Judgment No. 534/2018/DS-PT dated may 30, 2018 on dispute over deposit contract for house purchase and transfer of land use rights

THE PEOPLE’S COURT OF HO CHI MINH CITY

JUDGMENT NO. 534/2018/DS-PT DATED MAY 30, 2018 ON DISPUTE OVER DEPOSIT CONTRACT FOR HOUSE PURCHASE AND TRANSFER OF LAND USE RIGHTS

Because the first-instance judgment No. 16/2018/DS–ST dated January 19, 2018 of the People’s Court of Binh Chanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, was appealed, on May 23 and 30, 2018, the appellate trial was conducted at the courtroom of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City to hear in the public the handled civil case No. 92/2018/TLPT–DS dated March 01, 2018 regarding dispute over the deposit contract for house purchase and transfer of land use rights according to the Decision to bring the case to the appellate trial No. 1950/2018/QD–PT dated May 02, 2018 of the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City between:

- Plaintiff: Mrs. Dinh Thi L, born in 1966.

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

- Defendant:

 1. Mrs. Vo Thi N, born in 1960;

2. Mr. Nguyen Thuc B, born in 1978.

Address: A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City.

Person defending legitimate rights and interests of the defendant:  Mr. Nguyen Xuan T, born in 1968.

Address: E Street, F Ward, G District, Can Tho City.

- Persons with interests and duties related to the lawsuit:

1. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V, born in 1979.

Address: A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City.

2. Mr. Pham Duy V, born in 1963.

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

- Appellant: Mrs. Vo Thi N – Defendant.

- The procuracy filing appeal:  Director of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City.

CONTENTS OF THE CASE

According to the petition and during the proceeding, the plaintiff, Mrs. Dinh Thi L, stated:

Because she wants to buy a house and Mrs. Vo Thi N wants to sell a house, on August 23, 2016, she and Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B have entered into a deposit contract for house purchase and transfer of the land use rights with regard to the house and land located at A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City, on the land plot No. 393, map sheet No. 1 – Cadastral register of J Commune, C District with the transfer price of VND 5,950,000,000 (Five billion nine hundred fifty million). Mr. Nguyen Van R and Mrs. Vo Thi N are entitled to the said house according to the Certificate of house ownership and land use rights No. 9026/97 dated September 10, 2017 issued by the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City.

She has paid a deposit of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million) to Mrs. N and Mr. B.  Because Mr. R died, Mrs. N and Mr. B used the said deposit to repay the loan amount that Mr. borrowed from the bank. She said that Mr. R has a wife, Mrs. N, and two children, Nguyen Thuc B and Nguyen Thi Hong V. She has repeatedly requested Mrs. N, Mr. B and Mrs. V to continue executing the contract for house purchase and transfer of land use right with regard to the said house and land plot but they refused.

She found that Mrs. N, Mr. B and Mrs. V don’t want to continue executing the contract for house purchase and transfer of land use rights with regard to the house and land located at A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City, on the land plot No. 393, map sheet No. 1 – Cadastral register of J Commune, C District. At the time of signing the deposit contract, she was not informed by Mrs. N and Mr. B that Mrs. V is also the child of Mr. R. Thus, she believed that only Mrs. N and Mr. B are the heirs of Mr. R.   Now, she changes her petition to the dispute case over the deposit contract for the contract for house purchase and transfer of land use right against Mrs. N and Mr. B. She requested the Court to force Mrs. N and Mr. B to return the received deposit of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million) and pay a deposit penalty of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million). Total amount payable is VND 4,100,000,000 (Four bullion one hundred million).

The defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N, stated:  On August 23, 2016, she and his son, Nguyen Thuc B, have entered into the deposit contract with Mrs. Dinh Thi L for transfer of ownership of the house and land located at A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City, on the land plot No. 393, map sheet No. 1 – Cadastral register of J Commune, C District with the transfer price of VND 5,950,000,000 (Five billion nine hundred fifty million). She and Mr. B have received a deposit of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million) from Mrs. L.   She used the received deposit to repay the loan amount that her husband, Mr. Nguyen Van R, borrowed from the bank.  She and Mr. Nguyen Van R are entitled to the said house and land according to the certificate of house ownership and land use rights No. 9026/97 dated September 10, 1997 by the People’s Committee of B District. Mr. Nguyen Van R died in 2014. Parents of Mr. R died before he died. Mr. R has two children, Nguyen Thuc B, born in 1978, and Nguyen Thi Hong V, born in 1979. Before Mrs. L filed a lawsuit against her and Mr. B to the People’s Court of B District on June 13, 2017, she and her two children have requested Mrs. L to give back the certificate of house ownership and land use rights in order that her two children carry out procedures for authorizing her to enter into the contract for transfer of land use right with Mrs. L but Mrs. L refused.  Thus, her daughter, Nguyen Thi Hong V, no longer agrees to transfer the said house and land to Mrs. L.

Now, she disagrees with the plaintiff’s petition because she and Mr. B still agree to continue executing the contract for house purchase and transfer of land use right with regard to the said house and land. She and Mr. B cannot continue executing the said contract because her daughter, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V refuses to authorize her and Mr. B to sign the contract with Mrs. L. Hence, she will return the received deposit of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million) and an interest of VND 150,000,000 (One hundred fifty million) to Mrs. L.

On the other hand, she also requests the People’s Court of B District to force Mrs. Dinh Thi L to give back the certificate of house ownership and land use right No. 9026/97 dated September 10, 1997 issued by the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City to Mr. Nguyen Van R and Mrs. Vo Thi N.

The defendant, Mr. Nguyen Thuc B, stated:  He is the son of Mr. Nguyen Van R and Mrs. Vo Thi N. He entirely agrees with statements and opinions of Mrs. N. He has no requests besides those of her mother.

The person with interests and duties related to the lawsuit, Mr. Pham Duy V stated: He is the husband of Mrs. Dinh Thi L. He entirely agrees with Mrs. L's statements and expresses no other requests.

The person with interests and duties related to the lawsuit, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V, stated: She is the daughter of Mr. Nguyen Van R and Mrs. Vo Thi N. On August 23, 2016, her mother, Mrs. Vo Thi N, and her brother, Nguyen Thuc B, have entered into the deposit contract with Mrs. L for transfer of ownership of the house and land located at A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City, on the land plot No. 393, map sheet No. 1 – Cadastral register of J Commune, C District with the transfer price of VND 5,950,000,000 (Five billion nine hundred fifty million). Mrs. L has paid a deposit of VND 2,050,000,000 (Two billion zero hundred fifty million) to her mother and Mr. B.   They have used the received deposit to repay the loan amount that her father, Mr. Nguyen Van R, borrowed from the bank.  She disagrees with Mrs. L’s petition for contract execution.

According to the first-instance judgment No. 16/2018/DS–ST dated January 19, 2018, the People’s Court of Binh Chanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, has:

Pursuant to Clause 3 Article 26, Point c Clause 1 Article 39, Clause 1 Article 227, and Clause 1 Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Code;

Pursuant to Article 117 and Article 328 of the Civil Code in 2005;

Pursuant to the Resolution No. 01/2003/HDTP dated April 16, 2003 of the Council of Justices of the People’s Supreme Court;

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

Judged:

The entire petition of Mrs. Dinh Thi L is accepted. 

The deposit contract made on August 23, 2016 between Mrs. Dinh Thi L and Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B is invalidated. Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B are obliged to jointly pay an amount of VND 4,100,000,000 (Four billion one hundred million) to Mrs. Dinh Thi L immediately after this judgment takes legal effect.

Immediately after receiving the full payment of the said amount, Mrs. L is obliged to give back the original of the certificate of house ownership and land use rights No. 9026/97, which is granted by the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City to Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Van R on September 10, 1997, to Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B.

The Decision on imposition of temporary measure No. 19/2017/QD-BPKCTT dated August 15, 2017 of the People’s Court of B District, Ho Chi Minh City, remains effective.

The court of first instance also announced obligations to enforce the judgment, the court fees and right to appeal against the first-instance judgment of the litigants in accordance with law.

On January 23, 2018, the People’s Court of B District, Ho Chi Minh City, has received the appeal against all contents of the first-instance judgment submitted by the defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N. She requests the Trial panel to invalidate the deposit contract for house and land purchase signed between her and Mrs. Dinh Thi L, consider errors of the parties in this civil transaction for determining their parties in accordance with the Civil Code.

On February 12, 2018, the People’s Court of Binh Chanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, received the Decision on appeal No. 15/QDKNPT-VKS-DS dated February 12, 2018 of the Director of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City appealing against the said first-instance civil judgment and request the appellate trial to adjust the first-instance judgment because Mrs. V did not sign the deposit contract and thus it is ineffective. Pursuant to the Resolution No. 01/2003/NQ-HDTP dated April 16, 2003 of the Council of Justices of the People’s Supreme Court providing guidelines on invalidated deposit contracts, no deposit penalty shall be imposed.

At the appellate trial,

The litigants could not resolve the case through negotiation.

The plaintiff keeps her petition unchanged and requests the court to keep all contents of the first-instance judgment unchanged because Mrs. N declared that she has been duly authorized by her daughter to sign the deposit contract.  At the appellate court, she also submits the Authorization contract made by Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V in favor of Mrs. Vo Thi N. She wants to continue executing the contract for house purchase according to the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016. In case the defendant refuses to continue executing the contract for house purchase, the defendant must incur deposit penalty as agreed upon.

The defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B, refuses to continue executing the contract for house purchase because Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V wants to keep the house.  They agree to return the received deposit and pay interests according to the bank’s interest rate.  She also requests the People’s Court of B District to force Mrs. Dinh Thi L to give back the certificate of house ownership and land use right No. 9026/97 dated September 10, 1997 issued by the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City to Mr. Nguyen Van R and Mrs. Vo Thi N.

The person with interests and duties related to the lawsuit, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V, confirmed that she has made the Authorization contract which is provided by the plaintiff at the trial at the request of Mrs. Vo Thi N to serve the settlement of property left by her father, including the house used as a security at the bank.  However, Mrs. V thought that this authorization contract does not cover the house in dispute. She said that such authorization contract is to serve the sale of another house but she could not provide evidence thereof.  Thus, Mrs. V also agrees with her mother and brother about return of the deposited amount and interest thereof to the plaintiff.  It is determined that Mrs. V has presented at the court of first instance but not provided her address abroad.

The person defending legitimate rights and interests of the defendant believed that the court of first instance has seriously violated the legal procedure because it does not have the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute with foreign elements.  The first-instance judgment should be invalidated in order that the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City hears the case within its jurisdiction.  The Notary Public Office in Vietnam refuses to make certification on the long-term power of attorney dated March 04, 2016 made by Mrs. V because it is not meant to serve the sale of any specific house. Thus, the deposit contract is invalid due to this unlawful power of attorney. In other words, it is both parties’ fault and none of the parties must incur deposit penalty.

Representative of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City still keeps its appeal unchanged.

The representative of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City expresses the following opinions about the compliance with applicable laws during the proceeding at the appellate trial:

Regarding the court procedures:  The Judge – Presiding Judge, the Trial panel and the litigant have strictly complied with the Civil Procedure Code.

Regarding the case matters:  Representative of the People’s Procuracy withdraws a part of its appeal regarding the case matters because Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V has authorized her mother, Mrs. Vo Thi N, to make decision on her property in Vietnam.  Therefore, the deposit contract between Mrs. N and Mrs. L is also signed of Mrs. V's own free will. Now, Mrs. N, Mrs. V and Mr. B do not want to continue executing the contract for house purchase. So they are at fault. The court of first instance's acceptance of the plaintiff's petition is well founded.  With regard to the appeal against that the court of first instance has mentioned an irrelevant Article as an applicable provision in the deciding part of the judgment resulting in unintelligible judgment, this judgment is considered to contain typing mistakes but should be corrected to be conformable with law.

JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT 

After studying documents in the case file which have been examined at the trial and arguments in the trial;

After the deliberation, the appellate trial panel judged as follows:

Regarding petition form:

The appeal of the defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N, is accepted because it has been lodged within the prescribed period as mentioned in Article 271, Article 272 and Article 273 of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015 and the litigant has temporarily paid the court fees in accordance with Article 276 of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015.

The Decision on appeal No. 15/QDKNPT-VKS-DS dated February 12, 2018 of the Director of the People’s Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City has been also lodged within the prescribed period as mentioned in Article 279 and Article 280 of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015.

Regarding contents of the case:

[1] The plaintiff – Mrs. Dinh Thi L files a petition to request the defendant – Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B to continue executing the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 in order to ensure the execution of the contract for house purchase and land transfer regarding the house and land located at A Street, J Commune, C District, Ho Chi Minh City, on the land plot No. 393, map sheet No. 1 – Cadastral register of J Commune, C District (hereinafter referred to as “Z house”) or pay the deposit penalty in case the defendant refuses the first request. The basis for the plaintiff’s petition is the long-term power of attorney dated March 04, 2016. The defendant, Mrs. N and Mr. B, and the person with interests and duties related to the lawsuit, Mrs. V, refuse to continue executing the said contract for house purchase and want to return the received deposit plus an interest thereof calculated according to the bank's interest rate. Thus, the Trial panel should consider the legality of the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 and determine the causes of failure to execute or invalidation of the deposit contract for establishing the basis for resolving the plaintiff’s petition and the defendant’s appeal.

[2] The “Long-term power of attorney dated March 04, 2016” of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V (hereinafter referred to as “the power of attorney dated March 04, 2016”) that is acknowledged by Mrs. V and presented to the appellate trial by the plaintiff contains the following: Article I: Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V authorizes Mrs. Vo Thi N to act as her authorized representative; Article II: My authorized representative is empowered to act or perform any actions which are deemed necessary by the authorized representative and that I can perform..... and specific rights in Article III, Article IV, and Article V hereof, except prohibited acts…. specified in this power of attorney or as regulated by law; Article III Section B: Sale or other settlement of property. The right to sell, exchange……, including the property under my ownership…..

 [2] Based on documentary evidences and testimonies of the litigants at the court of first instance, Mrs. N stated: After signing the deposit contract, she and her two children have requested Mrs. L to give back the certificate of house ownership and land use right to complete the procedures for house purchase but Mrs. L refused and thus her daughter, Mrs. V, did not want to continue executing the contract.  At the appellate trial, Mrs. V has acknowledged that she has made the power of attorney dated March 04, 2016 at the request of her mother in order to serve the settlement of the debt that her father, Mr. R, borrowed when he was alive and for which the Z house has been used as collateral. On the other hand, she said that her power of attorney does not contain any information relating to the Z house. From these points, her testimonies are unfounded to be accepted.

[3] Based on the abovementioned facts, there are well grounded to determine that when the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 was signed between Mrs. Dinh Thi L and Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V has authorized Mrs. N to make any decisions on settlement of her property in Vietnam.   The parties have acknowledged that the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 was signed for the purposes of ensuring the conclusion and execution of the contract for house purchase and land transfer.  Therefore, the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 has been signed at the free will of the seller and ensures adequate rights relating the transacted property.  For the abovementioned reasons, there is ungrounded to accept the defendant's lawyer that the power of attorney is unlawful and thus the deposit contract is also invalid.

[4] For the abovementioned reasons, the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 is legally effective. At the court of first instance, the defendant, Mrs. N and Mr. B, provided the reason that Mrs. V did not want to execute the contract for house purchase and at the appellate trial, they confirmed that they shall not continue executing the contract for sale of the house No. D6/7 resulting in failure to execute the deposit contract dated August 23, 2016. This failure is caused by mistakes of the seller, Mrs. N, Mr. B and Mrs. V. The court of first instance should force Mrs. N, Mr. B and Mrs. V to pay the deposit penalty to the buyer.  However, the court of first instance has forced Mrs. N and Mr. B to make compensation as stated in the plaintiff’s petition.  At the appellate court, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V confirmed that she shall together with Mrs. N and Mr. B to return the received deposit plus interest thereof to the plaintiff. This means that she is willing to jointly perform obligations of the seller together with Mrs. N and Mr. B. Thus, if Mrs. N and Mr. B are involved in a dispute about the obligation to make compensation to the plaintiff with Mrs. V, this dispute case should be resolved separately if petitioned.

 [5] Regarding total deposited amount of VND 2,050,000,000 that the defendant, Mrs. N and Mr. B, received in two times, including VND 1,950,000,000 in the first payment and VND 100,000,000 in the second payment, Mrs. B believed that the deposited amount is VND 1,950,000,000 and the remaining VND 100,000,000 is lent by the plaintiff who has disagreed about this statement. 

Mrs. N and Mr. B could not present any evidence of such loan while two parties have established the sole relationship of house purchase.  Thus, the seller, Mrs. N and Mr. B, has received the deposited amount of VND 2,050,000,000 from Mrs. Dinh Thi L.

[6] The representative of the People’s Procuracy also withdraws the appeal against this content.  The plaintiff’s appeal is accepted and this content in the first-instance judgment shall be kept unchanged.  Thus, the withdrawal of the appeal by the Procuracy should be accepted and the appeal of the defendant should not be accepted. The defendant, Mrs. N and Mr. B, should return the received deposit and make compensation equal to the received deposit as agreed upon in the deposit contract.

Regarding the jurisdiction:

[7] At the time of handling the case, according to the plaintiff’s petition, the person with duties and interests related to the lawsuit is Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V who has the same address in Vietnam with the defendant.  The court of first instance also summoned Mrs. V to the court for solving the case by using the defendant’s address.  Mrs. V also provided the declaration of the sole address in Vietnam without informing the court of first instance.  Thus, the court of first instance has correctly handled the case within its jurisdiction.

[8] At the appellate trial, the person with duties and interests related to the lawsuit – Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong V, appears at the trial and presents documents proving that she is a foreign citizen and proving the determination that the court of first instance does not have the jurisdiction over this case. So, this is considered as a new fact. Although the case involves foreign elements, Mrs. V has provided statement of her address during the court of first instance’s resolution of the case. Thus, foreign judicial assistance is not required to serve the case resolution.  Pursuant to Article 471 of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015, any civil case involving foreign elements which has been accepted for settlement by a Vietnamese Court under this Code’s provisions on jurisdiction must be continually settled by such Court even though during the resolution process there are changes in nationalities, residential places or addresses of involved parties or new details which make such civil case falls under the jurisdiction of another Vietnamese Court or foreign court.

[8] It is not necessary to annul the judgment in order that the People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City to re-hear the case according to first instance procedure if such annulment of judgment does not cause influence on rights and interests of the litigants of the case, or change the case contents or affect legitimate rights and interests of the defendant and related persons.  Such judgment annulment results in more procedural expenses incurred by litigants, extended case settlement time, time problems faced by litigants and event direct damage caused to legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, particularly her lawful property that is the deposited amount paid to the defendant. This is also conformable with the Procuracy’s request for withdrawal of appeal. The first instance judgment should be kept unchanged and the appeal of the defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N, should not be accepted.

[9] Regarding the appeal of the Director of the People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City, the Procuracy requests the court to alter the first instance judgment because there are mistakes when applying Article 117 and Article 328 of the Civil Code in 2005 on civil liabilities of artels and validity of pledge of property in the deciding part of the first instance judgment.  However, such incorrect application of law provisions does not make changes in the case contents or affect rights and interests of litigants. Thus, the appeal of the Director of the People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City that Article 117 and Article 328 of the Civil Code in 2005 should be replaced by Article 358 of the Civil Code in 2005 on deposit contract according to the “Transition clauses” in Point c Clause 1 Article 688 of the Civil Code in 2015, should be accepted.

[10] Regarding the court fees:  Because the first instance judgment is altered as above, the fee for solving the first instance case is kept unchanged.  The defendant, Mrs. Vo Thi N, shall incur the appellate court fees.

For the said reasons,

THE COURT DECIDES

Pursuant to Clause 2 Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015;

A part of the appeal of the Director of the People's Procuracy of Ho Chi Minh City is accepted and the defendant’s appeal is refused.

The first instance judgment No. 16/2018/DS-ST dated January 19, 2018 of the People’s Court of B District is altered. It’s judged:

Pursuant to Clause 3 Article 26, Point c Clause 1 Article 39, Clause 1 Article 227, and Clause 1 Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Code;

Pursuant o Point c Clause 1 Article 688 of the Civil Code in 2015; Article 358 of the Civil Code in 2005;

Pursuant to the Resolution No. 01/2003/HDTP dated April 16, 2003 of the Council of Justices of the People’s Supreme Court;

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

The entire petition of Mrs. Dinh Thi L is accepted. 

The deposit contract dated August 23, 2016 between Mrs. Dinh Thi L and Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B is invalidated. Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B are obliged to jointly pay an amount of VND 4,100,000,000 (Four billion one hundred million) to Mrs. Dinh Thi L immediately after this judgment takes legal effect. Immediately after receiving the full payment of the said amount, Mrs. L is obliged to give back the original of the certificate of house ownership and land use rights No. 9026/97, which is granted by the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City to Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Van R on September 10, 1997, to Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B.

The Decision on imposition of temporary measure No. 19/2017/QD-BPKCTT dated August 15, 2017 of the People’s Court of B District, Ho Chi Minh City, remains effective.

Mrs. Vo Thi N and Mr. Nguyen Thuc B shall pay the first-instance civil court fee of VND 112,100,000 (One hundred and twelve million one hundred thousand).  The amount of VND 56,975,000 (Fifty six million nine hundred seventy five thousand) temporarily paid for the court fees under the Receipt No. 0022331 dated July 04, 2017 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Division of B District shall be refunded to Mrs. Dinh Thi L.

Mrs. Vo Thi N is not required to pay the appellate civil court fees. Mrs. N shall be refunded an amount of VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand) paid under the Receipt No. 0031362 dated January 25, 2018 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Division of B District.

In case the court’s judgment is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 of the Law on enforcement 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 Articles 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.

The judgment of the appellate court comes into force from the date on which it is pronounced./.