that they and Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) have equal contribution, because the piece of land in dispute still exists without transfer to any other one. Therefore, there are valid grounds for determining profits that are earned from this piece of land, it should be converted into value, then subtracting the original amount equivalent to 90 taels of gold paid by Le Thi H, the remaining difference is the common profit. According to the record of measurement, appraisal, valuation of property dated March 29, 2017, 900m2 of land (including 200m2 of residential land) located in Village T, Commune T, District C as stated in certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 and the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004, through measurement, are actually 864.3m2 (including 200m2 of residential land, 666.3m2 of perennial crop land), with value of VND 1,998,600,000, deducting the original 90 taels of gold paid by Mrs. Le Thi H upon the transfer on September 14, 2004, at this time with the gold exchange rate of Vietnam Export Import Bank (Eximbank), the price of SJC gold bullion is VND 7,710,000 per tael x 90 taels equivalent to VND 693,900,000, the remaining difference is VND 1,305,600 (VND 1,998,600,000 - VND 693,900,000 = VND 1,305,600,000, which is the common profit. This profit shall be equally divided to Mrs. Le Thi H and the couple Mr. P and Mrs. H VND 652,800,000 each. Pursuant to Article 33 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, the above-mentioned sum is regarded as the common property of Mr. P and Mrs. H created during their marriage period and shall be divided to them as prescribed in Article 59 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014. The profit was earned resulting in the purchase of the property by Mrs. Le Thi H, Mr. P’s mother. Therefore, pursuant to Point b Clause 2 Article 59 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014, Mr. P should be regarded as a person having more contribution than Mrs. H, so, Mr. P should be divided 2/3 of the common property, equivalent to VND 435,200,000, and Mrs. My H should be divided 1/3 of the common property, equivalent to VND 217,600,000. Members of the household of Mrs. My H, Bui Nhat A and Bui Dai H, at the time of generating the property, were still young and lived dependently on their parents without any contribution, their contribution shall definitely be not considered.

Considering that the request of the protector of rights and legitimate interests of the persons with relevant rights and obligations is partly well-grounded, the Trial Panel accepts it.

Considering the opinion of the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Province T concerning observance of the law during the lawsuit settlement at the first-instance trial stage and opinions of lawsuit settlement are well-grounded and fully legal. The Trial Panel accepts that.

[5] First instance civil court fee: Pursuant to Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015; Clause 7 Article 27 of Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges 2009, the litigants have to pay the court fee in proportion to their amount of property to be divided.

Pursuant to documents and evidence mentioned above:

HEREBY DECIDES

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 5, Clause 9 Article 26, Clause 2 Article 28, Clause 2 Article 92; Article 147, Article 228, 244 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015; Article 33, Article 59 of the Law on Marriage and Family 2014; Article 235; Article 255, 256, Clause 2 Article 305 the Civil Code 2005; Clause 7 Article 27 of Ordinance on Court Fees and Charges 2009; Case No. 02/2016/AL chosen from Cassation Decision No. 27/2010/DS-GDT dated July 8, 2010; Case No. 05/2016/AL chosen from Cassation Decision No. 39/2014/DS-GDT dated October 9, 2014 and announced in Decision No. 220/QD-CA dated April 6, 2016 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Judges:

1/ Suspend the trial of request of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) regarding cancellation of certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C that the litigants withdraw at the court hearing.

2/ Accept a part of Nguyen Thi My H’s claim and a part of independent request of the person with relevant rights and obligations Le Thi H (Le Hanh T).

- Determine that 900m2 of land (actually 864.3m2 through measurement, in which 200m2 of residential land) according to the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C issued to the household Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and the level-4 house, semi-permanent structure, with walls, corrugated iron roof, brick foundation built on 200m2 of residential land with structures, plants on land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T is the property of Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T).

- Compel Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H, Mr. Bui Trong P and members of the household to return 900m2 of land (864.3m2 in fact, including 200m2 of residential land) according to the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C issued to Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T to Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T).

- Determine Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T)’s voluntariness to transfer to Mr. Bui Trong P 900m2 of land (actually 864.3m2 through measurement, in which 200m2 of residential land) according to the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004; certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 of the People’s Committee of District C issued to the household Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and the level-4 house, semi-permanent structure, with walls, corrugated iron roof, brick foundation built on 200m2 of residential land with structures, plants on land located in Village T, Commune T, District C, Province T (with enclosed diagram).

- Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H and members in the household must complete the paperwork to transfer the said land use right to Mr. P, if Mrs. My H and members of the household refuse their responsibility, Mr. P has the right to declare and register with the regulatory body to be issued with the certificate of right to use land and right to own the property on land as per the law.

- Determine the common profit earned from 900m2 of land (864.3m2 in fact, including 200m2 of residential land) located in Village T, Commune T, District C according to the certificate of land use right No. 33472/QSDD dated August 23, 2004 and the certificate of land use right No. H 33525 dated December 21, 2004 is VND 1,305,600,000.

+ Divide Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) a half of the property, equivalent to VND 652,800,000; and divide Mr. P and Mrs. H a half of property, equivalent to VND 652,800,000.

+ The amount of VND 652,800,000 of Mr. P and Mrs. H shall be divided as the common property during their marriage period; Mrs. My H shall be divided VND 217,600,000 and Mr. Bui Trong P shall be divided 435,200,000.

+ Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) has the obligation to repay Mrs. Nguyen Thi My H VND 217,600,000 and Mr. Bui Trong P VND 435,200,000.

The transfer of money and paperwork completion shall be carried out at the same time under the supervision of Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Province T.

As from the time when Mrs. My H and Mr. P submit the request for judgment enforcement, if Mrs. Le Thi H (Le Hanh T) fails to give the payment behind the schedule, she must incur an interest according to the basic interest prescribed by the State Bank in proportion to the money and the late judgment enforcement period.

3/ With regard to court fees:

- Mrs. My H has to pay VND 10,880,000 of first instance court fee, which is deducted from the paid court fee advance of VND 2,500,000 according to the receipt No. 24877 dated July 6, 2016 of the Sub-department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of District C. So, Mrs. H must pay an additional VND 8,380,000.

- Mr. Bui Trong P has to pay VND 21,408,000 of first instance civil court fee.

- Mrs. Le Thi H (Le H Thi) has to pay VND 30,112,000 of first instance court fee, which is deducted from the paid court fee advance of VND 9,600,000 according to the receipt No. 001616 dated July 6, 2016 of the Sub-department of Civil Judgment Enforcement of Province T. So, Mrs. H must pay an additional VND 20,512,000.

Within 15 days from pronouncement date, the litigants shall be notified of their right to appeal the Judgment to the Superior People’s Court of City H to request the appeal. Particularly for those who are absent at the court, they shall be notified of their right to appeal from the date on which the Judgment is served or posted up legally.

In case the judgment or court 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.