Article 1 on application for reconsideration
Applicant for reconsideration: female, born in Japan, Han nationality, contact address:
Respondent for reconsideration: domicile.
Request for reconsideration:
Revoke the enforcement ruling of 20XX in urban areas according to law.
Reasons for reconsideration:
1. It is wrong for the court of first instance to apply Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) when making a ruling, and the legal provisions of Article 227 should be applied.
Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "If a party or interested party thinks that the execution is in violation of the law, he may file a written objection to the people's court responsible for execution. If a party or interested party raises a written objection, the people's court shall conduct an examination within 15 days from the date of receiving the written objection. If the reason is established, it shall make a ruling to cancel or correct it; If the reason cannot be established, the ruling shall be rejected. If a party or interested party refuses to accept the award, it may apply to the people's court at the next higher level for reconsideration within ten days from the date of service of the award. " This is a provision that "the parties and interested parties" object to implementation. Article 227 stipulates: "In the course of execution, if an outsider raises a written objection to the execution target, the people's court shall conduct an examination within 15 days from the date of receiving the written objection. If the reason is established, it shall be ordered to suspend the execution of the target; If the reason cannot be established, the ruling shall be rejected. If an outsider or a party refuses to accept the ruling and thinks that the original judgment or ruling is wrong, it shall be handled in accordance with the procedure of trial supervision; If it has nothing to do with the original judgment or ruling, it may bring a lawsuit to the people's court within 15 days from the date of service of the ruling. " This is a rule for "outsiders" to object. In this case, the applicant for reconsideration, as an outsider, should apply the legal provisions of Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Law when the court of first instance makes an execution objection ruling.
Second, the court of first instance recognized the applicant for reconsideration as a shareholder on the grounds that the applicant for reconsideration did not provide corresponding evidence without appraisal. The facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.
The so-called pretending to be a shareholder refers to a registered shareholder who fictionalizes the legal subject or embezzles the name of others. Impersonate shareholders have never expressed their intention to hold shares, and should not be regarded as legitimate shareholders, nor should they be given rights, let alone be responsible for it. In this regard, Article 29 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "If a person fraudulently uses another person's name to make capital contributions and registers that person as a shareholder in the company registration authority, the person who registered under the false name shall bear corresponding responsibilities; If the company, other shareholders of the company or creditors request registration for false reasons to assume the responsibility of making up the capital contribution or compensating the outstanding part of the company's debts, the people's court will not support it. " In the original judgment, the applicant for reconsideration cannot be ruled out as an impostor without judicial appraisal of the authenticity of the applicant's signature. Therefore, the original judgment ruled that the applicant for reconsideration was a shareholder, with unclear facts and insufficient evidence.
To sum up, the court of first instance ruled that the applicant for reconsideration and Shanghai Jingjing Materials Trading Co., Ltd. shall bear joint liability.
The facts are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, the legal procedures are violated, and the law is wrong. Therefore, the enforcement ruling made by the court of first instance is wrong. In order to safeguard the dignity of the law and the legitimate rights and interests of the reconsideration applicant, we hereby apply to the people's court for reconsideration and request the court to revoke this ruling!
I am here to convey
Salute!
Zhu Na
20xx year x month x day
Application for reconsideration Article 2
Applicant: Li Youliang, male, 19XX born on July 4th, Han nationality, farmer, now living at No.08, Aoshang, Hongxing Village, Dongfeng Township, Yanling County, Hunan Province.
The applicant refuses to accept the decision on administrative punishment for public security made by Yanling County Public Security Bureau.
San Jue Zi [20XX] No.0 132, applying for administrative reconsideration according to law.
apply for a project
1. Revoke [20XX] No.0132 administrative penalty decision according to law.
2. Compensate the applicant for economic losses.
Facts and reasons
At about 20XX May 12 16, the applicant contracted the housing construction in the resettlement area of Shi Chao Village, Jiulong Economic Development Zone, Yanling County, and rented a house nearby. When Luo Daosheng found out the electricity bill of the applicant's renting house, the applicant lost a scooter at Luo Daosheng's house and asked him to tell who stole it. The scooter was left by the person who stole the cement last time. Luo Daosheng pointed to the candidate and said, "You are blind." For self-defense, the applicant blocked it with a mineral water bottle that had just drunk half a bottle of water. The water bottle fell and hit Luo Daosheng's left cheekbone. Luo Daosheng punched the applicant in the mouth and went to the hospital for examination and treatment afterwards. Luo Daosheng spent more than 400 yuan on medical expenses, which the applicant paid. However, the applicant was hit hard by Luo Daosheng and spent more than 4,000 yuan on medical expenses after hospitalization. Under this obvious fact, the Public Security Bureau imposed an administrative detention on the applicant for 10 days and imposed a fine on Liu Baiyuan. The applicant is the victim of this dispute and has suffered serious personal injury. The administrative punishment imposed by the Yanling County Public Security Bureau on the applicant was obviously unfair and biased, and it was beaten and punished.
To sum up, I think that the decision of administrative punishment of Yanling County Public Security Bureau is obviously unfair, with serious tendentiousness and serious prejudice. Now I request the reconsideration organ to find out the facts and decide to cancel the decision of administrative punishment of Yanling County Public Security Bureau according to the facts and laws, compensate the applicant for economic losses and safeguard the applicant's legitimate rights and interests.
I am here to convey
Salute!
Zhu Na
20xx year x month x day
Application for reconsideration Article 3
Applicant: Yao Yuanyuan, female, 33 years old, born on February 5th of 19XX, ID number: XX, address: No.33, Building 3, Yard 2, Hanghai East Road, Guancheng District, Zhengzhou City, and current address: No.33, Building 3, Yard 2, Hanghai East Road, Guancheng District, Zhengzhou City.
Respondent: Future Road Branch of Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau, address: intersection of Shangcheng East Road and Fengtai Road, legal representative xx, post XX.
Request for reconsideration: The applicant refused to accept the written decision on administrative punishment made by the respondent on June 20XX 17, and applied for reconsideration to Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau according to Article 102 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Public Security Administration Punishment, requesting Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau to cancel its punishment decision and make a new punishment decision according to law.
Facts and reasons:
The respondent, Zhengzhou Future Road Sub-bureau, made a number. [20xx] 0315 June 20xx 17. The applicant thinks that the facts in the penalty decision are unclear and the procedure is seriously illegal, and applies for reconsideration to Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau, asking Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau to cancel its penalty decision and make a new penalty decision according to law.
The reasons for application are as follows:
First, the facts identified in the punishment decision are unclear.
The respondent wrote in the fact part of the penalty decision that "Yao Yuanyuan was torn because of a dispute with Liu, and then Yao Yuanyuan grabbed Liu's arm and threw it on the wall, and Liu bit Yao Yuanyuan's arm". What was the dispute? The truth of the matter is that at about one o'clock on April 29th, 20XX, I was working in the company and had a big fight with Liu outside the company. I didn't say anything at that time, and suddenly Ma Ji Hu stopped me. I was just about to speak to persuade her not to make so much noise in the company. After all, it is working hours here, but she is ungrateful at all. She scolded me and said, "Who are you, what are you, and why do you care about me?" And so on. Then I want to pull her into the elevator so that she won't affect other people in the company. If she doesn't move, please help the horse. The public security organs didn't fully investigate the truth of the matter, only saw that I hit Liu, but they didn't really understand the ins and outs of the matter. In the aspect of fault identification, they only found my fault but not Liu's fault at all, and she bit me, and the public security organs also had inspection reports to prove it.
Second, the punishment decision procedure is seriously illegal.
1. Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Public Security Punishment stipulates that "those who violate public security administration have the right to make statements and arguments, and the facts, reasons and evidence presented by those who violate public security administration shall be examined", but the public security organ did not give the applicant the right to make statements and arguments, nor did it examine the facts, reasons and evidence presented by the applicant.
2. Article 97 of the Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) on Public Security Punishment: "The public security organ shall announce the decision on public security management punishment to the punished person and deliver it to the punished person on the spot; If it cannot be announced to the punished person on the spot, it shall be served to the punished person within two days. If it is decided to give administrative detention, it shall promptly notify the family members of the punished person. " However, the applicant has not received the punishment decision from the Future Road Branch of Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau. Obviously, the practice of public security organs has seriously violated the provisions of the procedural law.
To sum up, the applicant thinks that the facts of the punishment decision are unclear and the procedure is seriously illegal, and requests Zhengzhou Public Security Bureau to cancel its punishment decision and make a new punishment decision according to law. In accordance with the Administrative Reconsideration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Regulations for the Implementation of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), I apply for administrative reconsideration to your bureau, hoping to support the applicant's request for reconsideration.
I am here to convey
Salute!
Zhu Na
20xx year x month x day