On February 25, March 17, April 1 and April 8, 2025, at the headquarters of Dong Thap Provincial People's Court, the appeal trial of civil case No. 421/2024/TLPT-DS dated October 16, 2024, regarding "Dispute requesting cancellation of property auction results".
Because the first instance civil judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024 of the People's Court of Cao Lanh City was appealed and protested by the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy of Cao Lanh City;
Pursuant to Decision No. 612/2024/QDXXPT-DS dated November 13, 2024 to bring the case to trial and Decision No. 641/2024/QDPT-DS dated December 3, 2024 to postpone the trial; Notice of time to reopen the trial No. 39/TB-TA dated February 4, 2025 of Dong Thap Provincial People's Court between the parties:
Plaintiff: Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, Enforcement Officer, Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap Province.
Address: No. B, N, Ward D, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Defendant: Mr. Nguyen Van T, born in 1950;
Address: No. C (No. M), Street T, Group A, Hamlet B, Ward F, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Defendant's authorized representative: Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim A, born in 1995. Thap.
Address: No. B, N, Group E, Hamlet E, Ward A, City C, Dong Nai Province – The person protecting the defendant's legitimate rights and interests: Lawyer Nguyen Van T1, City Bar Association H - Lawyer of L2 Company Branch in City .. Address: No. B, N, Ward F, District C, City ..
Persons with related rights and obligations:
1. S3 (S4) Joint Stock Commercial Bank.
Head office: No. B, N, Ward V, District C, Ho Chi Minh City.
Legal representative: Ms. Nguyen Duc Thach D; Position: General Director.
Authorized representative: Mr. Nguyen Van Be H, Position: Deputy Director of Branch D;
Branch address: No. E, N, Ward B, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Mr. Be H authorized Mr. Bui Trung T2, born in 1979; Position: Head of Risk Control Department - Branch D.
2. Room C1 Dong Thap province.
Address: No. A, H, Ward B, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Legal representative: Mr. Nguyen Van T3; Position: Head of Department.
3. Mr. Tran Trung D1, born in 1955;
4. Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, born in 1958;
5. Mr. Tran Thanh L, born in 1976;
6. Mr. Tran Dinh T4, born in 1980;
7. Ms. Tran Thi Truc G, born in 1982;
Address: No. C, Group A, Hamlet B, Ward F, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Authorized representative of Ms. G, Mr. T4: Mr. Tran Ha Xuan P, born in 1976; Address: IP No., Ward A, City C, Dong Thap.
8. Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1, born in 2001;
Same address: No. C, Group A, Hamlet B, Ward F, City C, Dong Thap Province.
9. Company D1.
Address: No. C, National Highway C, Ward M, City., Dong Thap.
Director: Mr. Tran Cong L1, born in 1982;
Address: 2, Street B, Group A, Quarter H, Ward L, City T, Ho Chi Minh City.
10. Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City.
Address: No. B, N, Ward D, City C, Dong Thap Province.
Legal representative: Mr. Pham Van D2; Position: Head of Department.
Authorized representative: Mr. Nguyen Trong T5 - Position: Deputy Head of Department. Authorization letter dated February 24, 2025.
Present at the trial: Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim A, Lawyer Nguyen Van T1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Ha Xuan P, Mr. Nguyen Trong T5. Requesting trial in absentia: Mr. Tran Trung D1, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Huynh Thanh P1, Notary Office No. A, Dong Thap Province. Absent: Company D1, Joint Stock Commercial Bank S3.
CASE CONTENT
– According to the petition, during the case settlement process and at the trial, Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, an Enforcement Officer of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, stated:
Pursuant to the Decision recognizing the agreement of the parties No. 135/2010/QDST-DS dated August 19, 2010 of the People's Court of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province: Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1 and Mr. Tran Trung D1 are jointly responsible for paying P2 Commercial Joint Stock Bank (now S3 Commercial Joint Stock Bank) the amount of VND 165,618,750 and interest for late execution of judgment.
On August 26, 2010, the Bank filed a request for enforcement of judgment against Mr. D1 and Ms. S1. Sub-Department T6 issued a Decision on enforcement of judgment pursuant to request No. 1401/QD-CCTHA dated August 30, 2010 and assigned an enforcement officer to organize the enforcement.
During the execution of the judgment, the Enforcement Officer carried out the prescribed procedures and formalities.
Verification shows that the assets of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 include: Land use rights of plot 281, map sheet No. 2, area of 174.9m2 of land (ODT) and a level 4 house built on the land and plot No. 1045, map sheet No. 8, area of 1,739.9m2 of land (Rice) granted to Mr. Tran Trung D1's household.
According to the minutes of the execution of the judgment dated September 7, 2010 against Mr. Tran Trung D1 and Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Ms. S1 stated: Currently, the family is facing economic difficulties, living mainly by working for hire, only waiting to sell the house and land to pay off the debt, requesting a 5-month extension from September 7, 2010 to sell the house herself.
On October 15, 2010, the Enforcement Officer issued Official Letter No. 528/CCTHA to Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4 and Ms. Tran Thi Truc G informing them about the seizure of jointly owned assets. They were notified that within 30 days from the date of valid notification, if they did not file a lawsuit to divide the jointly owned assets, the seizure would be carried out. The notice was posted at Mr. Tran Trung D1's house in accordance with regulations.
On November 8, 2010, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1 came to the Judgment Enforcement Office to request a 60-day extension to sell her house and land to pay off her debt. If she does not comply within that time, she will agree to let the Judgment Enforcement Office seize and auction off the property according to regulations.
Because the litigant did not voluntarily execute the judgment, the Enforcement Officer issued Decision on property seizure No. 60/QD-CCTHA dated July 18, 2011 and Notice of property seizure No. 248/TB-CCTHA dated July 18, 2011. When serving, because only Mr. D1 was at home and was suffering from a stroke and could not sign, the Enforcement Officer posted the Decision and notice of seizure at Mr. D1's house on July 20, 2011.
On August 3, 2011, the Enforcement Council forcibly seized the assets of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1, including: Land use rights of plot 281, map sheet No. 2, area of 174.9m2 of land (ODT) and a level 4 house built on the land granted to Mr. Tran Trung D1's household.
According to the valuation certificate dated October 27, 2011 of T7 Joint Stock Company, the total value of the seized assets is VND 589,516,000 (of which, land use rights are VND 374,286,000, house is VND 214,605,000 and crops on the land are VND 625,000) and the valuation certificate was served to Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 on November 8, 2011 (Ms. S1 signed and received).
On November 18, 2011, the Executor signed a contract authorizing the auction of assets with D1 Company Limited to auction the above assets with a starting price of VND 589,516,000.
Due to no one registering to participate in the auction, after 8 price reductions, the remaining value of the seized assets of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 is 281,963,000 VND.
On March 11, 2013, D1 Limited Liability Company announced the auction of assets of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 with a starting price of VND 281,963,000. There were 2 people registered to participate in the auction, Mr. Nguyen Van T and Ms. Tran Thi Kim C, both residing in Ward F, City C.
On April 22, 2013, D1 Limited Liability Company organized an auction of the assets of Mr. Tran Trung D1 and Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1.
As a result, Mr. Nguyen Van T won the auction with the price of: 290,963,000 VND (Two hundred and ninety million, nine hundred and sixty-three thousand). According to the asset auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG – DPAC dated April 22, 2013 and the auction minutes dated April 22, 2013 of D1 Company Limited.
Mr. Nguyen Van T has paid the full amount of 290,963,000 VND (Two hundred and ninety million, nine hundred and sixty three thousand).
However, there were some errors in the process of organizing the execution and auction, so up to now, the auctioned property has not been delivered to Mr. T. The errors are: The enforcement officer was negligent in not notifying the person subject to the enforcement to request the competent Court to divide the property of the person subject to the enforcement with other members of Mr. D1's household, and did not organize for the parties and people with related rights and obligations to agree on the price before signing the valuation contract. The enforcement officer violated Article 74 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
Brothers and sisters: L, T4, G, children of Mr. D1, Mrs. S1 complained that the City C Judgment Enforcement Office did not give them the right of priority to buy back the common family property. At the same time, they filed a lawsuit with the Court to dispute the division of common property. Result: Cao Lanh City People's Court accepted to resolve the case by civil means, dividing each person 1/5 of the above land area (according to Decision No. 01/2022/QDST-VDS dated February 12, 2022 of the People's Court of Cao Bang City Cold).
Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy issued Decision No. 68/QD-VKS dated May 30, 2022 protesting Decision No. 02/QD-CIVIL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT dated May 24, 2022 of the City Civil Judgment Enforcement Department on the transfer of assets to the auction winner.
There is an error in the date and month of notarization in the contract for the sale of auctioned assets, specifically: Auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG – DPAC dated April 22, 2013 of Company D1, but the Notary Office recorded the certification on March 8, 2013.
The plaintiff now requests to cancel the auction results according to the Property Auction Minutes, dated April 22, 2013 for the winning bidder, Mr. Nguyen Van T, and to cancel the property auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T to return the property to the household of Mr. Tran Trung D1 and Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1 (At the first instance trial, Mr. S stated that the lawsuit mistakenly recorded the property auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 signed between D1 Company Limited and the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City); Cancel the property auction contract when notarizing and certifying the contract in the notarized number with an error in time.
Legal consequences:
- According to the petition: The City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office will refund Mr. T the amount of VND 290,963,000 (Two hundred and ninety million, nine hundred and sixty-three thousand) paid for the auctioned property.
Individuals and organizations at fault leading to the invalidity of the contract are jointly responsible for compensating Mr. T for damages according to regulations, specifically: compensating Mr. T for interest according to State regulations from the time Mr. T paid the auction winning price until now.
- At the conciliation session and at the first instance trial, Mr. S presented a request to change the lawsuit request: Not requesting any other individuals or organizations to jointly compensate, if there is a dispute in the future, it will be requested to resolve it into another lawsuit. Regarding the compensation for damages according to the interest rate, it is calculated according to the State's regulations 10%/year. In addition, it is agreed that Mr. T is entitled to receive interest arising from the auction amount currently deposited by the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office at the Bank.
– Defendant Mr. Nguyen Van T and the person protecting the defendant's legal rights and interests presented:
Regarding the capacity to participate in the proceedings: Mr. T believes that the Court determines Mr. T's capacity to participate in the proceedings as "defendant" in this case is not in accordance with Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, because: There was no civil transaction between the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of City C and Mr. T. D1 Company Limited (Company D1) is the authorized representative of the Cao Lanh City Judgment Enforcement Office (Authorization contract for auctioning assets signed on March 7, 2011) to auction the seized assets of Mr. Tran Trung D1 and Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1 to enforce the judgment. After receiving authorization from the Cao Lanh City Judgment Enforcement Office, Company D1 fully performed the procedures prescribed by law to auction the above assets. At the end of the auction, a record of the sale of assets was drawn up and the contract for sale of auctioned assets was signed. Auction property sale contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG-DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between Mr. T and company D1 was carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedures and was certified by Notary Public of Room C2 of Dong Thap province. Mr. T has paid the full amount to purchase the above property.
Mr. T is the buyer of the auctioned property in accordance with the law. After signing the contract, he paid and performed according to the agreement of the contract, but up to now, Company D1 has not delivered the property as agreed. Since 2013, Mr. T has repeatedly submitted requests to be delivered the auctioned property. However, due to the arising of lawsuits and complaints from the judgment debtor, the handover of the auctioned property to Mr. T has not been carried out yet.
Currently, Mr. T and his family are the ones whose legitimate rights and interests have been violated, not Mr. T who has violated the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. Nguyen Thanh S - Enforcement Officer of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City.
Regarding the lawsuit request of Mr. Nguyen Thanh S - Enforcement Officer, Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office requests to cancel the property auction results.
+ Basis: Clause 2, Article 102 of the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement (amended and supplemented in 2014, effective from July 1, 2015) stipulates: “The buyer of the auctioned property and the Enforcement Officer have the right to file a lawsuit requesting the Court to resolve the dispute over the auction results, if there is evidence of a violation during the auction process”;
The documents and evidence that Mr. Nguyen Thanh S submitted to the Court together with the petition had all the procedures for auctioning assets according to the provisions of law, the public auction had the direct supervision of the Enforcement Officer Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, Notary Le Hung A1. The auction process had no violations, in the documents and evidence that Mr. Nguyen Thanh S provided to the Court, there was no document proving that there was a violation during the auction process. Based on Article 172 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, Clause 3, Article 56 of Decree 17, the auction result will only be annulled in case of violation of the regulations on posting and public announcement of the auction of assets.
Request for compensation in case the Court accepts the plaintiff's request for lawsuit under the Law on State Compensation Liability and for mental damage, economic damage, etc.
However, in the Request for Non-Conciliation dated March 20, 2024 and at the first instance trial, Mr. T presented his request to withdraw his request for compensation if the plaintiff's request to initiate a lawsuit was accepted, but requested the Court to determine Mr. T's right to initiate a lawsuit in another case, the basis for compensation for Mr. T according to the Law on State Compensation Liability or the Civil Code.
In addition, based on Article 429 of the 2015 Civil Code, Article 70, Article 72, Article 184, Article 185, Point e, Clause 1, Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, the Court is requested to apply the statute of limitations and suspend the settlement of the case, returning the petition to the plaintiff.
– People with related rights and obligations Mr. Tran Trung D1, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Ms. Tran Thi Truc G, Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 present: Agree on the request to cancel the auction results of the plaintiff's property. Reason: The enforcement officer committed many violations in the process of seizing and auctioning the property.
– Person with related rights and obligations: S4 Bank presents:
Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 have outstanding loans and are overdue at S4 - Branch D according to Credit Contract No. 0403/12/08NN/HĐTD dated December 25, 2008. Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 have mortgaged assets according to Mortgage Contract No. 0403/12/08NN/HĐTC dated December 25, 2008. The Bank requires proper handling, when handling mortgaged assets, priority is given to repaying the debt to the Bank.
– Person with related rights and obligations: Room C2 presents: Contract for sale of auctioned property No. 15/2013/HĐMBTSĐG-DPAC dated April 22, 2013 of Company D1, certified by Room C2 No. 1907, book No. 04 dated April 24, 2013, not certified on March 8, 2013 (number, book No. and date of certification are handwritten). The contract was typed by Company D1 (The contract was signed on April 22, 2013 but Company D1 typed it on March 8, 2013; When notarizing, the Notary Public accidentally did not detect the incorrect typing of the contract signing date). The incorrect typing of the contract signing date in the testimony does not affect the rights and obligations of the parties in the contract.
– The person with related rights and obligations, Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office, presents:
Requesting the Court to try according to the law (according to the content of the petition), the City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office has no opinion.
In the first instance civil judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024, of the People's Court of Cao Lanh city, it was ruled that:
1. Not accepting the lawsuit request of Mr. Nguyen Thanh S - Enforcement Officer of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City regarding the request to cancel the auction results of assets between D1 Company Limited (now D1 Company) and Mr. Nguyen Van T.
2. Maintain the results of the asset auction between D1 Company Limited (now D1 Company) and Mr. Nguyen Van T according to the auction minutes dated April 22, 2013; Asset auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG – DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T.
The Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City must continue to hand over the auctioned property to Mr. Nguyen Van T in accordance with the provisions of the law on property auction and the law on civil judgment enforcement.
3. Determine the fault of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City as a basis for requesting compensation according to the Law on State Compensation Liability.
4. Regarding court fees:
Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, Enforcement Officer, Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office does not have to pay court fees and will be refunded VND 300,000 according to Receipt No. 0012034 dated March 13, 2023 of Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office.
In addition, the judgment also stated the parties' right to appeal.
On July 4, 2024, Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 are people with related rights and obligations who appealed to request to amend the First Instance Judgment in the direction of accepting the cancellation of the asset auction results between Company D1 and Mr. T.
On July 8, 2024, the People's Procuracy of Cao Lanh City issued a protest decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS, requesting the People's Court of Dong Thap Province to review the case in the direction of annulling the first-instance judgment. At the appeal hearing, the representative of the Procuracy changed the protest No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024, the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy of Cao Lanh City as follows: Regarding the status of participating in the proceedings, Company D1 is the defendant, Mr. T is the person with related rights and obligations. Regarding the content of the request for the Trial Council to amend the first-instance judgment in the direction of annulling the auction results of Company D1 with Mr. Nguyen Van T, accepting the appeal of Mr. Tran Trung D1's household including Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1.
– At the appeal hearing, Mr. Tran Thanh L maintained his appeal request.
Mr. Tran Ha Xuan P presented: The first instance civil judgment No. 67/2019/DS-ST dated September 27, 2019 concluded: “… Company D1 signed the Auction Property Sale Contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSĐG-DPAC with Mr. Nguyen Van T but did not have the opinion of the co-owners, which is a violation of the prohibition of the law, so this contract is invalid…” The judgment was then annulled by the appellate court due to procedural rules, not because of content errors. The first instance court should have applied this judgment in terms of content.
The first instance civil judgment did not consider the evidence provided by the relevant parties proving that the violation of Company D1 was that this Company sold the common property of Mr. D1's household without the consent of Mr. D1's household, violating Article 456 of the 2005 Civil Code.
On the other hand, D1 Company Limited could not present evidence to prove that it had agreed to sell the common property on Mr. D1's behalf. At the same time, after many price reductions, Mr. D1's household still did not receive a price reduction decision. This greatly affected the rights of Mr. D1's household.
The Court of First Instance used Notice No. 15/TB-TCTHADS dated January 18, 2016 and Notice No. 319/TB-TCTHADS dated October 14, 2016 of the General Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement determining that the property auction process was not erroneous as the basis for concluding the trial of the case, which is incorrect. Because the General Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement does not have any functions, duties, or powers to conclude whether the auction process is correct or not. That should be the Department of Justice of Dong Thap province, according to the provisions of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated March 4, 2010 on property auctions.
Regarding the Notary Public knowing that the Auction Company was selling the common property of Mr. D1's household, but still notarizing the Sales Contract with Mr. T, it is a violation of Article 456 of the 2005 Civil Code. This circumstance was not considered by the Court of First Instance to resolve the case, which is not objective and comprehensive. Because the Notary Public's violation has subjective elements, affecting the rights of the property owner.
The Court of First Instance tried the case beyond its jurisdiction. Because in this case, no party filed a lawsuit (counterclaim and independent claim) to force the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office to hand over the auctioned property to Mr. T (the defendant). However, the Court of First Instance ruled that the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office must hand over the auctioned property to Mr. T.
Based on the above grounds, Ms. G and Mr. T4 request the Court of Appeal to review and amend the first instance judgment, accept the plaintiff's lawsuit request and the appeal of Mr. T4 and Ms. G.
The person protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. T presentedAt the appeal hearing, the person with related rights and obligations also determined that the disputed property in this case was the land use right and property attached to the land.
Firstly, the origin of the land use rights is from the ancestors and parents of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1, not the contributions of the household members. In the questioning part, the person with related rights and obligations also confirmed that the mortgage of the above assets to bank M was for Mr. D1's medical treatment. Of course, the members of the household must know about the content of the mortgage of a large asset to borrow money for medical treatment, and they also had no opinion when mortgaging. During the debt settlement process, there were many minutes of agreement to keep Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 with the bank, accepting that debt payment. After that, if Mr. D1 and Ms. S1 did not comply, the enforcement officer would proceed to seize and auction the assets.
Regarding the appeal request of the person with related rights and obligations:
Mr. Tran Trung D1, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Ms. Tran Thi Truc G, Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 filed an appeal against the entire First Instance Judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST, requesting to amend the First Instance Judgment in the direction of accepting the cancellation of the asset auction results between Company D1 and Mr. T.
Pursuant to: Article 102 of the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement (amended and supplemented in 2014) stipulates “The buyer of the auctioned property and the Enforcement Officer have the right to file a lawsuit requesting the Court to resolve the dispute over the auction results, if there is evidence of a violation during the auction process.”. (The person with related rights and obligations in this case does not have an independent request but only has the right to resolve the case, so according to Clause 3, Article 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, he has the rights and obligations of the plaintiff according to the provisions of Article 71. However, in this case, in addition to the plaintiff, who is the enforcement officer, who has the right to file a lawsuit to request the cancellation of the property auction results, the other people do not have the right). Therefore, the person with related rights and obligations in this case, Mr. D1, Ms. S1, Mr. L, Mr. T4, Ms. G and Mr. P1, do not have the right to request the cancellation of the property auction results between Mr. T and Company D1.
On the other hand, at the trial, Mr. S also repeatedly affirmed that the auction of the property had no errors and he accepted the decision of the First Instance Judgment. In addition, on August 5, 2024, the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City issued Document No. 335/VB-CHI CUC CIVIL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT on the disagreement with the Appeal Decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the People's Procuracy of Cao Lanh City.
At the trial, the representative of the Cao Lanh City Judgment Enforcement Office and the enforcement officer admitted that there was no negative behavior or violation of the law during the property auction process. Pursuant to Article 102 of the 2008 Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement (amended and supplemented in 2014), Article 72 of the 2016 Law on Property Auction, Article 309 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and the evidence in the case file, I believe that Mr. D1, Ms. S1, Mr. L, Mr. T4, Ms. G and Mr. P1 appeal to the court to "SThe first instance judgment accepted the cancellation of the auction results of the assets between Company D1 and Mr. T." is not acceptable. The Trial Panel is requested to consider.
Regarding the appeal decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy, requesting the Dong Thap Provincial People's Court to review the case in the direction of "Annuling the First Instance Judgment". At the appeal hearing, the representative of the Procuracy defending the appeal changed the content of the appeal in the direction of "Amending the First Instance Judgment, requesting to annul the results of the property auction between Company D1 and Mr. T". It is found that the appeal decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS and the viewpoint of the representative of the Procuracy are illegal and have no legal basis. Firstly, the Procuracy issued the appeal and the representative of the Procuracy did not review and evaluate the evidence documents in the case file in an objective, comprehensive and complete manner. The content of the appeal rejects all professional instructions from superior agencies such as: Representative of Department 11 of the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Department of Judicial Support, the Department of Civil and Economic Law, and units under General C3 such as Department of Professional Affairs 1, Department of Professional Affairs 2, Department of Professional Affairs 3, Department of Professional Affairs for Handling Complaints and Denunciations as stated in "Notice No. 15/TB-TCTHADS and Notice No. 319/TB-TCTHADS". The appeal of the Procuracy only considers protecting the interests of the people with related rights and obligations, which are the households of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1, without considering the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. T, who is a bona fide buyer of the auctioned property. The Panel of Judges is requested to consider this appeal decision.
Regarding the proceedings: The appeal decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS stated that Company D1 was the one who violated the legitimate rights and interests of Mr. S - Enforcement Officer of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, so Company D1 must be the defendant in this case. This assertion is baseless. Because at the trial, the enforcement officer affirmed that Company D1 did not violate his rights and interests. Correctly performing the work according to the content of the authorization to auction assets signed on February 13, 2012. Company D1 is the authorized representative of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City (Authorization contract to auction assets signed on February 13, 2012) to carry out the auction of seized assets of Mr. Tran Trung D1 and Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1 to enforce the judgment. After receiving the authorization, Company D1 fully performed the auction procedures according to regulations and was determined by the General Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement that the process of organizing the auction of assets had no violations in Notice No. 15/TB-TCTHADS dated January 18, 2016, Notice 319/TB-TCTHADS dated October 14, 2016. Therefore, Company D1, on behalf of the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Sub-Department, properly performed its rights and obligations within the scope of authorization regarding the organization of the auction of assets without infringing on any rights and interests of Mr. S - Enforcement Officer of the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Sub-Department, so it is impossible to determine that Company D1 is also a defendant in this case.
Regarding the content of the appeal: At the Court, the Panel of Judges temporarily adjourned the trial at Mr. S's request so that Mr. Son could provide the decisions on resolving complaints according to Notice No. 15/TB-TCTHADS and Notice No. 319/TB-TCTHADS to determine that there were no violations in the property auction process. However, Mr. S could not provide them because he thought that Company D1 was no longer in operation and could not provide them.
Monday, “When receiving the property for auction, Company D1 did not check the information, origin, ownership, and right to use the property. for households or individuals provided by Sub-Department T is not in accordance with Clause 3, Article 26. Decree 17/2010/ND…Accordingly, the above case does not fall under the case of canceling the auction results of assets according to Article 48 of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP.
Third, “… Company D1 did not post the notice of the property auction at the auction venue, the location of the real estate and the ward People's Committee as prescribed in Article 28 of Decree 17/2010… For the last contract signing on the day March 7, 2013 Company D1 made a public announcement and posted it but did not specify whether the posting location was Ward 6 People's Committee or the location where the real estate is located..." This content has been responded to by the Dong Thap Provincial People's Procuracy for requesting the THADS inspection through Official Dispatch No. 273/VKS-P11 dated March 30, 2016 as follows:“… Through studying the records of the 07 price reductions, the 08th auction had a notice of auction of the property posted in accordance with regulations and Mr. Nguyen Van T was the auction winner. Thus, to ensure the rights of the buyer of the auctioned property, the property must be handed over to Mr. T in accordance with Article 103 of the 2014 Law on THADS…” At the time Mr. T participated in the auction and won the auction, Mr. T could not know how the auction process was carried out by Department T and Company D1. Mr. T had properly performed his obligations in the Property Auction Contract and paid the full amount, so he still had to be handed over the property according to Article 103 of the 2014 Law on THADS.
Wednesday, “Regarding the interest that arose after Mr. T paid the money when winning the auction of the property (VND 290,963,000), the Plaintiff performed the wrong THA procedures, leading to the failure to deliver the property to Mr. T. This is the income from the money Mr. T paid, not compensation for damages..."The above statement is not complete. In case Mr. T does not receive the auctioned property, the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City must return the amount that Mr. T paid when winning the auction and interest calculated at the rate of 10%/year from the time of payment until now. In addition, the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office must compensate Mr. T for damages according to the Law on State Compensation Liability due to errors in the execution process of Mr. S - the Enforcement Officer, such as compensation for mental damage during the time waiting for the handover of the property, compensation for economic loss due to the inability to use and manage the auctioned property, compensation for travel expenses, other expenses arising during the process of requesting the handover of the auctioned property, participating in disputes at the court and other state agencies... Regarding this issue, Mr. T must be given the right to sue the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City in another case to request compensation for Mr. T according to the provisions of law.
From the above analysis, the Panel of Judges proposes: Not to accept the appeal of the person with related rights and obligations and the protest of the Procuracy. Uphold the original judgment.
– Representative of Dong Thap Provincial People's Procuracy expressed his opinion:
On compliance with procedural law On compliance with procedural law by Judges:
From the time of accepting the case to the time of deliberation, the Judge complied with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Regarding compliance with procedural law of the Appellate Court, Court Secretary:
The Trial Panel and the Court Secretary have properly and fully implemented the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code on the appellate trial procedure.
On compliance with the law by litigants:
The litigants have exercised their rights and obligations in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.
Regarding the settlement of the case of considering the appeal of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Ms. Tran Thi Truc G and Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 regarding the request for the Court of Appeal to amend the First Instance Judgment in the direction of: Canceling the results of the auction of assets between Company D1 and Mr. Nguyen Van T and the Appeal Protest Decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor - People's Procuracy of City C requesting the Court of Appeal to amend the First Instance Judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024 of the People's Court of Cao Lanh City regarding the request for the Court of Appeal to amend the First Instance Judgment of Cao Lanh City in the direction of:
Change of status of participation in litigation and Cancellation of results of property auction between Company D1 and Mr. Nguyen Van T. Noticed; Regarding litigation procedures:
The Court of First Instance determined that Company D1 participated in the proceedings as a person with related rights and obligations and Mr. Nguyen Van T was the defendant in the case, which was inappropriate. Because the plaintiff, Mr. Nguyen Thanh S - Enforcement Officer of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, filed a lawsuit requesting: Cancellation of the results of the property auction, dated April 22, 2013; Cancellation of the auctioned property sale contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between Company D1 Limited (now Company D1) and Mr. Nguyen Van T on April 8, 2013. Thus, the plaintiff directly affected the work of Company D1, and Mr. Nguyen Van T was only the person affected by the enforcement officer's request to file a lawsuit. Therefore, determining that Company D1 is the defendant and Mr. Tan is the person with related rights and obligations in the case is appropriate according to the provisions of Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code.
About the resolution content:
The first instance judgment based on Point c, Clause 1, Article 48 of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated March 4, 2010 of the Government on property auctions stipulates the cancellation of property auction results:
1. The auction results of assets are cancelled in the following cases:
c) The auction results of the assets are cancelled according to the decision of the competent authority to handle administrative violations according to the provisions of the law on handling administrative violations and according to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 56 of this Decree" Clause 3, Article 56 of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated March 4, 2010 of the Government stipulates:
3. Supplementing the remedial measure of "cancelling the results of property auctions" for administrative violations of "failure to comply with regulations on posting and publicly announcing property auctions" as prescribed in Point a, Clause 1, Article 29 of Decree 60/2009/ND-CP on sanctioning administrative violations in the judicial field" Article 4 of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated March 4, 2010 of the Government stipulates: "Protecting the legitimate rights and interests of buyers of auctioned assets".
1. The legitimate rights and interests of the buyer of the auctioned property are protected by law. Competent state agencies, within the scope of their duties, The authority has the responsibility to ensure the implementation of the rights and legitimate interests of the buyer of the auctioned property.
2. In case a third party disputes the ownership or right to use the auctioned property, the determination of ownership or right to use the property shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of civil law.
3. In case there is a decision by a competent state agency to partially amend or completely cancel decisions related to the auctioned property due to a violation of the law before the property is put up for auction, but the order and procedures for auctioning the property ensure full compliance with the provisions of law, the property will still belong to the ownership and right to use of the buyer of the auctioned property.
Organizations and individuals at fault for causing damage must compensate according to the provisions of law" Pursuant to Notice No. 15/TB-TCTHADS dated January 18, 2016, Notice 319/TB-TCTHADS dated October 14, 2016 of the General Department of Civil Judgment Enforcement, it is determined that there were no violations in the process of organizing the property auction.
The court of first instance based on the above provisions to protect the rights of the auction winner who is a bona fide third party as prescribed in Article 258 of the 2005 Civil Code, Article 4 of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated March 4, 2010 of the Government, it is necessary to continue to deliver the auctioned property to the auction winner, Mr. T, so the plaintiff's request to file a lawsuit to cancel the auction results of the property has no basis to accept. This assessment of the court of first instance is inconsistent with the evidence documents in the case file. Because:
- Based on the documents and evidence provided by the plaintiff Mr. S, “Auction records of property of Mr. Tran Trung D1”. According to the auction records of Mr. Tran Trung D1's household's assets, the procedures for auctioning assets are not in accordance with the provisions of Decree 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government regulating the auction of assets (Decree 17). Specifically: When receiving the assets for auction, D1 Company Limited did not check the information on the origin, ownership, and right to use the assets granted to the household or individual provided by the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3, Article 26 of Decree 17, so the above assets were auctioned, while the land use right certificate was granted to the household; Putting the household assets up for auction without the consent of the co-owners according to Article 456 of the 2005 Civil Code is against the regulations.
Clause 3, Article 26 stipulates:
3. The property auction organization is responsible for checking the accuracy of information about the origin of the property, ownership, and usage rights of the property provided by the person whose property is being auctioned.
– In order to organize the auction of assets, the procedure of posting and publicly announcing the auction is a mandatory procedure that must be carried out before the auction is opened. However, after signing the first auction contract on November 8, 2011, the second time on February 13, 2012 and the appendices of the contract (signed appendices 5 times) with the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, D1 Company Limited did not post the notice of the auction of assets at the auction venue, the location of the real estate and the People's Committee of the ward as prescribed in Article 28 of Decree 17, but only made a public announcement in the D2 newspaper. For the last contract signing on March 7, 2013, D1 Company Limited made a public announcement and posted it but did not specify whether the posting location was the People's Committee of Ward F or the location of the real estate, in the posting record confirmed by the local authorities. At the place where the property was auctioned, there was no document showing that it was posted.
Article 28 of Decree 17 stipulates:
Posting and publicly announcing the auction of assets: For real estate, the organization selling the assets must post the auction of assets at the auction site, the location of the real estate to be auctioned, and the People's Committee of the commune, ward, or town where the real estate to be auctioned is located at least thirty days before the opening date of the auction, unless otherwise provided by law.
Because the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City performed the wrong execution procedures, leading to not delivering the property to Mr. T, the interest amount arising from the time Mr. T paid when winning the property auction was 290,963,000 VND that Mr. T received is appropriate.
Although the First Instance Judgment violated procedural rules, considering that this violation does not affect the content of the case and can be remedied at the appeal stage, it is not necessary to annul the First Instance Judgment but only need to amend the First Instance Judgment in the following direction:
– Change the litigation status and cancel the auction results of assets between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T on April 22, 2013;
– Canceling the asset auction contract No. 22/4/2013 between Company D1 and Mr. Nguyen Van T is to ensure the resolution of the case.
From the above content and analysis, it is found that the appeal of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Ms. Tran Thi Truc G, Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 and the Appeal Decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor - People's Procuracy of City C are well-founded.
Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Panel is requested to:
– Accept the appeal of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Ms. Tran Thi Truc G, Mr. Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1;
– Accept the Appeal Decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy of City C.
Amend the Civil Judgment at First Instance No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024 of the People's Court of Cao Lanh City in the following direction:
- Identify Company D1 as the defendant; identify Mr. Nguyen Van T as the person with related rights and obligations;
– Cancel the asset auction contract No. 22/4/2013 between Company D1 and Mr. Nguyen Van T.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
After studying the documents and evidence in the case file considered at the trial, the presentation of the Lawyer and the statement of the prosecutor at the trial, the Trial Panel determined:
[1]. Regarding procedural matters:
Mr. Tran Trung D1, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1 are persons with rights and obligations to appeal. The Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy appealed within the time limit prescribed by law. Therefore, the Court of Appeal accepted the case for trial according to the appeal procedure, which is correct in accordance with Articles 273, 280, 293 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.
[2]. Mr. Tran Trung D1, Ms. Vo Thi Kim S1, Tran Thanh L, Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1 appealed and requested:
Amend the First Instance Judgment in the direction of accepting the cancellation of the asset auction results between Company D1 and Mr. Nguyen Van T.
The Trial Panel found that: Mr. Nguyen Thanh S - Enforcement Officer, Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City admitted that the Enforcement Officer violated Article 74 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement when he failed to notify the judgment debtor to request the competent Court to divide the property of the judgment debtor with other members of the household of Mr. D1 and Ms. S1; did not notify the co-owners of the right to priority in purchasing the property; did not organize for the parties and persons with related rights and obligations to agree on the price before signing the valuation contract, so requested to cancel the auction result. Therefore, it was determined that the fault was that of the Enforcement Officer, leading to the failure to deliver the auctioned property to Mr. Nguyen Van T from 2013 until now, there has been no final solution to the case. At the same time, the Property Auction Contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG – DPAC dated April 22, 2013 of Company D1, but the Notary Office certified it on March 8, 2013, has an error in time. Regarding the order and procedures for property auction, they are not in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government regulating property auctions (Decree 17). Specifically:
- When receiving the property for auction, D1 Company Limited did not check the information on the origin, ownership, and right to use the property granted to the household or individual provided by the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, which is not in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3, Article 26, Decree No. 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government, while the land use right certificate granted to the household; Putting the household property up for auction without the consent of the co-owners according to Article 456 of the 2005 Civil Code is against the provisions of law.
- Article 28 of Decree No. 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government stipulates: "Posting and public announcement of property auctions: For real estate, the property auction organization must post the property auction at the auction location, the location of the real estate for auction, and the People's Committee of the commune, ward, or town where the real estate for auction is located at least thirty days before the opening date of the auction, unless otherwise provided by law".
According to the records, after signing the first auction contract on November 8, 2011, the second on February 13, 2012 and the appendices of the contract (signed appendices 5 times) with the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, D1 Company Limited did not post the notice of property auction at the auction venue, the location of the real estate and the Ward People's Committee as prescribed in Article 28 of Decree No. 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government, B Company Limited's public announcement in D2 newspaper was incomplete and not in accordance with the provisions of law.
For the last contract signing on March 7, 2013, D1 Company Limited made a public announcement and posted it but did not specify whether the posting location was the People's Committee of Ward F or the location of the real estate, in the posting record confirmed by the local authorities. At the place where the property was auctioned, there was no document showing that it was posted.
- At point c, clause 1, Article 48 of Decree No. 17/2010/ND-CP dated April 3, 2010 of the Government stipulates:
“1. The results of the property auction are cancelled in the following cases:
c) The auction results of the assets are cancelled according to the decision of the competent authority to handle administrative violations according to the provisions of the law on handling administrative violations and according to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 56 of this Decree. Clause 3, Article 56 of Decree 17 stipulates: “……..
3. Supplement the remedial measure of "cancelling the results of property auctions" for administrative violations of "failure to comply with regulations on posting and publicly announcing property auctions" as prescribed in Point a, Clause 1, Article 29 of Decree No. 60/2009/ND-CP dated July 23, 2009 of the Government on sanctioning administrative violations in the judicial field".
Therefore, Mr. S filed a lawsuit requesting to cancel the auction results according to the Property Auction Minutes, dated April 22, 2013 for the winning bidder, Mr. Nguyen Van T, and to cancel the Property Auction Contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T. Since Mr. S's request is accepted, the appeal requests of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 are accepted as stated above.
However, at the appeal hearing, Mr. Nguyen Van S2 and Mr. Nguyen Trong T5 were authorized representatives of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City. In case the Trial Council annulled the Property Auction Minutes dated April 22, 2013 for the winning bidder, Mr. Nguyen Van T, and annulled the Property Auction Contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T, the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City voluntarily agreed to return to Mr. Nguyen Van T the amount of VND 290,963,000 and interest according to the provisions of law, so the Trial Council recognized this voluntary action.
So the interest is calculated as follows: The interest calculation period starts from the date Mr. T pays the money until April 8, 2025, which is the appeal hearing date.
– Minutes of property auction, on April 22, 2013, Mr. T paid the amount of 28,000,000 VND until April 8, 2025, which is 4,306 days.
28,000,000 VND x 0.83% x 4,306 days/30 = 33,357,200 VND;
- Receipt dated April 23, 2013, Mr. T paid the amount of 28,000,000 VND until April 8, 2025, which is 4,305 days.
28,000,000 VND x 0.83% x 4,305 days/30 = 33,349,400 VND;
- Receipt dated April 23, 2013, Mr. T paid the amount of 154,000,000 VND until April 8, 2025, which is 4,305 days.
154,000,000 VND x 0.83% x 4,305 days/30 = 183,421,700 VND;
- Receipt dated April 24, 2013, Mr. T paid the amount of 30,000,000 VND until April 8, 2025, which is 4,304 days.
30,000,000 VND x 0.83% x 4,304 days/30 = 35,723,200 VND;
- Receipt dated April 25, 2013, Mr. T paid the amount of 50,963,000 VND until April 8, 2025, which is 4,303 days.
50,963,000 VND x 0.83% x 4,303 days/30 = 60,671,200 VND;
Total Capital and Interest: VND 637,485,700 (VND 290,963,000 + VND 346,522,700). [3]. Considering the appeal decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy on the status of participating in the litigation, Company D1 is the defendant, Mr. T is the person with related rights and obligations. The Trial Panel considers that according to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, the defendant is the person sued by the plaintiff because the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests are infringed, so the Court of First Instance determined that Mr. Nguyen Van T is the defendant, Company D1 is the person with related rights and obligations in the case, which is correct by law. Therefore, the Trial Panel does not change the status of the parties in the case, so the Trial Panel does not accept this part of the appeal. Regarding the content of the representative of the People's Procuracy's proposal to amend the first instance civil judgment in the direction of canceling the auction results according to the Minutes of the property auction, dated April 22, 2013 for the winning bidder, Mr. Nguyen Van T, and canceling the property auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG - DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T. As stated in section [2] of the judgment, considering the appeal of the Chief Prosecutor of the People's Procuracy of Cao Lanh City to be well-founded and in accordance with the law, this part of the appeal is accepted.
[4]. Considering that the presentation of the person protecting Mr. T's legal rights and interests is partly well-founded, it should be partially accepted as stated above.
[5]. By accepting the appeal request of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1 and accepting part of the protest of the Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy, the judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024, of the People's Court of Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap Province is amended.
[6]. Considering the proposal of the representative of the People's Procuracy of Dong Thap province to be partly well-founded, it is partially accepted as stated above.
[7]. Due to the amendment of the first instance civil judgment, the first instance civil court fees should be recalculated according to the provisions of law.
[8]. Regarding civil appeal fees: Due to the appeal request of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1 and the partial acceptance of the protest of the Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy, Mr. D1, Ms. S1, Mr. L, Mr. T4, Ms. G and Mr. P1 do not have to pay civil appeal fees.
[9]. Other parts of the first instance civil judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024, of the People's Court of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province, which are not appealed or protested, shall take legal effect from the date of expiration of the appeal or protest period.
For the above reasons,
DECISION
Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 308, Clause 2, Article 148 of the Civil Procedure Code; Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the 8th Committee regulating court fees and charges.
Verdict:
1. Partially accept the Appeal Decision No. 03/QD-VKS-DS dated July 8, 2024 of the Chief Prosecutor of Cao Lanh City People's Procuracy.
2. Accept the appeal request of Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Huynh Thanh P1.
3. Amend the first instance civil judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024, of the People's Court of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province.
3.1. Cancel the auction result according to the Property Auction Minutes, dated April 22, 2013 for the winning bidder, Mr. Nguyen Van T and cancel the property auction contract No. 15/2013/HDMBTSDG – DPAC dated April 22, 2013 between D1 Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Van T.
Acknowledging the voluntary payment of Mr. Nguyen Thanh S and Mr. Nguyen Trong T5, authorized representatives of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City, to Mr. Nguyen Van T of the principal amount of VND 290,963,000 and interest of VND 346,522,700. The total principal and interest is VND 637,485,700 (Six hundred thirty-seven million, four hundred eighty-five thousand, seven hundred dong).
From the date of the judgment enforcement request of the judgment debtor until the judgment enforcement is completed, the judgment debtor must also pay monthly interest on the remaining amount of money subject to enforcement at the interest rate prescribed in Article 357 and Article 468 of the Civil Code.
3.2. First instance civil court fees:
Mr. Nguyen Thanh S, Enforcement Officer of the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office, does not have to pay court fees and will be refunded VND 300,000 according to Receipt No. 0012034 dated March 13, 2023 of the Cao Lanh City Civil Judgment Enforcement Office.
4. Civil appeal court fees: Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 are not required to pay civil appeal court fees. Refund to Mr. Tran Trung D1, Vo Thi Kim S1, Mr. Tran Thanh L, Mr. Tran Dinh T4, Tran Thi Truc G, Tran Tran Huynh Thanh P1 300,000 VND in advance court fees paid according to the advance court fee receipt No. 0009973 dated July 4, 2024 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Cao Lanh City.
5. In case the judgment or decision is enforced according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, amended and supplemented in 2014, the person entitled to enforcement and the person subject to enforcement have the right to agree on the enforcement, the right to request enforcement, voluntarily enforce the judgment or be forced to enforce the judgment according to the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 7a, 7b and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, amended and supplemented in 2014; the statute of limitations for enforcement of civil judgments is implemented according to the provisions of Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, amended and supplemented in 2014.
6. Other parts of the first instance civil judgment No. 73/2024/DS-ST dated June 27, 2024, of the People's Court of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province, which are not appealed or protested, shall take legal effect from the date of expiration of the appeal or protest period.
7. The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of judgment.
