04 judgments on applying justice for the resolution of the Vietnamese court

Here are 04 judgments that apply justice to the settlement:

1. Judgment 30/2018/DS-ST dated 13/08/2018 on the land boundary dispute

- Level of trial: First instance.

- Judicial agency: People's Court of Chau Thanh district, Hau Giang province.

- Summary of content: The origin of the disputed land belongs to Mrs. Doan Thi A, Ms. Nguyen Thi T believes that Ms. A has given her this land since 1997, her family has built up and improved the land to use, but her son, Mr. Dinh Hoang M, building the fence is not correct. Ms. Â said that her land has been managed and used so far, the disputed land is not part of the part she gave to Ms. T. Now Ms. T sues to ask Ms. Â to pay her the disputed land according to the law. Actual measurement and relocation of all assets on the land.

- Quoting the Court's judgment: Neither the plaintiff nor the respondent has solid legal evidence for their claim but from a moral and fair point of view, the fact that Ms. T admitted that she did not have land to build a house in difficult times, Ms. A's family gave her a part of the land to build a house. Now, just because the disputed land has 35m2, Ms. T is going to ask Ms. A to return it. Ms. T should be grateful to the person who helped her in difficult times, but on the contrary, she sued to ask Ms. A to return the land to her. The trial panel found that Ms. T's request was incompatible with reason and morality in life. Therefore, the Trial Panel did not accept Ms. T's request and recognized the land for Ms. A.

2. Judgment 149/2020/DS-PT dated 06/07/2020 on land use right dispute

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: People's Court of Binh Duong province.

- Summary of content: Plaintiff  P Pagoda sued that the disputed land use right is the land of the Temple for the defendant to use to grow crops, contributed incense and fire to the Pagoda, and now the defendant occupies and does not pay back. The pagoda asked the defendant to return the land for the temple to use for religious purposes. Defendant Ms. T said that the land was originally donated by villagers to Pagoda P, then her family was granted the land by the Commune People's Committee and paid crops for the Pagoda. Ms. T has been using it stably for over 30 years without anyone. The dispute should require land recognition for Ms. T.

- Quoting the judgment of the Court: Ms. T has managed and used land continuously and for a long time from 1983 to now for over 30 years and paid the yield to the pagoda until 2017, When a dispute arises at the Court, the new yield will not be paid to the Temple. In fairness, it is necessary to calculate a part of the effort for Ms. T at the rate of 5% of the value of land use rights to balance the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, so it is necessary to force Pagoda P to be responsible for paying Ms. T. part of the work mentioned above.

3. Judgment 13/2018/DS-PT dated 11/07/2018 on property ownership disputes

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: People's Court of Ha Tinh province

- Summary of content: Mr. T and Mrs. M lived together from 1982 to 2008 but did not register their marriage. However, before that Mr. T and Mrs. Tran Thi Lien were married and lived together in team 13, commune X, district C. Mr. T said that the disputed land plot No. 60 was the common property of Mr. T and Mrs. M. Now Mr. T sues to request the Court to recognize land parcel No. 60 under the lawful use and ownership rights of him and Mrs. Nguyen Thi M (grandchild).

- Quoting the judgment of the Court: The relationship between Mr. T and Mrs. M is not a legal marriage. The above land parcel is the private property of Mrs. M. To ensure fairness, because Mr. T and Mrs. M maintain, embellish and preserve the land plot, it is necessary to calculate Mr. Tran Van T's effort in cash equivalent to 20m2. 

4. Judgment 151/2019/DS-PT dated 25/11/2019 on the deposit contract dispute

- Level of trial: Appellate.

- Judicial body: Soc Trang province People's Court.

- Summary of content: Mr. N's household was granted 01 resettlement land by District A's People's Committee with an area of ​​87.7m2. When the issuance of the land use right certificate has not been completed, on January 2, 2018, Mr. N and Mrs. N1 had an agreement to transfer to Mr. M the resettlement land. The two parties have made a "Receipt dated January 2, 2018" (BL No. 15) with the content that Mr. N, Mrs. N1 transferred the resettlement land to Mr. M for VND 400,000,000, and Mr. M agreed to put a deposit amount of 380,000,000 agreed upon when completing the transfer procedure, the remaining VND 20,000,000 will be delivered. Mr. M has paid an amount of VND 324,49,000 to Company P through a transaction account at the Bank and asked Mr. N and Mrs. N1 to carry out the procedures for transferring the name, but Mr. N and Mrs. N1 did not agree to do so, since then the two parties had a dispute.

- Quoting the judgment of the Court: Although there is no legal regulation, according to Clause 2, Article 328 of the Civil Code 2015, the party receiving the deposit at fault must be fined, the party making the deposit at fault must lose the deposit and the fault level of both parties is the same (50% each), in this case, it is only necessary to force the deposit recipient, Mr. N, Ms. N1 is obliged to return to the depositor Mr. M the deposit amount of VND 380,000,000 which is consistent with the fairness specified in Clause 3, Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Explore more:

1. Judgment 104/2020/DS-PT dated July 31, 2020 on the request to stop the act of anchoring, releasing, fishing and disputing the ownership of the scrub.

2. Judgment 115/2021/DS-PT dated March 24, 2021 on reclaiming property which is land use right.

3. Judgment 33/2018/DS-PT dated February 8, 2018 on the dispute over property recovery.

4. Judgment 02/2021/DS-ST dated April 14, 2021 on the dispute over the return of property being house and land and the request to cancel the certificate of land use rights.

Please Login to be able to download