trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nayJudgment No.06/2018/HNGD-ST dated January 31, 2018 on divorce petition involving foreign elements

PEOPLE’S COURT OF KIEN GIANG PROVINCE

JUDGMENT NO.06/2018/HNGD-ST DATED JANUARY 31, 2018 ON DIVORCE PETITION INVOLVING FOREIGN ELEMENTS

On January 31, 2018, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first-instance trial court was conducted at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay office of People’s Court of Kien Giang province to hear trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case No.03/2018/TLST-HNGD dated January 8, 2018 regarding a divorce petition involving foreign elements

Pursuant to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Decision to hear trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case No. 04/2018/QDST-HNGD dated January 24, 2018. Parties concerned:

- Petitioner:Mrs.Do Thi Ngoc Y, born in: 1991 (present). Address: 361 VH neighborhood, GR town, GR district, Kien Giang province.

- Respondent:Mr.HSIEH YU H, born in: 1988 (absent).

Address: 38, TQ2 road, 008 neighborhood, TQ ward, LD town, NL district, Taiwan.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay CASE OF MRS. DO THI NGOC Y

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay representation made at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner:

Early 2016, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent knew each other through matchmaking; they fell in love with each other and then got married. trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay couple registered their marriage at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay People’s Committee of GR district of Kien Giang Province and was issued with marriage license No. 106 dated September 19, 2016.

After trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay marriage, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent returned to Taiwan in order to complete paperwork to sponsor trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay spouse to live in Taiwan. During this time, they have kept in touch with each other for about 2 months before out of touch. Their relationship became worse and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay conflicts arose from geographical distance and language barrier.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner deemed that they was no longer having feeling for each other, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay purpose of marriage is not achieved.  As for that reason, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner filed for a divorce to request trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay following matters:

With reference to conjugal relationship: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner filed for a divorce from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent.

With reference to common children: No common asset is claimed so trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

With reference to common property and liabilities: No common property or liability is claimed so trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent made aLetter of Consent to Divorce.

After consideration of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case files assessed and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay adversarial process at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court hearing and relevant regulations of law.

DEEMING THAT

[1] In terms of court procedures: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent has trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Letter of Mutual Consent to Divorce consularly legalized by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City, so it is duly legitimate. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial panel applies Clause 1 Article 227 oftrực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Code 2015 in Viet Namto hear trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay absence of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent.

[2] In terms of content of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay marriage between trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent meets marriage conditions and is granted trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Marriage Certificate by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay competent authority in accordance with Article 9 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Law on Marriage and Family 2014, so it is considered legal.

At trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first-instance trial hearing, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner still kept her petition for divorce. Because they have just lived together for a short time before he returned to Taiwan and they have just kept in touch with each other for about 2 months before out of touch. Their relationship became worse and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay conflicts arose from geographical distance and language barrier.  As for that reason, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner deemed that they have stayed in an unhappy marriage which cannot last longer.

According to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Letter of Consent to Divorce, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent gives trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay consistent testimony with trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner in terms of conjugal relationship. Deeming that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay couple has personalities so different that they cannot live together for a long time, if this marriage continues, it only causes suffering for both.

In terms of legal aspect, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Letter of Mutual Consent to Divorce is consularly legalized by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City as per trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay law.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial panel deems that, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent have a short duration of marriage before trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent returned to Taiwan; trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay couple has not taken care to each other since then. Therefore, their marital relationship does not meet requirements prescribed in Article 19 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Law on Marriage and Family 2014 regarding spousal attachment. trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial panel has valid grounds to consider that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay marriage between trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent falls into bad situation, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay duration of marriage cannot last longer, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay purpose of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay marriage is not reached, and moreover they both voluntarily consent to divorce. Therefore, after discussion and consideration, trial panel reach a consensus on accepting trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petition for divorce.

[3] With reference to common children, property and liabilities: No common child, property or liability, so trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

[4] With reference to court fee: apply to Clause 4 Article 147 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Code 2015.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first-instance civil court cost of VND 300,000 shall be paid by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner; it shall be deducted from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay advance of first-instance court cost.

Pursuant to documents and evidence mentioned above:

HEREBY DECIDES

Pursuant to Clause 1 Article 227, Article 28, Point a Clause 1 Article 37, Clause 4 Article 14, Point d Clause 1 Article 469, Clause 2 Article 479 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Apply Clause 1 Article 56 oftrực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Law on Marriage and Family 2014 in Viet Nam; Nghị quyết 326/2016/UBTVQH14 quy định về mứcdated December 30, 2016 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Standing Committee of National Assembly on amount, remission, collection and payment, management and use of court fees and charges.

- Hereby judges:

Accept trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay lawsuit petition of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner.

1. With reference to conjugal relationship: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay petitioner is judged to lawfully divorce trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent.

2. With reference to common children: No common property is claimed so trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

3. With reference to common property and liabilities: No common property is claimed so trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is not requested to settle.

4. With reference to marriage and family first-instance court fee: trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first-instance civil court cost of VND 300,000 shall be legitimately paid by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay wife; it shall be deducted from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay first-instance court cost paid in advance according to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court cost and fee payment receipt No.0001014 dated January 5, 2018 issued by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Enforcements of civil judgment Department of Kien Giang province.

Litigants may rightfully appeal this judgment within 15 days from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment announcement. trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay respondent may rightfully appeal trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment within 1 month from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay day on which this judgment is served or publicly notified as per law provisions.

In case trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment or court decision is enforced as per regulations in Article 2 oftrực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Law on enforcements of civil judgments in Viet Nam, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay 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 Article 6, 7, 7a and 9 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay amended Law on enforcement of civil judgments, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay effective period of judgment enforcement shall comply within provisions in Article 30 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Law on enforcement of civil judgments./