(1999) GuanhangchuziNo. 16 1

Plaintiff: Yao Huaping, male, born in 1962, Han nationality, farmer, living in Yaoxing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Authorized Agent: Ge Runmin, legal worker of Dongchangfu District Central Office in Liaocheng City.

Authorized Agent: Xing Tianhua, legal worker of Dongchangfu District Center Law Firm in Liaocheng City.

Defendant: Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.

Legal Representative: Yue Qixiang, mayor.

Authorized Agent: Song Shufeng, lawyer of Guanzhou Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Yin Rukui, director of the Judicial Office of the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Plaintiff Yao Huaping v defendant guanxian Qingshui Town People's Government's agricultural administrative enforcement case, and Plaintiff Yao Huaping brought a lawsuit to our court. After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed according to law and the case was heard in public. The plaintiff Yao Huaping, the agents Ge Runmin and Xing Tianhua, and the defendants Song Shufeng and Yin Rukui attended the lawsuit. Now the trial of this case has ended.

Plaintiff Yao Huaping claims:1On the first day of May after the lunar calendar in 998, the team headed by Feng Shouyi, secretary of the General Branch of the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, was instructed by Du Xuegong and other members of Yao Xing's village committee. There were no adults in the plaintiff's house, and the defendant did not show any certificates and procedures, and did not show his identity. He forcibly drove the plaintiff's tractor away and seized the plaintiff's tractor and 10,000 yuan in cash in the toolbox.

The defendant argued that the defendant did not deny the fact that Yao Huaping's tractor was detained, but the plaintiff proposed that the indirect loss of the tractor was not compensated, and the State Compensation Law stipulated that only the direct loss was compensated. When the plaintiff's tractor was seized, Feng Shouyi, Li Weihan, Du Zehua and Du Tongxing made an on-site inventory. There was a wrench and pliers in the tractor toolbox, and there was no cash. The plaintiff's claim cannot be supported.

During the trial, the defendant submitted evidence to the court: (1), (2), (3) and (4) proving that there was no cash in the plaintiff's tractor toolbox; No.5 proves that the plaintiff's tractor is in Du Xuegong's house; (6)No. Certificate that the plaintiff's tractor was detained. The plaintiff objected to the evidence presented by the defendant: the plaintiff's agent asked the defendant for a tractor. At the same time, the following evidence is submitted to the court: (1)(2)(3) It proves that the defendant detained the plaintiff's tractor.

After cross-examination and debate in court, it was found out that on the first day of May after the lunar calendar of 1998, the plaintiff Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and the defendant Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian seized the plaintiff's tractor to Du Xuegong's home. Later, the defendant repeatedly informed the plaintiff to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng and drove the tractor away. During the trial, the defendant, the agent of Qingshui Town People's Government in guanxian, said that the plaintiff could drive the tractor away, and there was no legal basis for his administrative action of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor. The evidence provided by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian can prove the above facts.

In our court's opinion, on the first day of May after the lunar calendar of 1998, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the defendant forcibly detained the tractor of Yao Huaping to Du Xuegong School on the grounds that the plaintiff refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and its administrative action had no legal basis, so our court did not support it. The plaintiff claimed that there was 10,000 yuan in cash in his toolbox. If there is no evidence, it will not be accepted. According to Article 54 (2), Items 3 and 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The administrative compulsory act of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian was revoked.

The notice shall be returned to the plaintiff's tractor within five days after this judgment takes effect.

Reject the plaintiff's other claims.

400 yuan, the case acceptance fee, shall be borne by the defendant.

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province.

Presiding Judge: Xu Haijun.

Examiner: Xu Yiqiang

Acting judge: Zhang Qifeng

December 22nd, 1999

Bookkeeper: Zhang Shaoze