论文部分内容阅读
2012年5月,张军因养鸭需要与甲地山桃村村民委员会订立了41亩山地承包合同,期限为30年。2013年6月,张军因业务需要向张娟借款1000000元,约定12月30日前付清。由于张军未能还款,张娟向甲地法院提起诉讼。2013年3月,法院因张娟的申请对张军的鸭场地上附着物及山地使用权依法进行了查封。在诉讼过程中,案外人孙立对法院的查封提出异议,并提供了2013年2月张军与其订立的41亩山地承包转让合同,银行转款600000元转款凭证以及乙地法院的民事裁定书(该裁定书同样是案外人孙立因李霞申请法院查封了张军的另外40亩山地,同样的转包合同,同样600000元的银行转款凭证,结果是因孙立的异议而解除了查封措施)。以此证明41亩山地转租并归其所有的事实。为此,张娟申请甲地法院调取张军与孙立的银行往来交易,结果发现其二人采取“转磨”的方式,孙立没有将山地转包款交付张军,并以此确认转包合同不成立。但对于乙地法院的裁定书确认的事实是否采信出现了两种不同意见。本文拟从两种不同意见出发,谈一下生效法律文书的证据效力的认定,以期达到抛砖引玉,共同解决当下窘困之目的。
In May 2012, Zhang Jun signed a contract of 41 mu for the mountain due to duck raising with the villagers committee of Jiaotongshan Peach Village, with a term of 30 years. In June 2013, Zhang Jun borrowed 1,000,000 yuan from Zhang Juan for business needs and agreed to pay off before December 30. As Zhang Jun failed to repay, Zhang Juan brought a lawsuit to Court A. In March 2013, due to Zhang Juan’s application, the court sealed the attachment of Zhang Jun’s duck site and the right to use the mountain according to law. During the litigation, Sun Li, an outsider, challenged the court’s seizure and provided 41 acres of mountain contract and contract signed by Zhang Jun with him in February 2013, a bank transfer of 600,000 yuan and evidence of court B’s civil ruling Book (the ruling is also outsiders Sun Li due to apply for court seized Zhang Jun another 40 acres of mountain, the same subcontract, the same 600000 yuan bank transfer certificate, the result is dismissed as Sun Li objection Seizure measures). In this way, we can testify to the fact that 41 mu of mountain are subleased and owned by them. To this end, Zhang Juan court application for a court of Zhang Jun and Sun Li’s bank transactions, and found that the two take “transfer mill ” approach, Sun did not turn the mountain subcontracted to Zhang Jun, and to This confirms the subcontract does not hold. However, there were two different opinions on whether or not the verdict confirmed by Court B was adopted. This article intends to proceed from two different opinions and to discuss the validity of the evidence of the effective legal instruments in order to reach the goal of attracting valuable resources and jointly solving the current dilemma.