民事判决书范本中英文对照

合集下载

各种法律类文书、公文翻译（中-英文版）

举证通知书(English V ersion)-法律英语翻译-法律文书翻译The People’s Republic of ChinaHefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui ProvinceNotice to Produce EvidenceNo. XXXTo: AAAAccording to the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Severa l Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidences for Civil Actions, you are responsible for producing evidences to prove the facts on which your claims are based or the facts on which the claims of the other party are rebutted.1. Y ou shall, as required by the Instructions for Producing Evidences of this Court submit evidence materials to this Court within thirty (30) days after the day of the receiving this notice.2. Evidences submitted by the parties to the people’s court shall be the origina ls, or copies or replicas checked and found in conformity with the originals by the people’s court. The submitted evidence materials shall be classified and numbered one by one. It is required to briefly describe the sources, facts to be proved and contents of the evidence materials. Copies shall be provided according to the number of the parties of the opposing side.3. Where it is really difficult for you to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term, you may apply with this Court for extension before its expiration.4. Y our failure to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term shall be deemed as waiver of the right to produce evidences. For the evidence materials not submitted on time, the people’s court won’t arra nge cross examination during trial, unless the other party agrees to cross examination.5. Where you intend to apply for authentication, increase or variation of the claims or file a counterclaim, you shall do the same prior to the expiration of the evidence producing term.6. Where you apply for appearance of a witness to testify, you shall file an application with this Court ten (10) days before expiration of the evidence producing term.7. Where an evidence provided by you has come into being outsi de the territory of the People’s Republic of China, such evidence shall be certified by a notarial authority of the country in which such evidence has come into being and certified by an embassy or consulate of the People’s Republic of China in that country, or it is required to perform the certifying procedures prescribed by related treaties between the People’s Republic of China and that country.Where an evidence provided by you has come into being in the region of Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, related certifying procedures shall be performed.Hefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province (seal)Date:举证通知书(中文版)×××人民法院举证通知书（××××）×××字第××号×××：根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》和最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，现将有关举证事项通知如下：一、当事人应当对自己提出的诉讼请求所依据的事实或者反驳对方诉讼请求所依?据的事实承担举证责任。

民事诉讼法英文对照

Civil Procedure LawChapter I General ProvisionsArticle 1 This Law is formulated in accordance with the Constitution with a view to safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and maintaining social and economic order, promoting the development of socialist democracy and building a socialist country under the rule of law.Article 2 For the purposes of this Law, a civil lawsuit includes all litigation activities conducted in accordance with the law to resolve disputes over civil rights and interests.Article 3 A civil lawsuit shall be guided by the principles of fairness, voluntariness, protection of rights, immediacy, effectiveness, and integrity.Article 4 People’s courts shall independently exercise their judicial power in accordance with the law, and no organization or individual may interfere with a court in its exercise of such power.Chapter II JurisdictionArticle 5 People’s courts at various levels shall have jurisdiction over civil cases according to the jurisdictional rules provided for by law.Article 6 The jurisdiction over a civil case shall be determined in accordance with the place where the defendant is domiciled or the place where the contract is performed, or where the property is located, based on the nature of the case and the relevant provisions of laws and regulations.Article 7 People’s courts shall have jurisdiction over civil cases involving foreign elements in accordance with the provisions of laws and relevant international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republi c of China.Chapter III Parties and Their RepresentativesArticle 8 In a civil lawsuit, the parties shall exercise their litigation rights and perform their litigation obligations independently.Article 9 The parties to a civil lawsuit shall have the right to engage lawyers to act as their representatives, and may also appoint close relatives or other persons as their representatives.Article 10 When a person becomes a party to a civil lawsuit, he/she shall have the right to know the facts of the case, present evidence, debate, apply for withdrawal, appeal or proceed with execution, and enjoy other litigation rights.Chapter IV EvidenceArticle 11 The burden of proof in a civil lawsuit shall be borne by the party that raises the claims. When the party claims for legal rights or interests, it shall provide evidence to support the claims.Article 12 The parties shall present evidence that they possess and are responsible for. The court shall inform the parties to present evidence they possess, as well as investigate and collect evidence necessary for the case.Article 13 The court shall examine the admissibility, authenticity, relevance, and legality of the evidence presented by the parties. The parties shall have the right to express their opinions on the evidence and provide explanations or cross-examination.Chapter V Mediation and WithdrawalArticle 14 In order to promote the amicable settlement of civil disputes, people’s courts shall actively encourage mediation between the parties. The parties may apply for mediation at any time during the trial process.Article 15 When the parties reach a mediation agreement, the people’s court shall render a mediation statement, which shall have the same effect as a legally effective judgment.Article 16 The parties may apply for withdrawal of a lawsuit before the conclusion of the trial. If the withdrawal is agreed upon by the other party and the people’s court finds it lawful, it shall allow the withdrawal.Chapter VI Judgment and RulingArticle 17 The people’s court sha ll render a judgment based on the facts ascertained from the evidence and the application of laws.Article 18 The people’s court shall make a determination on the facts and the application of laws separately and clearly in its judgment.Article 19 The peop le’s court shall render a judgment in a public hearing, except for cases involving state secrets or personal privacy of the parties.Chapter VII EnforcementArticle 20 During the trial or after a judgment is rendered, the parties may apply to the people’s court for enforcement if the other party refuses to fulfil its obligations as stipulated in the judgment.Article 21 The people’s court shall promptly execute the judgment once it becomes enforceable. If the party against whom enforcement is sought refuses to comply, the court shall take enforcement measures in accordance with the law.Chapter VIII Supplementary ProvisionsArticle 22 This Law shall come into effect on the date of its promulgation. At the same time, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was adopted on April 9, 1991, is repealed.。

民事判决书中英文对照

中华人民共和国吉林省高级人民法院民事判决书（2003）吉民三终字第20号上诉人（原审被告）：诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（原浙江省诸暨市飞达实业公司）。

住所：浙江省诸暨市城关镇浣东北路60号。

法定代表人：宗光培，该公司总经理。

委托代理人：田大原，吉林衡丰律师事务所律师。

被上诉人（原审原告）：珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组。

住所：珲春市。

代表人：金龙华，该清算小组组长。

被上诉人（原审原告）：韩国KOMARA农产会社。

住所：韩国釜山广城市莲提区莲山千洞586－15.法定代表人：姜大建，该社社长。

委托代理人：王文君，吉林由正律师事务所律师。

上诉人诸暨市飞达实业有限公司（以下简称飞达公司）与被上诉人珲春江南实业有限公司清算小组（以下简称清算组）、韩国KOMARA农产会社（以下简称农产会社）购销手套机合同纠纷一案，不服中华人民共和国吉林省延边朝鲜族自治州中级人民法院（2000）延州经初字第63号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。

本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。

上诉人飞达公司委托代理人田大原，被上诉人清算组代表人金龙华，农产会社委托代理人王文君到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原审法院查明：（一）1999年7月5日，珲春江南实业有限公司（以下简称江南公司）因未参加年检被珲春市工商行政管理局吊销营业执照，并被告知企业的债权债务由企业自行处理。

珲春市边境经济合作区经济发展局于2001年6月1日下发珲经发（2001）53号文件，决定江南公司成立清算小组。

珲春市公安局治安科出具证明：证明清算组的公章已依法备案。

江南公司原法定代表人姜南春于2000年6月8日出具书面说明：1、江南公司由其提议并同意成立清算小组，其委托宋明男为清算小组组长，金龙华任副组长，吕相基、李顺子、金昌浩为成员；2、其同意由金龙华负责清算工作及一切法律实施事宜。

因此，清算组成立的程序合法，应负责江南公司的债权债务清理工作，具有作为诉讼原告的主体资格。

英文判决书模板

中正法律英语翻译网收集和整理：Case No:CH/2004/APP/0271 Neutral Citation Number:[2004]EWHC2248(Ch)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONDate:Friday,8th October2004 Before:THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PARK---------------------Between:Usetech Limited Appellant-and-Graeme Young(HM Inspector of Taxes)------------------------------------------Simon Devonshire(instructed by Nelsons)for the AppellantAkash Nawbatt(instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue)for the Respondent---------------------Approved JudgmentI direct that pursuant to CPR PD39A para6.1no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and thatcopies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic..............................Mr Justice ParkMr Justice Park:Abbreviations,dramatis personae,etc1.These are as follows.ABB ABB Vetco Gray(UK)Limited,the‘end user’of the services of MrHood;a company which provided a range of equipment to the oil andgas industry.Mr Devonshire Simon Devonshire,counsel for Usetech.EAT Employment Appeal Tribunal.Hood,Mr William Hood,specialist in a software system used by ABB,calledPro-Engineer;shareholder in and director of Usetech.IR35The reference number of an Inland Revenue Press Release of2000,which led to the enactment of the legislative provisions which are inpoint in this case.Nawbatt,Mr Akash Nawbatt,counsel for the Inspector of Taxes,the respondent tothis appeal.NES NES International Limited,a company described as an agencycompany which provided technical recruitment services.NICs National Insurance ContributionsUsetech Usetech Limited,the appellant on this appeal;‘one man company’owned by Mr Hood,which provided his services to end users.Overview2.3.This is a tax and NICs appeal by the taxpayer,Usetech,against a decision of a Special Commissioner,Mr Colin Bishopp,dated12March2004.The decision determined a question of principle concerning the liability to tax and NICs of Usetech and its principal shareholder and director,Mr etech was a ‘one man company’whose business consisted of making the services of Mr Hood available to third party users.By transactions entered into in May2000Mr Hood’s services were made available to ABB,and he worked in the business of ABB for about17months from1June2000.The transactions involved not only Mr Hood,Usetech and ABB,but also,in a manner which I will describe later,another company, NES.Mr Hood had no beneficial interest in NES.The question of principle is whether the transactions attracted the operation of provisions introduced,both for tax and for NICs,in2000and commonlyreferred to as the IR35legislation.IR35was the reference number of an Inland Revenue Press Release which had foreshadowed the legislation.4.If the IR35legislation applied its effect would be to treat payments received by Usetech for the provisionby it of Mr Hood’s services(the payments being received,not from ABB directly,but from NES)as if they had been personal income of Mr Hood from an employment with ABB.For income tax they would be treated as emoluments taxable under Schedule E,rather than as receipts of Usetech’s trade which would be taken into account in computing its profits liable to corporation tax.For NICs they would be treated in a similar way as employment income of Mr Hood.The liabilities both to income tax and to NICs would fall to be met by Usetech,not by Mr Hood.Thus it is Usetech which is the appellant taxpayer.5.The Inland Revenue issued formal decisions that the IR35provisions applied,and Usetech appealed tothe Special Commissioners.In form there were two decisions and two appeals,one for tax and one for NICs,but they turned on two sets of almost identical legislation and stood or fell together.The appeals were heard by Mr Bishopp on22January2004,and by a reserved decision dated12March2004he dismissed the appeals,thus affirming the decisions which the Inland Revenue had etech now appeals to me.It is clear that an appeal can only succeed if the decision was wrong in law.There is no appeal on a question of fact:see s.56A(1)and(4)of the Taxes Management Act1970.6.Mr Devonshire,who appears for Usetech,has helpfully limited his submissions to two specific respectsin which he says that the Special Commissioner erred in law.I will describe them fully later in this judgment.The first respect involves an argument that the IR35legislation cannot apply because of a contractual provision between Usetech and NES(not between Usetech and ABB or between NES and ABB),which Mr Devonshire submits must be taken into account,entitling Usetech to provide the services of a substitute in place of Mr Hood.I will refer to this as the right of substitution argument.The second respect in which Mr Devonshire says that the Special Commissioner erred involves an argument that ABB was not obliged to provide work for Mr Hood to do(although in fact it did do so).Therefore,it is argued that,even after applying the hypotheses required by the IR35provisions,there was insufficient mutuality of obligation for an employer/employee relationship to exist,with the result that the provisions did not apply.I will refer to this as the want of mutuality argument.7.I have considered Mr Devonshire’s arguments carefully,but my conclusion is that I cannot accept eitherof them.The issues are too complex for me to encapsulate the essence of my reasoning in this overview at the beginning of my judgment.I shall explain it as the judgment progresses.The result is that I respectfully agree with the decision of the Special Commissioner.Therefore I shall dismiss the appeal.The IR35legislation8.9.For income tax and corporation tax(income tax so far as concerns Mr Hood and corporation tax so faras concerns Usetech)the legislation is contained in section60of and Schedule12to the Finance Act 2000.The critical provisions are those which identify the cases to which Schedule12applies.If the Schedule applies there is not,if I understand correctly,any dispute as the consequences.The dispute is whether it applies at all.The case revolves around provisions in paragraph1of the Schedule.I will now set out the relevant parts of the paragraph,interpolating in italicised square brackets the actual identities in this case of the parties referred to in general terms in the paragraph.1(1)This Schedule applies where–(a)an individual(‘the worker’)[Mr Hood]personallyperforms,or is under an obligation personally to perform,services for the purposes of a business carried on byanother person(‘the client’)[ABB],(b)the services are provided not under a contract directlybetween the client[ABB]and the worker[Mr Hood]butunder arrangements involving a third party(‘theintermediary’)[Usetech],and(c)the circumstances are such that,if the services wereprovided under a contract directly between the client[ABB]and the worker[Mr Hood],the worker would be regardedfor income tax purposes as an employee of the client[ABB].(2),(3)…(4)The circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph(1)(c)include the terms on which the services are provided,having regardto the terms of the contracts forming part of the arrangements underwhich the services are provided.10.11.In the quotation of sub-paragraph(1)(b)above I have identified‘the intermediary’in this case as beingUsetech.As I will explain later,on the facts NES might also be regarded as an intermediary in the general sense of the word,but it is clear from paragraph3of Schedule12,which I need not set out verbatim,that only Usetech counts as an intermediary for the purposes of paragraph1.However,the ‘arrangements involving…the intermediary’(referred to in sub-paragraph(1)(b))may involve other persons as well as the intermediary.If they do the respects in which the other persons are also involved may affect the application or non-application of paragraph1.In the present case this could be relevant to the participation of NES in the entire transaction:NES was neither‘the worker’nor‘the client’nor‘the intermediary’,but it was involved in the arrangements in which‘the intermediary’(Usetech)was involved,so its part in those arrangements falls to be taken into account as well as Usetech’s part in them.12.A more general point of construction is worth spelling out at this stage.The conditions of sub-paragraphs(a)and(b)involve an analysis of the actual facts and legal relationships,but when that analysis showsthat those two sub-paragraphs are satisfied sub-paragraph(c)involves an exercise of constructing a hypothetical contract which did not in fact exist,and then enquiring what the consequences would have been if it had existed.There may be room in some cases for dispute about what the hypothetical contract would contain,and in the present case there is.The dispute arises in connection with the right of substitution argument which is advanced by Mr Devonshire on behalf of Usetech.I will explain how precisely the issue arises at a later stage in this judgment.13.The comparable provisions for NICs are contained in regulation6of the Social Security Contributions(Intermediaries)Regulations2000.They are not quite identical to the provisions in the Finance Act2000, but they are similar in all relevant respects.For completeness I will set out the specific wording.6(1)These Regulations apply where–(a)an individual(the worker)[Mr Hood]personally performs,or isunder an obligation personally to perform,services for the purposesof a business carried on by another person(the client)[ABB],(b)the performance of those services by the worker[Mr Hood]iscarried out,not under a contract directly between the worker[MrHood]and the client[ABB],but under arrangements involving anintermediary[Usetech],and(c)the circumstances are such that,had the arrangements taken theform of a contract between the worker[Mr Hood]and the client[ABB]the worker[Mr Hood]would be regarded for the purposes ofParts I to V of the Contributions and Benefits Act as employed inemployed earner’s employment by the client[ABB].As in the Finance Act2000there is a provision(regulation5)under which‘the intermediary’is,so far as this case is concerned,Usetech(and not NES).However,the same point applies in that,to the extent that NES was involved in the arrangements,its participation may have to be taken into account in determining whether regulation6applies notwithstanding that it was none of the parties(‘the worker’,‘the client’,or‘the intermediary’)specifically identified in the regulation.Curiously regulation6does not contain a provision like paragraph1(4)of Schedule12to the Finance Act2000,expanding on what is covered by‘the circumstances’referred to in sub-paragraph(c)of regulation6(1).However,no-one has suggested to me,nor do I consider,that that or the other minor differences between the two statutory provisions affects this case or opens a possibility of the case being decided one way for NICs and another way for income tax and corporation tax.The facts14.15.Mr Hood has now retired but at the time when this case arose he worked in connection with theproduction of design drawings of oil wells,rigs and similar equipment.He was a specialist in the use ofa software product called Pro-Engineer,which produced3-D models of such equipment.He started tooperate through his one man company,Usetech,in May1996.There was no evidence before the Special Commissioner about his arrangements before then,so the Commissioner inevitably decided the case on the basis of the Usetech arrangements alone,uninfluenced by what Mr Hood’s tax and national insurance status may have been in earlier years.etech had several engagements for the provision of Mr Hood’s services to‘end users’over its tradinglife from1996to May2003(when Mr Hood was obliged to retire by reason of ill health).Some of the engagements were pursuant to direct contracts between Usetech and the end users,but engagements with ABB were not,since,as I explain in more detail in the next paragraph,NES was interposed between Usetech and ABB(the end user).There were three different periods when Mr Hood was working in the business of ABB at its premises in Aberdeen.The present case is specifically about the period of17 months beginning in June2000.(In fact the Special Commissioner was only strictly concerned with the period from1June2000to31March2001,but I assume that that was for some procedural reason to do with tax years or companies’accounting periods or something of that nature.The Commissioner’s decision would undoubtedly govern the whole period of the engagement for Mr Hood to work in the business of ABB.)17.ABB is a United Kingdom subsidiary of a world-wide group which provides a range of equipment to theoil and gas industry.It has a core staff of750to850permanent employees,but it supplements them when demand requires by taking on what its Human Resources Manager described as‘sub-contract employees’.This was done by means of companies described as‘agencies’,of which NES was one.There was no evidence from NES,but on its letter heading it describes itself as‘Europe’s largest technical recruitment agency’.As will appear,NES sometimes acted contractually as a principal rather than as an agent in the strict legal sense.18.The way in which Mr Hood was engaged to work in the business of ABB,which I assume was typical ofhow ABB and NES operated,was as follows.Management within ABB identified that ABB had a need for another specialist in Pro-Engineer,but did not wish to have another permanent employee recruited.The Human Resources manager contacted agencies,including NES.NES knew about Mr Hood,and contacted him,or more strictly contacted his personal company,Usetech.Mr Hood was obviouslywilling to go and work in Aberdeen in ABB’s business,because the matter proceeded.If ABB had not already known Mr Hood it would have required to interview him first,and had in fact done so for the earlier occasion when he had been provided to it through NES.However,since it already knew him it did not require an interview on this occasion.Two contracts were entered into,one between Usetech and NES and one between NES and ABB.Each contract appears to have been made on22May2000,to commence on1June2000,although the documents which were before the Special Commissioner are a little confusing about this.The system of having two contracts is quite common(or so I understand),and contracts of these kinds are sometimes referred to as‘the lower level contract’and‘the upper level contract’.However,I will refer to them in this judgment as‘the Usetech/NES contract’(the lower level) and‘the NES/ABB contract’(the upper level).There must also have been a contractual relationship(at the lowest level)between Mr Hood and Usetech,but it appears that there was no written contract of service.At least no such written contract was produced in evidence.19.As regards the Usetech/NES contract(the lower level contract)there appear to have been two contractualdocuments:a one page letter of offer by NES signed by way of acceptance by Mr Hood on behalf of Usetech,and a longer set of‘Terms and Conditions’in standard form.A complication here is that the documents before the Special Commissioner appear to have included three versions of the first document and three of the second.This may have had something to do with variations in the anticipated duration of the engagement,but there are aspects of the duplication or triplication of documents which puzzle me.However,I do not think that they are fundamental to the issues in the case.20.The first of the three offer letters is dated22May2000.It is from NES and is addressed to Usetech at MrHood’s home address.It includes the following:‘We are pleased to offer you a contract to supply contract staff in a position as Pro-Engineer Designer in accordance with the following:NAME(S)OF CONTRACT STAFF:WILLIAM HOOD.CLIENT:ABB VECTO GRAY.’21.Certain brief other details follow,covering such matters as the hourly rate of payment,thecommencement date,and the notice period.Mr Hood signed to indicate acceptance.For completeness I mention that the other two offer letters have slightly different periods of service,do not mention Mr Hood personally and are not signed by him by way of acceptance.I do not follow what their relevance to the appeal is or what their function was,and I have concentrated on the letter dated22May2000.22.I turn to the longer form document,the standard form headed‘Terms and Conditions for the supply ofservices to NES International Ltd(performed by a limited company sub-contractor’.23.There are three versions of this document in the documents which were before the SpecialCommissioner and which are now before me.None of them mentions Usetech(or any other specific sub-contractor for that matter),and none of them is signed by or on behalf of either NES or Usetech(or any other person).The evidential status of the three documents in the bundle is not clear to me,but I will assume that at least one of them was supplied by NES to Usetech(in common,I assume,with all other subcontractor companies which had similar relationships with NES),and that it did in general regulate the contractual relationship between the two companies.The Special Commissioner said,and I agree, that although the three versions of the Terms and Conditions are not quite identical,the differences between them do not appear to be material to this case.24.The Terms and Conditions are quite long documents.They are in no sense tailor-made for the particularrelationship being entered into between Mr Hood,Usetech,NES and ABB.They are standard form documents plainly intended to be used by NES across the spread of arrangements which it makes with companies like Usetech to enable the services of employees of such companies to be provided to outside clients like ABB.It would be disproportionate for me to set out one of the documents in this judgment or to attempt a full summary of it.In the broadest of terms it provides for‘the sub-contractor’(in this case Usetech)to agree with NES that it will provide‘the Services’to the reasonable satisfaction of‘the client’, that is the end user,being ABB in this case.The agreement which the sub-contractor has,however,is between it and NES,not between it and the end user.‘The Services’(which Usetech agreed with NES to provide to the reasonable satisfaction of ABB)are defined as‘the work or project identified in the contract letter and/or notified to the sub-contractor by the Client’.25.I assume that the contract letter referred to is the letter of22May2000(or possibly all three letters)bywhich NES offered the engagement to Usetech and Usetech accepted it.On that basis it appears that(in so far as the matter is affected by the22May2000letter,which was the only document which appears to have signed on behalf of Usetech by way of acceptance)‘the Services’were the services of Mr Hood as Pro-Engineer Designer.26.The Terms and Conditions cover a range of matters which I need not describe in this judgment.Theyinclude matters such as payments of fees(to be made to Usetech by NES,not by ABB),use of motor vehicles,trade secrets,and non-competition by the sub-contractor with the end user(NES’s‘client’).There is,however,one provision which I should set out in full,since it provides the basis for Mr Devonshire’s right of substitution argument.The final clause is headed‘General’,and contains a number of different provisions.One of them reads as follows:The Sub-Contractor shall be entitled to substitute the named Personnel for analternative,with the prior written consent of the Company–such consent notto be withheld if the proposed replacement has the appropriate skills,qualifications and abilities in the reasonable opinion of the Client.I specifically point out that‘the Company’,which can give prior written consent to a substitution,is NES,and is not‘the Client’:in this case it is not ABB.Further,the only parties to this agreement are the sub-contractor(Usetech in this case)and NES.The client(e.g.ABB)is not a party.I will examine the argument which Mr Devonshire bases on this provision at a later stage in this judgment.27.28.So much for the contractual relationship between Usetech and NES.There was also a contractualrelationship between NES and ABB.I should state at the outset that Usetech and Mr Hood did not know the detailed content of that relationship.If they thought about the matter they must obviously and correctly have assumed that there would be a contract of some sort between NES and ABB,that it would provide for NES in some way to cause Usetech to provide the services of Mr Hood to ABB,and that ABB would make payments to NES for the services.But I doubt that Usetech and Mr Hood would have known or assumed anything more detailed about the NES/ABB contractual relationship.29.There was indeed an NES/ABB contract(an upper level contract),and it was placed before the SpecialCommissioner.I understand that the copy of it was obtained from ABB.It takes the form of a letter agreement,signed on behalf of both parties,dated22May2000,which was also the date of the offer letter made by NES to Usetech and signed by way of acceptance by Mr Hood.The letter which constitutes the NES/ABB contract is from NES to ABB.It is headed:‘Sub-Contractor–Usetech Ltd.Contract Staff–Mr William Hood.’It begins:‘We confirm that the above Contract Staff supplied by the above sub-contractor will be available to commence work on30th May2000to perform the services of Pro-Engineer Designer.’30.A number of other detailed matters were covered,including the hourly rate payable by ABB to NESfor the services(a little higher,as one would expect,than the hourly rate payable onward by NES to Usetech),a seven days notice period,and a minimum number of weekly hours(37.5hours).Two pages of detailed Terms and Conditions are attached,but they do not appear to me to add anything relevant (except for condition3.2,to which I refer in paragraph63below).31.There is nothing in the NES/ABB contract about the provision of a substitute for Mr Hood,and in myview that contract is solely one for the provision of his services,not one for the provision of the services of him or a substitute who is reasonably acceptable to ABB.32.Moving on from the contracts as such,there are some other factual points which might have a bearing onthe right of substitution argument and which I ought therefore to mention.The question of a substitute for Mr Hood never arose.For the17months of the engagement which began on30May(or1June)2000 the services were provided entirely by Mr Hood himself.Mr Hood did,however,say in his witness statement that there were other Pro-Engineer specialists whom he knew and whom he could have sent.I should also quote the following findings from paragraph25of the Special Commissioner’s decision.[T]he reality…is that ABB required Mr Hood’s services.It was notcontracting,indirectly,with[Usetech]for the supply of a person competent inPro-Engineer;it required Mr Hood.It would not have accepted a substitute,ifMr Hood had sent one,without interview and certainly not on the basis thatMr Hood or the substitute might attend as[Usetech]elected from day to day.Mr Hunter’s evidence,which I accept,can lead to no other conclusion thanthat the arrangement was personal to Mr Hood.I do not go so far as to saythat the right to substitute was a sham–Mr Hunter agreed that,if Mr Hoodhad become unavailable and suggested someone to continue in his place,thatsuggestion would be given some weight–but Mr Hood and[Usetech]couldnot dictate,at will,who would perform the work:it had to be Mr Hood.In myview,the‘right’of substitution was largely illusory.33.34.So far as the right of substitution argument is concerned I do not think that there are any other specificaspects of the facts which I need to describe.However Mr Devonshire also advances the want of mutuality argument,and there are some other factual points which I ought to mention,since they could be of some relevance to that argument.The Special Commissioner,having heard evidence from Mr Hood and from two witnesses from ABB,found that any temporary member of staff(like Mr Hood)was treated,on a day to day basis,in a manner barely distinguishable from an employee.One of the ABB witnesses said that as a general rule temporary staff were expected to work50hours a week,and Mr Hood did so.Mr Hood’s own evidence was that he typically worked for58hours per week.He also said that,if there was no work for him to do,he could be sent home.He could recall at least three or four occasions when the computer crashed and he was sent home without payment.The Special Commissioner recorded this aspect of Mr Hood’s evidence,but did not make a specific finding of his own on it.I confess that I have some reservations about it,and I will return to this later when I discuss the want of mutuality argument.Commissioner’’s decisionThe Special Commissioner35.36.In a careful and comprehensive reserved decision the Special Commissioner,Mr Bishopp,set out thestatutory provisions and reviewed the facts.He noted that the IR35provisions(both for tax and for NICs) require a notional contract between Mr Hood and ABB to be assumed,and that the critical question was whether that contract would have been a contract of employment.He considered a number of factors which might bear on the question,and in the course of doing so he quoted a well-known passage from the judgment of McKenna J in Ready Mixed Concrete(South East)Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance[1968]2QB497at515:A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled:(i)Theservant agrees that,in consideration of a wage or other remuneration,he willprovide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for hismaster.(ii)He agrees,expressly or impliedly,that in the performance of thatservice he will be subject to the other’s control to a sufficient degree to makethat other master.(iii)The other provisions of the contract are consistent withits being a contract of service.The Special Commissioner considered condition(iii)first,and concluded that there was nothing in the notional contract which was‘incompatible with the relationship between them[ABB and Mr Hood]of employer and employee’(paragraph24of the decision).It was at this point that he considered the issue of substitution,doing so in the terms which I quoted in paragraph23above and concluding that in his view‘the right of substitution was largely illusory’.(As will appear later I would put the matter rather differently,but I would not change the‘bottom line’conclusion that the provision for substitution in the Usetech/NES contract does not lead to a decision in favour of Usetech.)37.38.Moving on,the Special Commissioner compared Mr Hood with normal employees of ABB who hadsimilar skills to his own,and saw little outward difference.I quote a few extracts from paragraph27of the decision:Mr Hood was expected to undertake the work allocated to him by ABB and todo so in accordance with its directions and at times of its choosing.…In that,too,he was in materially the same position as an employee.…[O]verall itseems to me that there is no difference between the measure of controlexercised over his work by ABB and that it would have exercised over anemployee of his status.39.40.The Special Commissioner considered that,in so far as there was a requirement for mutuality ofobligation to exist for a relationship to be a contract of employment,the requirement was in any event satisfied by the obligation on the one hand to work and on the other to remunerate.(In my view there may be rather more to be said on this point,but as I will explain I do not disagree with the Commissioner’s conclusion.)41.The Commissioner also considered whether Mr Hood or Usetech could realistically be seen to have beenin business on their own account,and was of the opinion that they could not.For that and the other reasons which I have summarised and which he examined more fully he decided:‘The conclusion must be that the notional contract between ABB and Mr Hood was one of service.I can find no factor in the case which is inconsistent with that conclusion.’The appeal to this court42.In the overview at the beginning of this judgment I observed that Mr Devonshire has limited the groundsof appeal to two issues,which I am calling the right of substitution argument and the want of mutuality argument.Points about the right of substitution and points about the alleged want of mutuality were made on behalf of Usetech before the Special Commissioner,but,as it seems to me,they were made not so much as self-contained arguments either of which would be sufficient entirely by itself to conclude the appeal in favour of Usetech,but rather as items in a comprehensive view of the interconnecting relationships between Mr Hood,Usetech,NES and ABB.I think that the Special Commissioner perceived the main case advanced on behalf of Usetech as being one which looked at all aspects of the case together and in the round.Those aspects included the provision in the Usetech/NES contract about substitution and also what was contended to be a want of mutuality between Usetech and ABB.But they also included points made about the degree of control exercised by ABB over the work done by Mr Hood, about alleged differences in practice between Mr Hood’s position in the operations of ABB and the positions of full time employees,about other activities altogether carried on by Mr Hood through Usetech,and so on.。

民事判决书范本中英文对照

民事判决书范本中英文对照xx省xx市xx区人民法院民事判决书(1993）xx民初字第18号原告：金xx，女，1970年4月2日出生，汉族，农民，住xx市xx 区x x镇x村。

委托代理人：杜xx，xx律师事务所律师。

被告：王xx，男，1969年7月19日出生，汉族，农民，住xx市x x区xx镇xx村。

委托代理人：张xx，xx律师事务所律师。

原告金xx诉被告王xx解除非法同居关系纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进展了审理。

原告金xx及其委托代理人杜xx、被告王xx及其委托代理人张xx到庭参加诉讼。

本案现已审理终结。

原告金xx诉称，要解除与被告王xx的非法同居关系，并分割共同财产。

被告王xx辩称，原告与被告的非法同居关系已经解除，财产也已经分割完毕，原告起诉无理。

经审理查明，1987年3月，原告、被告双方经人介绍相识后，即非法同居。

同居后双方到市里做买卖蔬菜的生意。

1988年12月底，原、被告回到x x村在原告家中居住。

1991年3月到被告家中居住，与被告父母分居生活。

在此期间，原、被告于1989年3月买潍坊产12马力拖拉机一部搞运输。

外欠原、被告运输费800元，后双方将拖拉机卖给关xx，卖价5000元，关xx除付部分款外，尚欠原、被告1700元。

1991年春，原、被告建北屋8间，厕所、厨房、大门各一间，原、被告投资4000元。

建房后，原、被告因家务琐事发生矛盾，原告回到娘家居住。

后经协商，被告给原告自行车一辆，现金2500元，原告收下后，鉴于同居后的共同财产分割不均，故诉至本院。

原、被告双方同居前无任何财产。

同居后共同购置了250型摩托车一辆，方桌一张，椅子两把，石英钟一个，双人床一张，凳子两个，黑白电视机一台，单桦犁一个，被子两床。

本院认为，原、被告未达法定婚龄即同居，其行为是违法的，非法同居关系应予解除。

原告要求分割财产的诉讼恳求应予支持。

原、被告所建房屋，部分费用属被告的父母投资，被告应适当多得。

民事起诉书格式中英文对照

民事起诉书格式中英文对照COMPLAINTTo：________________ People's CourtPlaintiff：Domicile：Legal Representative：Position：Defendant：Domicile：Legal Representative：Position：CLAIMS：1. To order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the due amount of RMB _____ for the dispatched products， plus the interests of RMB ________ thereon， in the aggregate of RMB __________；2.To order the court fees to be borne by the Defendant.FACTS AND REASONS：The Defendant was one of the distributors of the Plaintiff for various kinds of products in theterritory of ___________， China. From September， xx to October， xx， the Plaintiff dispatched various kinds of products in the aggregate values of RMB____________. （see Exhibit I）Each of the said transactions was duly signed and received by the Defendant （see Exhibit II）。

Though the Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded payment， the Defendant fails to liquidate the outstanding debts in due time.It is the Plaintiff's position that the indebtedness arising out of the transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be under the jurisdiction of the China's laws. The Defendant's refusal to satisfy the agreed amounts after receipt of the above-mentioned lubricants resulted in tremendous economic losses on the side of the Plaintiff （see Exhibit III）。

【优质文档】英汉对照法律文书(1)word版本 (3页)

本文部分内容来自网络，本司不为其真实性负责，如有异议或侵权请及时联系，本司将予以删除！== 本文为word格式，下载后可随意编辑修改！ ==英汉对照法律文书(1)关于账目的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.根据附件中证物A所示的账目，被告应支付原告____________美元。

据此……(同格式1)Form2COMPLAINT ON AN ACCOUNT1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff ___________ dollars according to the account hereto annexed as Exhibit A.Wherefore( etc .as in Form1)格式3关于已出售和交付货物的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.在1936年6月1日至1936年12月1日期间，原告出售并交付被告一批货物，应由被告向原千偿付该货物款项_____________美元。

据此……(同格式1)Form3COMPLAINT FOR GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff _________ dollars for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant between June 1，1936 and December 1，1936.Wherefore (etc .as in Form1)。

格式4关于金钱借贷的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

2.原告于1936年6月1日借给被告___________美元，被告应予偿还。

据此……(同格式1)Form 4COMPLAINT FOR MONEY LENT1.Allegation of jurisdiction.2.Defendant owes plaintiff ___________ dollars for money lent by plaintiff to defendant on June 1，1936.Wherefore( etc .as in Form1)格式5关于金钱误付的起诉状1.管辖权声明。

民事诉讼法英文版

Order of the President of the People's Republic ofChinaNo.44The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, adopted at the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People's Congress on April 9, 1991, is promulgated now, and shall enter into force as of the date of promulgation.President of the People's Republic of China: Yang ShangkunApril 9,1991 Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of ChinaContentsPart One General ProvisionsChapter I The Aim, Scope of Application and Basic PrinciplesChapter II JurisdictionSection 1 Jurisdiction by Forum LevelSection 2 Territorial JurisdictionSection 3 Transfer and Designation of JurisdictionChapter III Trial OrganizationChapter IV WithdrawalChapter V Participants in ProceedingsSection 1 PartiesSection 2 Agents ad LitemChapter VI EvidenceChapter VII Time Periods and ServiceSection 1 Time PeriodsSection 2 ServiceChapter VIII ConciliationChapter IX Property Preservation and Advance ExecutionChapter X Compulsory Measures Against Obstruction of Civil ProceedingsChapter XI Litigation CostsPart Two Trial ProcedureChapter XII Ordinary Procedure of First InstanceSection 1 Bringing a Lawsuit and Entertaining a CaseSection 2 Preparations for TrialSection 3 Trial in CourtSection 4 Suspension and Termination of LitigationSection 5 Judgment and OrderChapter XIII Summary ProcedureChapter XIV Procedure of Second InstanceChapter XV Special ProcedureSection 1 General ProvisionsSection 2 Cases Concerning the Qualification of VotersSection 3 Cases Concerning the Declaration of a Person as Missing or DeadSection 4 Cases Concerning the Adjudgment of Legal Incapacity or Restricted LegalCapacity of CitizensSection 5 Cases Concerning the Determination of a Property as OwnerlessChapter XVI Procedure for Trial SupervisionChapter XVII Procedure for Hastening Debt RecoveryChapter XVIII Procedure for Publicizing Public Notice for Assertion of Claims Enter-prises Part Three Procedure of ExecutionChapter XX General ProvisionsChapter XXI Application for Execution and ReferralChapter XXII Execution MeasuresChapter XXIII Suspension and Termination of ExecutionPart Four Special Provisions for Civil Procedure of Cases Involving Foreign ElementChapter XXIV General PrinciplesChapter XXV JurisdictionChapter XXVI Service and Time PeriodsChapter XXVII Property PreservationChapter XXVIII ArbitrationChapter XXIX Judicial AssistancePart One General ProvisionsChapter I The Aim, Scope of Application and Basic PrinciplesArticle 1 The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China is formulated on the basis of the Constitution and in the light of the experience and actual conditions of our country in the trial of civil cases.Article 2 The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China aims to protect the exercise of the litigation rights of the parties and ensure the ascertaining of facts by the people's courts, distinguish right from wrong, apply the law correctly, try civil cases promptly, affirm civil rights and obligations, impose sanctions for civil wrongs, protect the lawful rights and interests of the parties, educate citizens to voluntarily abide by the law, maintain the social and economic order, and guarantee the smooth progress of the socialist construction.Article 3In dealing with civil litigation arising from disputes on property and personal relations between citizens, legal persons or other organizations and between the three of them, the people's courts shall apply the provisions of this Law.Article 4 Whoever engages in civil litigation within the territory of the People's Republic of China must abide by this Law.Article 5Aliens, stateless persons, foreign enterprises and organizations that bring suits or enter appearance in the people's courts shall have the same litigation rights and obligations as citizens, legal persons and other organizations of the People's Republic of China.If the courts of a foreign country impose restrictions on the civil litigation rights of the citizens, legal persons and other organizations of the People's Republic of China, the people's courts of the People's Republic of China shall follow the principle of reciprocity regarding the civil litigation rights of the citizens, enterprises and organizations of that foreign country.Article 6 The people's courts shall exercise judicial powers with respect to civil cases.The people's courts shall try civil cases independently in accordance with the law, and shall be subject to no interference by any administrative organ, public organization or individual.Article 7 In trying civil cases, the people's courts must base themselves on facts and take the law as the criterion.Article 8 The parties in civil litigation shall have equal litigation rights. The people's courts shall, in conducting the trials, safeguard their rights, facilitate their exercising the rights, and apply the law equally to them.Article 9In trying civil cases, the people's courts shall conduct conciliation for the parties on a voluntary and lawful basis; if conciliation fails, judgments shall be rendered without delay.Article 10In trying civil cases, the people's courts shall, according to the provisions of the law, follow the systems of panel hearing, withdrawal, public trial and the court of second instance being that of last instance.Article 11Citizens of all nationalities shall have the right to use their native spoken and written languages in civil proceedings.Where minority nationalities live in aggregation in a community or where several nationalities live together in one area, the people's courts shall conduct hearings and issue legal documents in thespoken and written languages commonly used by the local nationalities.The people's courts shall provide translations for any participant in the proceedings who is not familiar with the spoken or written languages commonly used by the local nationalities.Article 12Parties to civil actions are entitled in the trials by the people's courts to argue for themselves.Article 13 The parties are free to deal with their own civil rights and litigation rights the way they prefer within the scope provided by the law.Article 14The people's procuratorates shall have the right to exercise legal supervision over civil proceedings.Article 15Where an act has infringed upon the civil rights and interests of the State, a collective organization or an individual, any State organ, public organization, enterprise or institution may support the injured unit or individual to bring an action in a people's court.Article 16 The people's conciliation committees shall be mass organizations to conduct conciliation of civil disputes under the guidance of the grassroots level people's governments and the basic level people's courts.The people's conciliation committee shall conduct conciliation for the parties according to the Law and on a voluntary basis. The parties concerned shall carry out the settlement agreement reached through conciliation; those who decline conciliation or those for whom conciliation has failed or those who have backed out of the settlement agreement may institute legal proceedings in a people's court.If a people's conciliation committee, in conducting conciliation of civil disputes, acts contrary to the law, rectification shall be made by the people's court.Article 17 The people's congresses of the national autonomous regions may formulate, in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of this Law, and in conjunction with the specific circumstances of the local nationalities, adaptive and supplementary provisions. Such provisions made by an autonomous region shall be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval; those made by an autonomous prefecture or autonomous county shall be submitted to the standing committee of the people's congress of the relevant province or autonomous region for approval and to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record.Chapter II JurisdictionSection 1 Jurisdiction by Forum LevelArticle 18 The basic people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over civil cases, unless otherwise provided in this Law.Article 19 The intermediate people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over the following civil cases:(1) major cases involving foreign element;(2) cases that have major impact on the area under their jurisdiction; and(3)cases as determined by the Supreme People's Court to be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's courts.Article 20 The high people's courts shall have jurisdiction as courts of first instance over civil cases that have major impact on the areas under their jurisdiction.Article 21 The Supreme People's Court shall have jurisdiction as the court of first instance over the following civil cases:(1) cases that have major impact on the whole country; and(2) cases that the Supreme People's Court deems it should try.Section 2 Territorial JurisdictionArticle 22 A civil lawsuit brought against a citizen shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile; if the place of the defendant's domicile is differentfrom that of his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of his habitual residence.A civil lawsuit brought against a legal person or any other organization shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile.Where the domiciles or habitual residences of several defendants in the same lawsuit are in the areas under the jurisdiction of two or more people's courts, all of those people's courts shall have jurisdiction over the lawsuit.Article 23 The civil lawsuits described below shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the plaintiff has his domicile; if the place of the plaintiff's domicile is different from that of his habitual residence, the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of the plaintiff's habitual residence:(1) those concerning personal status brought against persons not residing within the territory of the People's Republic of China;(2) those concerning the personal status of persons whose whereabouts are unknown or who have been declared as missing;(3) those brought against persons who are undergoing rehabilitation through labour; and(4) those brought against persons who are in imprisonment.Article 24 A lawsuit brought on a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the contract is performed.Article 25 The parties to a contract may agree to choose in their written contract the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile, where the contract is performed, where the contract is signed, where the plaintiff has his domicile or where the object of the action is located to exercise jurisdiction over the case, provided that the provisions of this Law regarding jurisdiction by forum level and exclusive jurisdiction are not violated.Article 26 A lawsuit brought on an insurance contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the insured object is located.Article 27 A lawsuit brought on a bill dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the bill is to be paid or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 28 A lawsuit arising from a dispute over a railway, road, water, or air transport contract or over a combined transport contract shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of dispatch or the place of destination or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 29 A lawsuit brought on a tortuous act shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the tort is committed or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 30 A lawsuit brought on claims for damages caused by a railway, road, water transport or air accident shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the accident occurred or where the vehicle or ship first arrived after the accident or where the aircraft first landed after the accident, or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 31A lawsuit brought on claims for damages caused by a collision at sea or by any other maritime accident shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the collision occurred or where the ship in collision first docked after the accident or where the ship at fault was detained, or where the defendant has his domicile.Article 32 A lawsuit instituted for expenses of maritime salvage shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the salvage took place or where the salvaged ship first docked after the disaster.Article 33 A lawsuit brought for general average shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the ship first docked or where the adjustment of general average was conducted or where the voyage ended.Article 34 The following cases shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the people's courts herein specified:(1) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over real estate shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the estate is located;(2) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over harbour operations shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the harbour is located; and(3) a lawsuit brought on a dispute over succession shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the decedent had his domicile upon his death, or where the principal part of his estate is located.Article 35 When two or more people's courts have jurisdiction over a lawsuit, the plaintiff may bring his lawsuit in one of these people's courts; if the plaintiff brings the lawsuit in two or more people's courts that have jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the people's court in which the case was first entertained shall have jurisdiction.Section 3 Transfer and Designation of JurisdictionArticle 36 If a people's court finds that a case it has entertained is not under its jurisdiction, it shall refer the case to the people's court that has jurisdiction over the case. The people's court to which a case has been referred shall entertain the case, and if it considers that, according to the relevant regulations, the case referred to it is not under its jurisdiction, it shall report to a superior people's court for the designation of jurisdiction and shall not independently refer the case again to another people's court.Article 37 If a people's court which has jurisdiction over a case is unable to exercise the jurisdiction for special reasons, a superior people's court shall designate another court to exercise jurisdiction.In the event of a jurisdictional dispute between two or more people's courts, it shall be resolved by the disputing parties through consultation; if the dispute cannot be so resolved, it shall be reported to their common superior people's court for the designation of jurisdiction.Article 38If a party to an action objects to the jurisdiction of a people's court after the court has entertained the case, the party must raise the objection within the period prescribed for the submission of defence. The people's court shall examine the objection. If the objection is established, the people's court shall order the case to be transferred to the people's court that has jurisdiction over it; if not, the people's court shall reject it.Article 39 The people's courts at higher levels shall have the power to try civil cases over which the people's courts at lower levels have jurisdiction as courts of first instance; they may also transfer civil cases over which they themselves have jurisdiction as courts of first instance to people's courts at lower levels for trial.If a people's court at a lower level that has jurisdiction over a civil case as court of first instance deems it necessary to have the case to be tried by a people's court at a higher level, it may submit it to and request the people's court at a higher level to try the case.Chapter III Trial OrganizationArticle 40 The people's court of first instance shall try civil cases by a collegial panel composed of both judges and judicial assessors or of judges alone. The collegial panel must have an odd number of members.Civil cases in which summary procedure is followed shall be tried by a single judge alone.When performing their duties, the judicial assessors shall have equal rights and obligations as the judges.Article 41 The people's court of second instance shall try civil cases by a collegial panel of judges. The collegial panel must have an odd number of members.For the retrial of a remanded case, the people's court of first instance shall form a new collegial panel in accordance with the procedure of first instance.If a case for retrial was originally tried at first instance, a new collegial panel shall be formed according to the procedure of first instance; if the case was originally tried at second instance or was brought by a people's court at a higher level to it for trial, a new collegial panel shall be formed according to the procedure of second instance.Article 42 The president of the court or the chief judge of a division of the court shall designate a judge to serve as the presiding judge of the collegial panel; if the president or the chief judge participates in the trial, he himself shall serve as the presiding judge.Article 43 When deliberating a case, a collegial panel shall observe the rule of majority. Thedeliberations shall be recorded in writing, and the transcript shall be signed by the members of the collegial panel. Dissenting opinions in the deliberations must be truthfully entered in the transcript.Article 44 The judicial officers shall deal with all cases impartially and in accordance with the law.The judicial officers shall not accept any treat or gift from the parties or their agents ad litem.Any judicial officer who commits embezzlement, accepts bribes, engages in malpractice for personal benefits or who perverts the law in passing judgment shall be investigated for legal responsibility; if the act constitutes a crime, the offender shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to the law.Chapter IV WithdrawalArticle 45 A judicial officer shall of himself withdraw from the case, and the parties thereto shall be entitled to apply orally or in writing for his withdrawal in any of the following circumstances:(1) he being a party to the case or a near relative of a party or an agent ad litem in the case;(2) he being an interested party in the case; or(3)he having some other kind of relationship with a party to the case, which might affect the impartiality of the trial.The above provisions shall also apply to clerks, interpreters, expert witnesses and inspection personnel.Article 46 In applying for the withdrawal, the party shall state the reason and submit the application at the beginning of the proceedings; the application may also be submitted before the closing of arguments in court if the reason for the withdrawal is known to him only after the proceedings begin.Pending a decision by the people's court regarding the withdrawal applied for, the judicial officer concerned shall temporarily suspend his participation in the proceedings, with the exception, however, of cases that require the taking of emergency measures.Article 47 The withdrawal of the presiding judge who is president of the court shall be decided by the judicial committee; the withdrawal of judicial officers shall be decided by the court president; and the withdrawal of other personnel by the presiding judge.Article 48 The decision of a people's court on an application made by any party for withdrawal shall be made orally or in writing within three days after the application was made. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, he may apply for reconsideration which could be granted only once. During the period of reconsideration, the person whose withdrawal has been applied for shall not suspend his participation in the proceedings. The decision of a people's court on the reconsideration shall be made within three days after receiving the application and the applicant shall be notified of it accordingly.Chapter V Participants in ProceedingsSection 1 PartiesArticle 49 Any citizen, legal person and any other organization may become a party to a civil action.Legal persons shall be represented by their legal representatives in the litigation. Other organizations shall be represented by their principal heads in the proceedings.Article 50 Parties to an action shall have the right to appoint agents, apply for withdrawals, collect and provide evidence, proffer arguments, request conciliation, file an appeal and apply for execution.Parties to an action may have access to materials pertaining to the case and make copies thereof and other legal documents pertaining to the case. The scope of and rules for consulting and making copies of them shall be specified by the Supreme People's Court.Parties to an action must exercise their litigation rights in accordance with the law, observe the procedures and carry out legally effective written judgments or orders and conciliation statements. Article 51 The two parties may reach a compromise of their own accord.Article 52 The plaintiff may relinquish or modify his claims. The defendant may admit or rebut the claims and shall have the right to file counterclaims.Article 53 When one party or both parties consist of two or more than two persons, their object of action being the same or of the same category and the people's court considers that, with the consent of the parties, the action can be tried combined, it is a joint action.If a party of two or more persons to a joint action have common rights and obligations with respect to the object of action and the act of any one of them is recognized by the others of the party, such an act shall be valid for all the rest of the party; if a party of two or more persons have no common rights and obligations with respect to the object of action, the act of any one of them shall not be valid for the rest.Article 54 If the persons comprising a party to a joint action is large in number, the party may elect representatives from among themselves to act for them in the litigation. The acts of such representatives in the litigation shall be valid for the party they represent. However, modification or waiver of claims or admission of the claims of the other party or pursuing a compromise with the other party by the representatives shall be subject to the consent of the party they represent.Article 55 Where the object of action is of the same category and the persons comprising one of the parties is large but uncertain in number at the commencement of the action, the people's court may issue a public notice, stating the particulars and claims of the case and informing those entitled to participate in the action to register their rights with the people's court within a fixed period of time.Those who have registered their rights with the people's court may elect representatives from among themselves to proceed with the litigation; if the election fails its purpose, such representatives may be determined by the people's court through consultation with those who have registered their rights with the court.The acts of such representative in the litigation shall be valid for the party they represent; however, modification or waiver of claims or admission of the claims of the other party or pursuing a compromise with the other party by the representatives shall be subject to the consent of the party they represent.The judgments or written orders rendered by the people's court shall be valid for all those who have registered their rights with the court. Such judgments or written orders shall apply to those who have not registered their rights but have instituted legal proceedings during period of limitation of the action.Article 56 If a third party considers that he has an independent claim to the object of action of both parties, he shall have the right to bring an action.Where the outcome of the case will affect a third party's legal interest, such party, though having no independent claim to the object of action of both parties, may file a request to participate in the proceedings or the people's court shall notify the third party to participate. A third party that is to bear civil liability in accordance with the judgment of the people's court shall be entitled to the rights and obligations of a party in litigation.Section 2 Agents ad LitemArticle 57Any person with no legal capacity to engage in litigation shall have his guardian or guardians as statutory agents to act for him in a lawsuit. If the statutory agents try to shift responsibility as agents ad litem upon one another, the people's court shall appoint one of them to represent the person in litigation.Article 58 A party to an action, or statutory agent may appoint one or two persons to act as his agents ad litem.A lawyer, a near relative of the party, a person recommended by a relevant social organization or a unit to which the party belongs or any other citizen approved by the people's court may be appointed as the party's agent ad litem.Article 59 When a person appoints another to act on his behalf in litigation, he must submit to the people's court a power of attorney bearing his signature or seal.The power of attorney must specify the matters entrusted and the powers conferred. An agent ad litem must obtain special powers from his principal to admit, waive or modify claims, or tocompromise or to file a counterclaim or an appeal.A power of attorney mailed or delivered through others by a citizen of the People's Republic of China residing abroad must be certified by the Chinese embassy or consulate accredited to that country. If there is no Chinese embassy or consulate in that country, the power of attorney must be certified by an embassy or a consulate of a third country accredited to that country that has diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and then transmitted for authentication to the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China accredited to that third country, or it must be certified by a local patriotic overseas Chinese organization.Article 60 A party to an action shall inform the people's court in writing if he changes or revokes the powers of an agent ad litem, and the court shall notify the other party of the change or revocation. Article 61 A lawyer who serves as an agent ad litem and other agents ad litem shall have the right to investigate and collect evidence, and may have access to materials pertaining to the case. The scope of and rules for consulting materials pertaining to the case shall be specified by the Supreme People's Court.Article 62 In a divorce case in which the parties to the action have been represented by their agents ad litem, the parties themselves shall still appear in court in person, unless they are incapable of expressing their own will. A party who is truly unable to appear in court due to a special reason shall submit his views in writing to the people's court.Chapter VI EvidenceArticle 63 Evidence shall be classified as follows:(1) documentary evidence;(2) material evidence;(3) audiovisual material;(4) testimony of witnesses;(5) statements of the parties;(6) expert conclusions; and(7) records of inspection.The abovementioned evidence must be verified before it can be taken as a basis for ascertaining a fact.Article 64 It is the duty of a party to an action to provide evidence in support of his allegations.If, for objective reasons, a party and his agent ad litem are unable to collect the evidence by themselves or if the people's court considers the evidence necessary for the trial of the case, the people's court shall investigate and collect it.The people's court shall, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law, examine and verify evidence comprehensively and objectively.Article 65 The people's court shall have the right to make investigation and collect evidence from the relevant units or individuals; such units or individuals may not refuse to provide information and evidence.The people's court shall verify the authenticity, examine and determine the validity of the certifying documents provided by the relevant units or individuals.Article 66Evidence shall be presented in court and cross-examined by the parties concerned. But evidence that involves State secrets, trade secrets and personal privacy shall be kept confidential. If it needs to be presented in court, such evidence shall not be presented in an open court session. Article 67The people's court shall take the acts, facts and documents legalized by notarization according to legal procedures as the basis for ascertaining facts, unless there is evidence to the contrary sufficient to invalidate the notarization.Article 68 Any document submitted as evidence must be the original. Material evidence must also be original. If it is truly difficult to present the original document or thing, then reproductions, photographs, duplicates or extracts of the original may be submitted.If a document in a foreign language is submitted as evidence, a Chinese translation must be appended.Article 69 The people's court shall verify audio-visual materials and determine after their。

民事判决书-中英对照模板

中国音像著作权集体管理协会诉北京远洋名都娱乐有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷一案The case of China Audio-Video Copyright Association (plaintiff) v. Beijing Yuanyang Mingdu Entertainment Co., Ltd. (defendant) for copyright infringement北京市朝阳区人民法院Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court民事判决书C i v i l J u d g m e n t（2008）朝民初字第32044号2008-Chao-Min-Chu-Zi-32044原告：中国音像著作权集体管理协会，住所地北京市朝阳区呼家楼京广中心商务楼401室。

Plaintiff: China Audio-Video Copyright Association, Room 401, Jinguang Center Business Building, Hujialou Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing 法定代表人：王化鹏，总干事。

Legal representative：Wang Huapeng, Director-general委托代理人：周亚平，男，汉族，1954年1月8日出生，该协会理事，住北京市朝阳区惠新西里601号。

Designated agent：Zhou Yaping, male, born on 8 January 1954, of Han nationality, director of this association, No. 601, Huixinxili, Chaoyang District, Beijing委托代理人：勾蒲亮，男，汉族，1985年1月16日出生，该协会职员，住北京市大兴区庞各庄镇丁村。

法律案件英汉双语(3篇)

第1篇Case Number: 2021SM00123Case Description:The plaintiff, Li, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Wang, for breach of contract and for compensation for emotional distress. The case involves a real estate transaction where the defendant failed to fulfill his contractual obligations, causing the plaintiff significant financial and emotional loss.Factual Background:In 2019, the plaintiff, Li, entered into a contract with the defendant, Wang, for the purchase of a residential property located in Beijing. The contract specified that the defendant would transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff within three months after the signing of the contract. Additionally, the contract stated that the defendant would compensate the plaintiff for any financial loss incurred due to the delay in the transfer of ownership.On the date of the contract, the plaintiff paid a deposit of 500,000 yuan to the defendant. However, after the expiration of the three-month period, the defendant failed to transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff repeatedly contacted the defendant, demanding the fulfillment of the contract and the return of the deposit. However, the defendant failed to respond or take any action.As a result of the defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiff suffered significant financial loss. The value of the property decreased during the delay, causing the plaintiff to lose a substantial amount of money. Furthermore, the plaintiff experienced emotional distress due to the defendant's failure to fulfill his obligations.Legal Analysis:1. Breach of Contract:The defendant's failure to transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff within the specified period constitutes a breach of contract. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, a party who fails to perform its obligations under a contract shall be liable for damages.2. Compensation for Emotional Distress:The defendant's breach of contract has caused the plaintiff significant emotional distress. According to Article 22 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China, if a party's tortious act causes theplaintiff emotional distress, the defendant shall compensate theplaintiff for the emotional distress.Judgment:Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the defendant, Wang, is liable for breach of contract and compensation for emotional distress. The court orders the defendant to return the deposit of500,000 yuan to the plaintiff and to compensate the plaintiff for the emotional distress suffered, in accordance with the provisions of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China.English Translation:Case Name: Li v. WangCase Number: 2021SM00123Case Description:The plaintiff, Li, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Wang, for breach of contract and for compensation for emotional distress. The case involves a real estate transaction where the defendant failed to fulfill his contractual obligations, causing the plaintiff significant financial and emotional loss.Factual Background:In 2019, the plaintiff, Li, entered into a contract with the defendant, Wang, for the purchase of a residential property located in Beijing. Thecontract specified that the defendant would transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff within three months after the signing of the contract. Additionally, the contract stated that the defendant would compensate the plaintiff for any financial loss incurred due to the delay in the transfer of ownership.On the date of the contract, the plaintiff paid a deposit of 500,000 yuan to the defendant. However, after the expiration of the three-month period, the defendant failed to transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff repeatedly contacted the defendant, demanding the fulfillment of the contract and the return of the deposit. However, the defendant failed to respond or take any action.As a result of the defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiff suffered significant financial loss. The value of the property decreased during the delay, causing the plaintiff to lose a substantial amount of money. Furthermore, the plaintiff experienced emotional distress due to the defendant's failure to fulfill his obligations.Legal Analysis:1. Breach of Contract:The defendant's failure to transfer the ownership of the property to the plaintiff within the specified period constitutes a breach of contract. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, a party who fails to perform its obligations under a contract shall be liable for damages.2. Compensation for Emotional Distress:The defendant's breach of contract has caused the plaintiff significant emotional distress. According to Article 22 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China, if a party's tortious act causes theplaintiff emotional distress, the defendant shall compensate theplaintiff for the emotional distress.Judgment:Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the defendant, Wang, is liable for breach of contract and compensation for emotional distress. The court orders the defendant to return the deposit of500,000 yuan to the plaintiff and to compensate the plaintiff for the emotional distress suffered, in accordance with the provisions of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China.第2篇Court: Supreme Court of New YorkCase Number: 123456Facts:In the year 2020, Smith, a resident of New York City, entered into a contract with Johnson, a local contractor, for the renovation of his residential property. The contract, dated January 15, 2020, specified that the renovation work would commence on February 1, 2020, and be completed within four months. The total cost of the project was agreed upon as $50,000, with half of the payment to be made upon the signing of the contract and the remaining half upon the completion of the work.On February 1, 2020, Johnson began the renovation work. However, due to various unforeseen circumstances, including a severe winter storm that caused significant damage to the property, Johnson was unable to complete the work within the agreed timeframe. Despite these challenges, Johnson continued to work diligently and managed to complete the project on May 15, 2020, which was approximately three months behind theoriginal schedule.Smith, however, was not satisfied with the quality of the work and the additional expenses incurred due to the delay. He claimed that the final cost of the project had exceeded the agreed amount due to the additional work required to address the damage caused by the storm. Smith demanded a refund of the excess payment and legal action ensued.Plaintiff's Claim:Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment. He sought damages for the excess payment, the cost of the additional work, and the loss of use of his property during the renovation period.Defendant's Defense:Johnson denied the allegations of breach of contract and negligence. He argued that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, and that he had acted diligently and in good faith to complete the work. Johnson also claimed that Smith had benefited from the additional work and that he was entitled to the full payment under the contract.Issues:The court was called upon to determine the following issues:1. Whether Johnson's delay in completing the work constitutes a breach of contract.2. Whether Johnson's actions constitute negligence.3. The amount of damages, if any, to which Smith is entitled.Decision:After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court ruled as follows:1. Breach of Contract: The court found that while Johnson did not complete the work within the agreed timeframe, he had made a good faith effort to complete the project. Given the unforeseen circumstances, the court concluded that Johnson's delay did not constitute a breach of contract.2. Negligence: The court found that Johnson had acted with due care and had not been negligent in his handling of the renovation project. The court noted that the damage caused by the storm was an extraordinary event that could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented.3. Damages: The court found that Smith had indeed benefited from the additional work, which included repairs to the property damage caused by the storm. Therefore, the court ruled that Smith was not entitled to a refund of the excess payment. However, the court also noted that Johnson had incurred additional expenses due to the delay and ordered him to pay Smith a portion of those expenses as compensation.Judgment:The court entered judgment in favor of Johnson on the breach of contract and negligence claims. However, the court ordered Johnson to pay Smith $10,000 as compensation for the additional expenses incurred due to the delay. The case was closed.Translation:Case Name: Smith v. JohnsonCourt: Supreme Court of New YorkCase Number: 123456Facts:In the year 2020, Smith, a resident of New York City, entered into a contract with Johnson, a local contractor, for the renovation of his residential property. The contract, dated January 15, 2020, specified that the renovation work would commence on February 1, 2020, and be completed within four months. The total cost of the project was agreed upon as $50,000, with half of the payment to be made upon the signing of the contract and the remaining half upon the completion of the work.On February 1, 2020, Johnson began the renovation work. However, due to various unforeseen circumstances, including a severe winter storm that caused significant damage to the property, Johnson was unable to complete the work within the agreed timeframe. Despite these challenges, Johnson continued to work diligently and managed to complete the project on May 15, 2020, which was approximately three months behind theoriginal schedule.Smith, however, was not satisfied with the quality of the work and the additional expenses incurred due to the delay. He claimed that the final cost of the project had exceeded the agreed amount due to the additional work required to address the damage caused by the storm. Smith demanded a refund of the excess payment and legal action ensued.Plaintiff's Claim:Smith filed a lawsuit against Johnson, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment. He sought damages for the excess payment, the cost of the additional work, and the loss of use of his property during the renovation period.Defendant's Defense:Johnson denied the allegations of breach of contract and negligence. He argued that the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, and that he had acted diligently and in good faith to complete the work. Johnson also claimed that Smith had benefited from the additional work and that he was entitled to the full payment under the contract.Issues:The court was called upon to determine the following issues:1. Whether Johnson's delay in completing the work constitutes a breach of contract.2. Whether Johnson's actions constitute negligence.3. The amount of damages, if any, to which Smith is entitled.Decision:After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court ruled as follows:1. Breach of Contract: The court found that while Johnson did not complete the work within the agreed timeframe, he had made a good faith effort to complete the project. Given the unforeseen circumstances, thecourt concluded that Johnson's delay did not constitute a breach of contract.2. Negligence: The court found that Johnson had acted with due care and had not been negligent in his handling of the renovation project. The court noted that the damage caused by the storm was an extraordinary event that could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented.3. Damages: The court found that Smith had indeed benefited from the additional work, which included repairs to the property damage caused by the storm. Therefore, the court ruled that Smith was not entitled to a refund of the excess payment. However, the court also noted that Johnson had incurred additional expenses due to the delay and ordered him to pay Smith a portion of those expenses as compensation.Judgment:The court entered judgment in favor of Johnson on the breach of contract and negligence claims. However, the court ordered Johnson to pay Smith $10,000 as compensation for the additional expenses incurred due to the delay. The case was closed.第3篇Case No.: (2022)XXXCourt: People's Court of XX City, XX ProvinceDate of Hearing: March 15, 2022Background:Zhang San and Li Si are neighbors in XX City. On May 20, 2021, Zhang San borrowed 10,000 yuan from Li Si. At that time, they agreed that Zhang San would repay the loan within three months. However, Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed. Li Si filed a lawsuit against Zhang San, requesting the court to order Zhang San to repay the loan and interest.Factual Analysis:1. Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement on May 20, 2021, where Zhang San borrowed 10,000 yuan from Li Si. The loan agreement was in writing and both parties signed it.2. According to the loan agreement, Zhang San was required to repay the loan within three months. However, Zhang San failed to repay the loan on time.3. After the loan was due, Li Si repeatedly reminded Zhang San to repay the loan. However, Zhang San ignored Li Si's reminders and failed to repay the loan.4. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if one party fails to perform its obligations under the contract, the other party has the right to claim damages from the party in breach of contract.Judgment:1. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement on May 20, 2021, and that Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed.2. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Zhang San is in breach of contract. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall repay the loan of 10,000 yuan to Li Si within 15 days from the date of this judgment.3. According to Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if the party in breach of contract fails to pay damages, the other party has the right to claim interest on the damages at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.4. Based on the evidence presented, the court determines that the interest rate for the loan is 0.35% per day. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.5. The court finds that there is no evidence to prove that the loan agreement contains any clauses that relieve Zhang San of his obligation to pay interest. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.Conclusion:1. Zhang San shall repay the loan of 10,000 yuan to Li Si within 15 days from the date of this judgment.2. Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by Zhang San.Legal Analysis:1. The Contract Law of the People's Republic of China provides that parties shall perform their obligations under the contract as agreed. If one party fails to perform its obligations, the other party has theright to claim damages from the party in breach of contract.2. In this case, Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement and Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed. Therefore, Zhang San is in breach of contract and shall bear the corresponding legal consequences.3. The court's judgment is based on the provisions of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the evidence presented by both parties. The judgment is fair and reasonable and protects the legitimate rights and interests of both parties.Translation:Case Name: Zhang San vs. Li SiCase No.: (2022)XXXCourt: People's Court of XX City, XX ProvinceDate of Hearing: March 15, 2022Background:Zhang San and Li Si are neighbors in XX City. On May 20, 2021, Zhang San borrowed 10,000 yuan from Li Si. At that time, they agreed that Zhang San would repay the loan within three months. However, Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed. Li Si filed a lawsuit against Zhang San, requesting the court to order Zhang San to repay the loan and interest.Factual Analysis:1. Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement on May 20, 2021, where Zhang San borrowed 10,000 yuan from Li Si. The loan agreement was in writing and both parties signed it.2. According to the loan agreement, Zhang San was required to repay the loan within three months. However, Zhang San failed to repay the loan on time.3. After the loan was due, Li Si repeatedly reminded Zhang San to repay the loan. However, Zhang San ignored Li Si's reminders and failed to repay the loan.4. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if one party fails to perform its obligations under the contract, the other party has the right to claim damages from the party in breach of contract.Judgment:1. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement on May 20, 2021, and that Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed.2. According to Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Zhang San is in breach of contract. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall repay the loan of 10,000 yuan to Li Si within 15 days from the date of this judgment.3. According to Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, if the party in breach of contract fails to pay damages, theother party has the right to claim interest on the damages at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.4. Based on the evidence presented, the court determines that the interest rate for the loan is 0.35% per day. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.5. The court finds that there is no evidence to prove that the loan agreement contains any clauses that relieve Zhang San of his obligation to pay interest. Therefore, the court decides that Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.Conclusion:1. Zhang San shall repay the loan of 10,000 yuan to Li Si within 15 days from the date of this judgment.2. Zhang San shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of 0.35% per day from the due date of the loan until the date of actual payment.3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by Zhang San.Legal Analysis:1. The Contract Law of the People's Republic of China provides that parties shall perform their obligations under the contract as agreed. If one party fails to perform its obligations, the other party has theright to claim damages from the party in breach of contract.2. In this case, Zhang San and Li Si entered into a loan agreement and Zhang San failed to repay the loan as agreed. Therefore, Zhang San is in breach of contract and shall bear the corresponding legal consequences.3. The court's judgment is based on the provisions of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and the evidence presented by bothparties. The judgment is fair and reasonable and protects the legitimate rights and interests of both parties.。

民事判决书-中英对照模板

Plaintiff: China Audio-Video Copyright Association, Room 401, Jinguang Center Business Building, Hujialou Street, Chaoyang District, Beijing法定代表人：王化鹏，总干事。

Legal representative：Wang Huapeng, Director-general委托代理人：周亚平，男，汉族，1954年1月8日出生，该协会理事，住北京市朝阳区惠新西里601号。

个体工商户合同民事判决书

个体工商户合同民事判决书英文回答：Civil Judgment for Individual Business Contract.I. Introduction.A civil judgment for an individual business contract is a court order that resolves a dispute between two or more parties who have entered into a business contract. The judgment will typically specify the rights and obligations of each party, and may also award damages or other relief to the prevailing party.II. Grounds for a Civil Judgment.There are a number of grounds on which a party may seek a civil judgment for breach of contract, including:Material breach: A material breach occurs when oneparty fails to perform a material obligation under the contract. This can include failing to deliver goods or services, failing to make payment, or failing to meet a deadline.Anticipatory breach: An anticipatory breach occurs when one party indicates that they will not perform their obligations under the contract. This can give the other party the right to terminate the contract and seek damages.Fraud or misrepresentation: Fraud or misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement or representation that induces the other party to enter into the contract. This can give the other party the right to rescind the contract and seek damages.Unconscionability: A contract is unconscionable if it is so one-sided that it is unfair to one of the parties. This can give the party who is disadvantaged by the contract the right to have it set aside.III. Remedies for Breach of Contract.The remedies available for breach of contract vary depending on the circumstances of the case. Some of the most common remedies include:Damages: Damages are a monetary award that compensates the non-breaching party for their losses. Damages can be compensatory, which means they are intended to make thenon-breaching party whole, or punitive, which means they are intended to punish the breaching party.Specific performance: Specific performance is a court order that requires the breaching party to perform their obligations under the contract. This remedy is only available if the subject matter of the contract is unique and cannot be easily replaced.Injunction: An injunction is a court order that prevents the breaching party from doing something. This remedy is typically used to prevent the breaching party from continuing to breach the contract or from interfering with the non-breaching party's performance of the contract.IV. Procedure for Obtaining a Civil Judgment.The procedure for obtaining a civil judgment for breach of contract varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, the general steps involved are as follows:1. File a complaint: The non-breaching party must filea complaint with the court. The complaint should set forth the facts of the case and the legal grounds for the breachof contract claim.2. Serve the complaint: The complaint must be served on the breaching party. Service can be made in person, by mail, or by publication.3. Answer the complaint: The breaching party must file an answer to the complaint. The answer should set forth the breaching party's defenses to the claim.4. Discovery: The parties may engage in discovery to gather evidence and information about the case. Discoverycan include interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and depositions.5. Trial: If the case cannot be resolved through settlement, it will go to trial. At trial, the parties will present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury.6. Judgment: The judge or jury will issue a judgment based on the evidence presented at trial. The judgment will typically specify the rights and obligations of each party, and may also award damages or other relief to theprevailing party.V. Enforcement of a Civil Judgment.Once a civil judgment has been issued, the non-breaching party may need to take steps to enforce the judgment. This can include filing a motion with the court to have the judgment entered as a lien against the breaching party's property, or garnishing the breaching party's wages.VI. Conclusion.Civil judgments for breach of contract are an important tool for protecting the rights of parties to business contracts. By providing a means to enforce contracts and to obtain compensation for breach.。

民事诉状中英对照

民事诉状本稿由Translover提供，仅供学习和交流适用，不得用于任何商业用途。

如有任何疑问，请通过与我联系。

阿里通网络电话，中国最优秀的网络电话John B. Henry约翰.B.亨利Attorney At Law律师101 Main Street梅恩街道101号Los Angeles，CA.92606洛杉矶，加利福尼亚92606(213)221—1111Attorney for Plaintiff原告律师THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES加利福尼亚州洛杉矶高等法院CHONGQING WANBAO CORPORATIONNO. 8314 CHANGLIN STREET COMPLAINT FOR SHA PING BA, CHONGQING BREACH OF CONTRACTP. R. CHINA 630030———————————————————Plaintiff,VS.John. W. Smith3231 BROADWAYLOS ANGELES, CA. 92600———————————————————Defendant,原告：重庆万宝公司民字：第×××号地址：中国重庆沙坪坝长林街8314号事由：违约邮编：630030被告：约翰.W.史密斯地址：加利福尼亚州洛杉矶县百老汇街3231号邮编：92600Plaintiff by his attorney alleges SS follows：原告通过其律师声明如下：I. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief, alleges that each defendant designated herein as DOES was responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings referred to herein that proximately caused injury and damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.原告得知和确信，且在此基础之上断言，本起诉书中指控的每一位被告，不论是因过失或其他行为方式，均对本起诉书中列举的且由此给原告造成伤害和损失的事件负有责任。

汉英对照民事判决书常用词汇

汉英对照民事判决书常用词汇管辖：jurisdiction回避：withdrawal当事人：parties诉讼代理人：agents ad litem证据：evidence书证、物证：do***entary evidence, material evidence视听资料：audio-visual material证人证言：testimony of witnesses当事人陈述：statements of the parties鉴定结论：expert conclusions勘验笔录：records of inpsection期间：time periods送达：service调解：conciliation财产保全；property preservation先予执行：advance execution强制措施：compulsory measures诉讼费用：litigation costs执行措施：execution measures执行中止和终结：suspension and termination of execution案由：cause of action诉讼请求：the claims争议的事实和理由：cause or causes of the dispute审判人员：judicial officers书记员：court clerk立案：docket a case组成合议庭开庭审理：form a collegial panel to conduct the trial上诉期间：the time limit for filing an appeal 上诉的法院：the appellate court判决、裁定：judgments and written orders 不服一审判决：refuse to accept the first-instance judgment发生法律效力的：legally effective起诉状：a statement of complaint上诉状：the appeal petition答辩状：the defence裁定撤销原判决：make a written order to set aside the judgment 发回原审人民法院重审；remand the case t the original people’s court for retrial盗窃枪支crime of stealing firearms and ammunition盗窃武器装备theft of military equipment得到证实to be believed得利者beneficiary抵触contravene抵押mortgage抵押品pledge抵押物mortgage地役权easement第二审判庭second tribunal第三者the third party第一审判庭first tribunal典当物pledge调查investigation调查报告investigation调查取证investigate and collect evidence调解mediate调解和强制措施mediation and enforcement measure调解书mediation agreement调解书字号Written Mediation No.订货合同卡片 a card of contract订立formation定案结论verdict定案理由reason for decision定金deposit定期减免所得税regular reduction of income tax定性determination on the nature丢弃waive动机intention, motive冻结freeze, suspend毒品罪narcotic drug crime渎职罪crime of dereliction of duty独立的不法行为independent wrong独立个案individual cases独立请求书independent claim独立审判independent adjudication断绝cease提出具体意见submit detailed opinions on对等原则principle of reciprocity对等原则并参照国际惯例the principle of reciprocity and in reference to the international practice对金钱借贷的规定regulations of money lending对滥用职权的法律补救legal remedy for abuses of power对立的一方opposite party对令状的发出作确认acknowledge the issue of the writ对上诉抗辩oppose an appeal对物诉讼令状writ in rem对帐reconcile, reconciliation多边公约multilateral convention多边国际公约multi-latreal international conventions多分a larger share多头long position, bull position多头仲裁multiple arbitration多于一名人士2 or more persons多元立法体制plural legislative structure多元主义pluralism二审second instance二审裁定书order of second instance二审法院Court of Second Instance二审判决书written order of Second Instance 二者只能择其一the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other发回重审remand a lawsuit for a new trial发货人consignor, shipper发生法律效力be legally effective发现discovery罚款Fin法案bill法定部门statutory machinery法定代表律师Official Solicitor法定代表人legal representative法定代理人legal agent法定继承legal inheritance法定继承人legal heir法定监护人legal guardian 法定期限time limit provided by law法定义务legal duty法定语言legal language法定主管当局statuory authority法规laws and regulations法纪Law and Discipline法纪监督supervision over legal discipline法理背景jurisprudential background法理背景jurisprudential base法理学jurisprudence法令decree法律程序文件written process法律冲突conflict of laws法律服务所Legal Service Office法律概念legal concept法律顾问处Legal Consultant Office法律后果legal effect法律解释权power of law interpretation法律面前人人平等equality before the law 合法的legitimate法律上的财产处分legal disposition of property法律上的能力legal capacity法律效果legal effect法律行律juristic act法律行为act under the law法律性legality法律性文献legal do***ent法律虚无主义legal nihilism法律依据legal basis法律制裁legal sanctions法律制度structure of the law法人legal person法人委托书power of attorney法庭程序文件process of court法团公司incorporated company法系地区relevant law area法学派别School of Legal Scholare法学研究所Institute of Law法医medicolegal法院court反驳disprove反对通知书notice of objection反悔repudiate, resile反诉counter-claim反要约counter offer反走私anti-smuggling返还restitution返还性损害赔偿金restitutionary damages犯commit犯人convict犯罪分子offender犯罪客观方面objective aspect of crime犯罪客体object of crime犯罪事实particulars of offense犯罪心意mens rea犯罪行为actus reus犯罪中止discontinuation of a crime犯罪主观subject of crime犯罪主观方面subjective aspect of crime贩卖毒品crime of drug trafficking贩卖假药罪crime of selling bogus medicines 贩**秽物品罪crime of selling pornographic articles贩运伪造的国家货币罪crime of trafficking in counterfeit national currency方便与公平的原则principles of convenience and fairness防止性禁制令prohibitory ***ction妨碍pervert妨碍司法公正interfere with the course of justice妨碍司法公正obstruction of justice妨害公务罪crime of interference with public administration妨害公务罪crime of interference with state functions妨害社会管理秩序罪crime of disrupting the order of social administration妨害他人婚姻家庭罪crime of disrupting marriage and the family房屋的产权property right in real estate房屋估价单home appraisal report房屋继承successor in title, transferee in real estate, transferee mottoes放火罪crime of arson放弃relinquish放弃waive 放行条release pass非专业人士lay persons非法unlawful非法illegal非法查封unlawful foreclosure非法查封财产unlawfully seal up property非法逮捕, 拘禁或搜身unlawful arrest, detention, and search非法的告发wrongful prosecution非法的检举wrongful prosecution非法购买illegally purchasing非法拘禁罪crime of unlawful detention非法同居关系cohabiting unlawfully非法制造枪支及弹药罪crime of illegally manufacturing firearms and ammunition非法转让unlawful assign men非婚生子女illegitimate child诽谤defame隔地犯offense of segregation by location隔时犯offense of segregation by time工具不能犯impossibility of instruments故意犯罪calculated crime；intentional crime故意杀人罪crime of intentional homicide故意伤害罪crime of willful and malicious injury惯犯habitual criminal惯例custom and usage过失犯罪criminal negligence；involuntary crime；negligent crime国家赔偿案件case of state compensation国家赔偿的归责原则principle of culpability for state compensation国家赔偿法state compensation law国民待遇national treatment黑社会性质的犯罪集团gangland criminal syndicate；mafia-style criminal gang缓期二年执行with a two-year reprieve缓刑probate cessat executio集合犯aggregate offense；collective offense 既遂犯accomplished crime继承法inheritance law继续犯continuous crime加重处罚give an aggravated punishmentbeyond the maximum prescribed假冒他人注册商标罪crime of counterfeiting the registered trademark of another假释parole假想防卫imaginative defense假想数罪imaginatively several crimes简单共同犯罪simple joint crime间接故意indirect intent；indirect iintentino 教唆未遂attempt of solicitation劫持船只、汽车罪crime of hijacking a ship or an automobile劫持航空器罪crime of skyjacking结果犯consequential offen结果加重犯aggregated consequential offense结合犯combinative crime；integrated offense se拒不执行人民法院判决、裁定罪crime of refusing o execute judgments or orders of the People‘s Court具结悔过make a statement of repentence具体行政行为specific administrative act具体罪名concrete accusation绝对不确定法定刑absolutely indeterminate statutory punishment军人违反职责罪crimes of soldiers violating military dutie抗税罪offense of resisting taxes客体不能犯object impossibility空白罪状blank facts about a crime滥伐林木罪crime of illegal denudation累犯recidivist；repeat offender；cumulative offense连续犯罪continuing crime量刑criterion for sentencing；sentencing criterion量刑不当criterion for sentence量刑幅度extent for discretionary action of sentencing虐待罪crime of abusing member of one‘s family挪用公款案case of misappropriation of public funds偶犯casual offender；casual offense 情节加重犯aggravated offense by circumstances情节特别严重when the circumstances are particularly wicked情节严重、构成犯罪的when the circumstances are so serious as to constitute a crime取保候审post a bail and await trial with restricted liberty of moving扰乱公共场所秩序罪crime of disturbing order at public places刑法criminal law刑罚penalty；punishment刑事责任能力criminal capacity行政救济administrative remedy预防犯罪anti-crime治安条例security regulations监护、拘留Custody聆讯Hearing侵犯权利Infringement案件排期Listing。

英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照

英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照一、导言在英美法系的刑事和民事诉讼中，判决书是司法机关对案件审理结果的书面记录，具有法律效力。

了解英美法系判决书常用词汇的中英对照是十分重要的。

本文将从深度和广度的角度，全面评估英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照，并撰写有价值的文章，帮助读者全面、深刻地理解该主题。

二、英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照在英美法系的判决书中，常用词汇的中英对照如下所示：1. Plaintiff / Prosecution 原告 / 公诉方2. Defendant 被告3. Appellant 上诉人4. Respondent 被上诉人5. Judgment 判决6. Verdict 裁决7. Appeal 上诉8. Evidence 证据9. Testimony 证词10. Witness 证人11. Cross-examination 盘问12. Objection 异议13. Hearsay 传闻证据14. to rule 裁定15. to sustain 支持16. to overrule 驳回17. Prosecution closing argument 检方结诉陈词18. Defense closing argument 辩护结诉陈词19. Sentence 判决三、个人观点和理解对于英美法系判决书常用词汇的中英对照，我认为应该重视和加强学习。

因为在跨境诉讼和跨国合作中，了解英美法系判决书的常用词汇，有助于提高法律专业人士的工作效率和工作质量。

另外，作为法律人士，通过对英美法系判决书的常用词汇进行中英对照学习，还能够提升自己的国际视野和跨文化交流能力，为未来的职业发展打下良好的基础。

四、总结与回顾通过本文的撰写，我们全面评估了英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照的内容。

从简到繁地探讨了该主题，使读者能够更深入地了解该领域的知识。

在文章中，我们多次提及了该主题文字，并以序号标注的方式呈现了常用词汇的中英对照。

法律民事案件英文(3篇)

第1篇Case Summary:The case of John and Mary involves a civil law dispute over the ownership of a residential property. The couple had purchased the property together in equal shares, but after a falling out, they are now contesting the ownership rights of the property. This case highlights the complexities involved in determining property ownership and thelegal remedies available to resolve such disputes.Background:John and Mary, both in their early 40s, had been married for 15 years and had purchased a residential property worth $500,000 in a prime location. The property was registered in their joint names, and they had agreed to hold the property in equal shares. Over the years, the couple had invested considerable time and effort into renovating and improving the property, which had significantly increased its value.However, their marriage began to deteriorate, and after several attempts at reconciliation, they decided to separate. In the process of dividing their assets, John and Mary could not agree on the ownership rights of the property. John claimed that he had made the majority of the improvements to the property and, therefore, should have a larger share of the ownership. On the other hand, Mary argued that she had contributed equally to the purchase price and maintenance of the property and should retain her equal share.Facts of the Case:1. John and Mary had purchased the property for $500,000 in 2005, with both parties contributing equally to the down payment.2. Over the years, the couple had invested an additional $100,000 in renovations and improvements to the property.3. The property is currently valued at $700,000.4. Both John and Mary had lived in the property during their marriageand had contributed to its maintenance.5. John claims that he has made the majority of the improvements to the property, which should entitle him to a larger share of the ownership.6. Mary argues that both parties have contributed equally to theproperty and should retain their equal shares.Legal Issues:1. Joint Tenancy vs. Tenancy in Common:The first legal issue in this case is whether the property is held as joint tenants or tenants in common. Joint tenancy requires that all owners have an equal share of the property, and if one owner dies, their share automatically passes to the surviving owner(s). In contrast, tenants in common have separate shares of the property, and their ownership interest can be passed on to their heirs.2. Contribution to Property Improvements:The second legal issue revolves around the contribution of John and Mary to the improvements of the property. The court will need to determine whether John's contribution to the improvements justifies a larger share of the ownership.3. Valuation of the Property:The third legal issue is the valuation of the property. The court will need to determine the current value of the property to establish the basis for dividing the ownership interests.Arguments:1. John's Argument:John argues that he should have a larger share of the ownership due to his contribution to the improvements of the property. He claims that the value of the property has significantly increased because of his efforts, and he deserves a proportionate share of the increased value.2. Mary's Argument:Mary argues that both parties have contributed equally to the property and should retain their equal shares. She claims that the improvements made by John were made with the consent of both parties and should not give him an advantage in the ownership dispute.Judgment:After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court ruled in favor of Mary, upholding her equal share of the property. The court held that, while John had contributed to the improvements, the contributions were made with the consent of both parties, and the property's value had increased due to both parties' efforts. Therefore, the court concluded that Mary was entitled to retain her equal share of the property.Conclusion:The case of John and Mary highlights the complexities involved in civil law disputes over property ownership. Determining the ownership rights of a jointly owned property requires a careful examination of theparties' contributions and the legal principles governing joint tenancy and tenancy in common. This case serves as a reminder that even when parties have contributed equally to a property, the courts will consider the totality of the circumstances to determine the appropriate ownership rights.第2篇Case Name: John Doe vs. Jane DoeFiling Date: January 15, 2023Court: Superior Court of [City], [State]Case No.: 23-CV-12345I. IntroductionThis case involves a legal dispute over the division of marital property between John Doe and Jane Doe, who were married for twenty years before deciding to file for divorce. The couple has accumulated a considerable amount of property during their marriage, including real estate, securities, and personal belongings. The primary issue in this case is the equitable distribution of these assets.II. FactsJohn Doe and Jane Doe were married on April 5, 2003. The couple lived in a house in [City], [State], which they purchased together in 2004. Over the years, they also invested in various securities, including stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Additionally, they have accumulated personal belongings, including jewelry, furniture, and artwork.In 2022, John Doe filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Jane Doe responded to the petition and filed a counterclaim, requesting a fair division of the marital property. Both parties have hired legal counsel to represent their interests in court.III. Legal IssuesThe main legal issue in this case is the equitable distribution of marital property. According to [State] law, marital property includesall assets acquired during the marriage, regardless of whether they were titled in one party's name. Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean an equal division of assets but rather a fair and just division based on several factors, including:1. The duration of the marriage.2. The contribution of each party to the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation of the marital property, including contributions as a homemaker or parent.3. The economic circumstances of each party at the time of the division.4. The needs of each party and any dependent children.5. The tax consequences of the property division.6. The commitments of each party to support any dependent children.7. Any other factor the court deems relevant to an equitable distribution.IV. Arguments of the PartiesJohn Doe's Argument:John Doe asserts that he is entitled to a substantial portion of the marital property, as he was the primary breadwinner during the marriage. He argues that his contributions to the acquisition and appreciation of the marital assets, particularly the real estate, should be recognized and rewarded. John Doe also claims that Jane Doe's contributions as a homemaker were insufficient to warrant a disproportionate share of the marital estate.Jane Doe's Argument:Jane Doe argues that she deserves a fair and equitable share of the marital property, considering her contributions to the marriage, both financially and emotionally. She claims that her role as a homemaker and parent should be recognized and that she should not be penalized for not being the primary breadwinner. Jane Doe also argues that the equitable distribution of the marital estate should take into account the tax consequences and the need for each party to maintain a stable financial future.V. Court's DecisionAfter considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court will issue a decision on the equitable distribution of the marital property. The court will likely consider the following factors:1. The duration of the marriage: The court will take into account that the marriage lasted twenty years, which may justify a more substantial division of assets in favor of Jane Doe.2. Contributions to the marital estate: The court will consider John Doe's contributions as the primary breadwinner and Jane Doe'scontributions as a homemaker. The court may find that both parties have made significant contributions and that an equitable division would require a fair compromise.3. Economic circumstances: The court will consider the financial needs of each party, including the tax consequences of the property division. The court may find that a division of assets that allows both parties to maintain a reasonable standard of living is equitable.4. Needs of dependent children: The court will consider any dependent children and their needs, ensuring that their best interests are protected.5. Other relevant factors: The court will consider any other relevant factors, such as the commitments of each party to support dependent children and any other equitable considerations.VI. ConclusionThe equitable distribution of marital property in a divorce case can be a complex and challenging process. In the case of John Doe vs. Jane Doe, the court will likely consider the various factors outlined above to determine an equitable division of the marital estate. The outcome of this case will serve as an example of how the principles of equitable distribution are applied in practice.第3篇Introduction:In this civil legal case, we will delve into a property dispute that arose between two parties. The case involves the ownership of a piece of land, and the court will have to determine the rightful owner based on the evidence presented. This analysis aims to provide an overview of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's decision.Background:The dispute originated between two neighbors, John Smith (plaintiff) and Michael Johnson (defendant). Both parties claimed ownership of a pieceof land located at 123 Main Street, a residential area in the city. The land in question had been used by both parties for several years, but they had never legally registered their ownership rights. When the city decided to develop the area, the property dispute came to light.Facts of the Case:1. John Smith and Michael Johnson had lived next to each other for over 20 years.2. Both parties had used the land for various purposes, such as gardening, parking, and constructing a small shed.3. Neither party had legally registered their ownership rights, and there was no official record of the land's ownership.4. When the city announced its development plans, both John Smith and Michael Johnson claimed ownership of the land.5. John Smith argued that he had been using the land for a longer period than Michael Johnson, and that he had built a small shed on the property.6. Michael Johnson claimed that he had also used the land for a significant period, and that he had constructed a fence around the property to mark his boundary.Arguments:1. John Smith's Argument:- John Smith argued that, based on the principle of adverse possession, he had acquired ownership of the land by using it openly, notoriously, continuously, and exclusively for a period exceeding the statutory requirement.- He presented evidence of his use of the land for over 20 years, including photographs of the shed he had built on the property.- John Smith also argued that Michael Johnson had never challenged his possession of the land during this time.2. Michael Johnson's Argument:- Michael Johnson contended that he had also used the land for a significant period, and that he had constructed a fence to mark his boundary.- He argued that the principle of adverse possession did not apply in this case because he had not possessed the land openly and notoriously.- Michael Johnson also claimed that John Smith's use of the land was not exclusive, as both parties had been using the land simultaneously.Court's Decision:After hearing both parties' arguments and examining the evidence presented, the court ruled in favor of John Smith. The court found that John Smith had possessed the land openly, notoriously, continuously, and exclusively for over 20 years, satisfying the requirements for adverse possession. The court also noted that Michael Johnson had not challenged John Smith's possession during this time, further supporting theplaintiff's claim.The court held that Michael Johnson's fence did not establish a legal boundary, as there was no official record of the land's ownership. Additionally, the court found that both parties had used the land simultaneously, which did not negate John Smith's claim of adverse possession.Conclusion:In this civil legal case, the court determined that John Smith was the rightful owner of the disputed land based on the principle of adverse possession. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing clear ownership rights and challenging any potential claims to property. It also serves as a reminder that possession, along with other factors, can be a crucial element in determining ownership inlegal disputes.。

民事判决书范本中英文对照

各种法律类文书、公文翻译（中-英文版）

最新-民事判决书范本中英文对照1 精品

民事诉讼法英文对照

民事判决书中英文对照

英文判决书模板

最新-民事判决书范本中英文对照精品

民事判决书范本中英文对照

民事起诉书格式中英文对照

【优质文档】英汉对照法律文书(1)word版本 (3页)

民事诉讼法英文版

民事判决书-中英对照模板

法律案件英汉双语(3篇)

民事判决书-中英对照模板

个体工商户合同民事判决书

民事诉状中英对照

汉英对照民事判决书常用词汇

英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照

法律民事案件英文(3篇)

民事判决书范本中英文对照

各种法律类文书、公文翻译（中-英文版）

最新-民事判决书范本中英文对照1 精品

民事诉讼法英文对照

民事判决书 中英文对照

英文判决书模板

最新-民事判决书范本中英文对照 精品

民事判决书范本中英文对照

民事起诉书格式中英文对照

【优质文档】英汉对照法律文书(1)word版本 (3页)

民事诉讼法英文版

民事判决书-中英对照模板

法律案件英汉双语(3篇)

民事判决书-中英对照模板

个体工商户合同民事判决书

民事诉状中英对照

汉英对照民事判决书常用词汇

英美法系判决书常用词汇中英对照

法律民事案件英文(3篇)

民事判决书中英文对照

最新-民事判决书范本中英文对照精品