trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nayCassation Judgment No. 17/2007/DS-GDT dated June 6, 2007 regarding divorce and property dispute in divorce

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT

CASSATION JUDGMENT NO. 17/2007/DS-GDT DATED JUNE 6, 2007 REGARDING DIVORCE AND PROPERTY DISPUTE IN DIVORCE

……..

On October 3, 2006, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay cassation trial is conducted at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay office of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court to hear trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay civil case of “divorce and property dispute in divorce between:

Petitioner:Mrs. Vo Kim Loan, born in 1970;

Respondent:Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh, born in 1963;

Both petitioner and respondent have resided in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City.

Persons with related interests and obligations:

1. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem, born in 1939; permanently residing at 630 Wles Treet, Stpunl MM 55101 USA; temporarily residing in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City;

2. Mrs. Nguyen Kim Oanh, born in 1972;

3. Mr. Doan Van Thi, born in 1969;

4. Mrs. Nguyen Phung Lien, born in 1972;

Mrs. Oanh, Mr. Thi and Mrs. Lien, both residing in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City;

5. Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (hereinafter referred to as Agribank) of Thot Not District, Can Tho City.

FINDING THAT

1. Representation of Mrs. Vo Kim Loan in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay petition dated May 4, 2003 and depositions made at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court trial: She and Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh have cohabited since 1986 but they just registered marriage in 2001. They have a common child named Huynh Thanh Tan, born in 1989. Due to conflicts, Mrs. Loan filed a petition for divorce.

With reference to common property:

- In 2000, her mother Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem, who has stayed abroad, transferred VND 200,000,000 to her and her husband to build a  solid house on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay residential land of 200m2 of Mr. Huynh Cong Khe (Mr. Khanh’s father). Household appliances purchased by her mother and siblings abroad for her and her husband consist of: 1 motorbike Honda brand in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mr. Khanh; 2 refrigerators; 2 air-conditioners; 1 cassette; 3 cabinets.

Other property includes:

- A land plot of 856m2 in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City, according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate dated April 13, 2001 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh.

- A land plot of 10.800m2 in Thoi Hung Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh.

- A land plot of 1.359m2 in Thoi Hung Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City, according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate dated July 24, 2000 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Huynh Thi Re (trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay transferor).

Mrs. Loan declares that, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 10,800m2 and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 856m2 were purchased using trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of money transferred by her mother Mrs. Xem (Mrs. Xem has currently resided in USA) and that land plot is in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mr. Khanh on behalf of Mrs. Xem. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 was purchased using trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of money transferred by her brother Mr. Vo Van Tai and is in her name on behalf of Mr. Vo Van Tai. Mrs. Loan refuses to divide that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above land plot upon divorce because it is not trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay marital property.

2. Mr. Khanh agrees to divorce and recognize marital property as declared by Mrs. Loan.

In terms of three land plots that Mrs. Loan claims that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots of 856m2 and 10,800m2 were purchased using money of her parents and Mr. Khanh had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate on behalf of her parents, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 was in Mrs. Loan name, he claims that these land plots are their marital property so they should be divided into halves. Then, Mr. Khanh changes his declaration and claims that Mrs. Xem transferred money to his wife and him as a gift, and they used such money to purchase trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots of 856m2 and 10,800m2 and he had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate, so these two land plots are marital property. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 was purchased on behalf of Mr. Tai, so it is not their marital property.

3. Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem claims that she transferred money and asked Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh to purchase two land plots of 10,800m2 and Mr. Khanh only had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate on her behalf. These land plots will be used thereafter to build a house whenever she returns to Vietnam.

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay two land plots are not marital property of Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh, so she asks them to return trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots to her.

4. In terms of common liabilities, Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan both give their consent to repay.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment No.126/HNSTdated December 17, 2003, People’s Court of Can Tho Province (old), pursuant to Article 85, Clause 1 Article 89, Article 90, Clause 2 Article 92, Article 94 and Article 97 ofLuật vtv5 trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay nhân và Gia đình 2000, judged:

With reference to conjugal relationship: Recognize trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay mutual consent divorce of Mrs. Vo Kim Loan and Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh.

With reference to common children: Mrs. Vo Kim Loan is awarded custody of Huynh Thanh Tan, born in 1989, Mr. Khanh is not required to provide a child support. Mr. Khanh reserves his right to access and take care trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common child, which nobody can prevent.

With reference to common property:

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay enforcement agency is assigned to hold an auction of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay house located on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land of 200m2 in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City which Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 000594 dated June 20, 1998; Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh will receive a half of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay amount sold each.

Mrs. Vo Kim Loan and Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh have to repay trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following liabilities:

+ Mrs. Loan has to pay:

- Mr. Doan Van Thi 2.5 taels of 24k gold of 99.9% purity;

- Mrs. Nguyen Phung Lien VND 15,000,000;

- Agribank of Thot Not District VND 13,278,700;

- Mrs. Nguyen Kim Oanh VND 18,375,000.

+ Mr. Khanh has to pay:

- Mr. Doan Van Thi 2.5 taels of 24k gold of 99.9% purity;

- Mrs. Nguyen Phung Lien VND 15,000,000;

- Agribank of Thot Not District VND 13,278,700;

- Mrs. Nguyen Kim Oanh VND 18,375,000.

In terms of land use right:

Mrs. Vo Kim Loan may claim her title to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 214 dated December 9, 2002 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Huynh Thi Re. Mrs. Loan may complete trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay paperwork to transfer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land title from Mrs. Huynh Thi Re to Mrs. Loan.

Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh has to return Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following land plots, which thereafter are in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Vo Kim Loan as authorized by Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem:

- trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 856m2 in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parcel 1907 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay map No. 2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 00047 dated April 13, 2001 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District.

- trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 10,800m2 in Thoi Hung Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parcel 56, 57 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay map No. 05 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 000173 dated July 24, 2000 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District.

- Request trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District to revoke 02 land use right certificate No. 000173 dated July 24, 2000 and No. 000447 dated April 13, 2001 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District to reissue trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate to Mrs. Vo Kim Loan according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay legal authorization of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem.

Mrs. Vo Kim Loan has to pay trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance marriage and family court fee of VND 50,000 (deducted from trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee advance paid by Mrs. Loan according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay receipt No. 000842 dated August 6, 2003).

Mrs. Xem may receive VND 50,000 of court fee advance according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay receipt No. 000942 dated November 10, 2003.

Mrs. Vo Kim Loan has to pay VND 3,648,500 and Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh has to pay VND 3,648,500 of division of property court fee.

Mrs. Loan has to pay trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance civil court fee of VND 2,420,000.

Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh has to pay VND 2,420,000.

In addition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance also pronounce trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay right to appeal of litigants as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

On December 31, 2003, Mr. Khanh filed an appeal, claiming that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay divorce settlement is unsatisfactory and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay property is divided unfairly.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Civil Judgment No.13/HNPTdated April 8, 2004, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City, pursuant to Clause 1 Article 69 ofđá bóng trực tiếp lệnh Thủ tục giải quyết các vụ án dân sự năm 1989 do Hội đồng, upheld trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment.

Pursuant to Article 467 and Article 690 oftrực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Code, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Trial Panel judged:

Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh has to return Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following land plots, which thereafter are in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Vo Kim Loan as authorized by Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem:

- trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 856m2 in Thoi Thanh Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parcel 1970 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay map No. 2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 00047 dated April 13, 2001 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District.

- trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 10,800m2 in Thoi Hung Village, Thoi Thuan Commune, Thot Not District, Can Tho City in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay parcels 56, 57 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay map No. 05 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 000173 dated July 24, 2000 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District.

- Request trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District to revoke 02 land use right certificate No. 000173 dated July 24, 2000 and No. 000447 dated April 13, 2001 issued to Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District to reissue trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate to Mrs. Vo Kim Loan according to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay legal authorization of Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem.

Other decisions made in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment took effect.

After appellate trial, Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh filed a complaint, claiming that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal made an unfair judgment, three land plots were purchased by him and his wife, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court was not right when determining Mrs. Xem’s title to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots and assigning Mrs. Loan to use them.

In trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Decision No. 43/2007/DS-KN dated April 6, 2007, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court appeals trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay aforesaid Appellate Judgment with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following judgment:

“Based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay documents available in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file, although Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh and Mrs. Vo Kim Loan registered marriage in September 2001, they had held a wedding ceremony and had cohabited since 1986. During living together, Mr. Khanh had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificates of two land plots, 10,800m2 and 856m2; Mrs. Loan had her name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2.

According to Mrs. Loan’s deposition, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money used to purchase trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 was transferred by Mr. Vo Van Tai (her brother) who lives aboard and she only had her name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate on his behalf, so this is not trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay marital property; in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance trial on December 17, 2003 and in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appellate trial on April 8, 2004, Mr. Khanh also confirmed that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Loan was purchased by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money of Mr. Tai, so Mr. Khanh does not claim it as trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay marital property. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal had sufficient grounds to determine that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 is not trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay marital property. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 which is not trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay common property of Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan is not supposed to be settled in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay divorce and property division case between Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan. However, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal entitle Mrs. Vo Kim Loan to claim her title to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate No. 214 dated December 9, 2002 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Huynh Thi Re and she may complete trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay paperwork to transfer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land title from Mrs. Huynh Thi Re to her. These judgments are not accordant with law.

Regarding 2 land plots of 10,800m2 and 856m2, although Mr. Khanh was issued with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificates by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem (Mrs. Loan’s mother) claims her title to these land plots because she transferred money to Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh and asked them to purchase trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots on her behalf; however, at trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court hearing, Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan both confirmed that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money used to purchase these land plots belongs to Mrs. Xem (but Mr. Khanh claims that Mrs. Xem transferred money to purchase land plots as a gift to them, and Mrs. Xem and Mrs. Loan refuse that). Because Mr. Khanh failed to present any evidence proving that Mrs. Xem transferred money to him and his wife to purchase trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay two land plots as a gift to them, so, it is advisable to determine that Mrs. Xem asked them to purchase land plots on her behalf.

However, because Mrs. Xem has been residing abroad and does not do business in Vietnam, she is not entitled to own real estate in Vietnam. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal’s judgment that Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh has to return Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots, which thereafter are in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Vo Kim Loan as authorized by Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem is against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court requests trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Council of Judges of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation review to quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay decision part of division of property of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay above Appellate Civil Judgment and quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay decision part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay division of property of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment No. 126/HNST dated December 17, 2003 of People’s Court of Can Tho Province (old); and remand trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case back to People’s Court of Can Tho City to re-adjudicate it as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay cassation trial court hearing, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay representative of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Procuracy consents to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay appeal made by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People’s Court.

CONSIDERING THAT

Mrs. Vo Kim Loan and Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh have cohabited since 1986 but they just registered marriage in 2001. While living together, Mr. Khanh had his name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificates of 2 land plots (10,800m2 and 856m2) and Mrs. Loan had her name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay certificate of a land plot of 1,359m2. During trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case settlement, Mrs. Loan claims that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot was purchased using trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money of Mr. Vo Van Tai (her brother) who lives abroad and she only had her name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate on his behalf, so that land plot is not marital property. At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first instance court hearing, Mr. Khanh also recognize that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot of 1,359m2 in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay name of Mrs. Loan was purchased by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay amount transferred by Mr. Tai, so he also confirms that that land plot is not marital property; trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Instance had sufficient grounds to determine that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay aforesaid land plot of 1,359m2 is not marital property and beyond trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay scope of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay divorce and property division case between Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan.  However, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance's judgment that Mrs. Vo Kim is entitled to claim title to trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plot and complete trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay paperwork to transfer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay title from Mrs. Huynh Thi Re to her was against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.  trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal upholding trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment without discovering this mistake of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance is against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Regarding 2 land plots of 10,800m2 and 856m2, although Mr. Khanh purchased these land plots and was issued land use right certificates by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay People’s Committee of Thot Not District, but Mrs. Nguyen Xem claims that these two land plots were purchased by her money, Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan only purchased them on her behalf. At trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court hearing, Mr. Khanh confirmed that these two land plots were purchased using trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay money of Mrs. Xem, however, he claimed that this sum of money was transferred to him and his wife as a gift, so trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots are their marital property. However, Mr. Khanh failed to present evidence proving that Mrs. Xem gave money to them to purchase two aforesaid land plots as a gift. Mrs. Loan declares that Mrs. Xem transferred money to them to purchase land plots and have their names in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificates on her behalf. Based on trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay documents available in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal had sufficient grounds to determine that trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay two land plots were purchased by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay sum of money of Mrs. Xem.

However, because Mrs. Xem has been residing abroad and does not do business in Vietnam, she is not entitled to own real estate in Vietnam as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law. Mr. Khanh and Mrs. Loan were transferred land use right legally and issued with trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificates as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law. In this case, it is advisable to value trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right and assign trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land plots to Mrs. Loan or Mr. Khanh if they wish to use, and they are required to repay Mrs. Xem trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay amount of money that she transferred them to purchase land plots. In a case where after repayment, there is an outstanding amount (trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay valued price is greater than trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay purchasing price), Mrs. Xem will earn a half of such amount, and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay other half of amount will be marital property of Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh for division. If trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay value of land use right is less than trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay amount that Mrs. Xem transferred, Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh are only required to repay Mrs. Xem trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay valued price. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal’s judgments that both determined two aforesaid land plots are owned by Mrs. Xem and accepted Mrs. Xem's authorization for Mrs. Loan to have her name in trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay land use right certificate was against trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Alternatively, when settling trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay divorce and property division case between Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh, Mr. Khanh claims that two aforesaid land plots are their marital property. On November 7, 2003, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Xem filed a complaint, claiming her title to two aforesaid land plots and requesting Mrs. Loan and Mr. Khanh to return them to her. Therefore, there is a ground to determine that Mrs. Xem had a counterclaim, it is supposed to ask Mrs. Xem to submit trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee advance for her complaint. trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of First Instance and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal’s acceptance to settle her claim without requiring her to pay a court fee advance was not right.

Due to above-mentioned mistakes, trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case must be re-tried under first instance, and therefore trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay court fee must be re-calculated, therefore, it necessary to quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment and Appellate Judgment in terms of division of property and civil court fees.

According to facts and matters, pursuant to Clause 3 Article 291, Clause 3 Article 297 and Clause 2 Article 299 oftrực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Civil Procedure Code;

HEREBY DECIDES

1. Accept trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appeal No. 43/2007/DS-KN dated April 6, 2007 made by trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Chief Justice of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People's Court;

2. Quash trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Appellate Civil Judgment No. 13/HNPT dated April 8, 2004 of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court of Appeal of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Supreme People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Civil Judgment No. 126/HNST dated December 17, 2003 of People’s Court of Can Tho Province (old) in terms of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay “divorce and property dispute in divorce” case between trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay petitioner Mrs. Vo Kim Loan and trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay respondent Mr. Huynh Cong Khanh concerning trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay following decisions: “common property; land plots; property division court fee and civil court fee”;

3. Refer trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case file to People’s Court of Can Tho City for re-conducting trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay first-instance trial as per trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay law.

Grounds for quashing a part of trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay First Instance Judgment and Appellate Judgment:

trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay Court wrongly adjudicated trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay case in terms of land use right and failed to conduct trực tiếp bóng đá hôm nay counterclaim procedure.