?
Fan Wenyi:
Respondent: Li, female,1born on September 23rd, 1979, Han nationality, resident, living at No.666 Chaoyang Road, a neighborhood committee of a town in Yandu District, Yancheng City.
Respondent: Liu, male,1born on April 2, 1975, Han nationality, resident, living in Group 2, a village in Yancheng New District.
Respondent: Liu, male, 197 1 year 1 month1day, Han nationality, resident, living in Group 3 of a village in Yancheng New District.
The respondent made the following reply on the case of personal injury compensation dispute with the respondent in road traffic accident:
First, the court of first instance ruled that it was legal and fair for the appellant to pay all the prosthetic expenses in one lump sum.
1. The standard of artificial limb cost judged by the first instance is not high, which is lower than the relevant standards stipulated by the province. In the trial of the first instance, the respondent also proposed that the standard of prosthetic installation was lower than the provincial standard, but it did not apply separately because the respondent applied for court consultation.
The defendant thinks it is wrong to pay only the installation fee. According to the relevant provisions of the Personal Injury Interpretation, the replacement period and compensation period of disability assistance expenses are determined with reference to the opinions of the distribution agencies. Yancheng Dingyi Prosthetic Orthopedic Assembly Service Co., Ltd. has the qualification approval of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and its opinion is conclusive. The defendant believes that according to the advice, it should be paid in one lump sum. Many uncertain factors, such as age, put forward by the respondents are purely the respondents' statement of evading responsibility. Then the respondent can't help asking, if the respondent is uncertain, to whom will the respondent's rights be claimed? And Article 31 of the Interpretation of Personal Loss also stipulates that it should be paid in one lump sum. In addition, the cost of artificial limb installation is the compensation for the decline of the quality of life of the respondent, and it is the civil liability that the respondent must bear.
3. Prosthesis consultation fee is the guarantee of prosthesis installation, which is purely subjective. Prosthetic consultation is the defendant's application for court consultation in the first instance, and it is reasonable to charge related consultation fees like forensic identification.
Secondly, regarding the spiritual consolation money, it should be taken into account that the respondent in this case was young and the accident brought great pain to the respondent's body and spirit. The respondent saw that he had lost a leg and once had the idea of suicide. Therefore, this 20,000 yuan mental consolation money is reasonable and not enough to make up for the mental damage caused to the respondent.
3. In this case, the respondent's family contracted the bus operation, and the respondent participated in the management and ticket sales. In addition, the respondent and her husband live in the dormitory area of an insulation material company in Yancheng, and it is legal to calculate the compensation for the respondent according to the urban standard. On the other hand, according to the provisions of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court, the economic compensation for many disabled people is calculated. If there is only one highest disability level, the final disability level can be above the highest level, and the heaviest level is the main basis for compensation. For each additional disability level, increase by 05, but the total increase cannot exceed one level. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to combine 1 to calculate the fifth-grade disability and second-grade disability of the respondent.
To sum up, the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct. I urge the court to dismiss the appeal according to law.
Maintain the original judgment.
I am here to convey
Yancheng intermediate people's court
Interviewee Li
Special Agent: Zhuxi, Jiangsu
Jiang Shubin, lawyer of law firm
XXXX，XXXX，XX，XX
?
Fan Wener:
Respondent: Chen Mou, male, Han nationality,1born on February 7th, 980, and his address is XX Street, Chang 'an District, Shijiazhuang.
The respondent's reply to the case of the appellant He Mou's land use right confirmation dispute is as follows:
First, the court of first instance found that the facts were correct, and the appellant claimed that there was no basis for the court of first instance to find that the facts were wrong.
The appellant claimed that in July and August 2006, it sold the property located at No.6 XX Street in Chang 'an District to the appellee through an intermediary, and agreed to pay173,000 yuan. The above facts were confirmed in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the facts were found to be correct. As for the Appellant's claim that the Appellee wants to give the tax payment certificate to the Appellee, and the Appellee modifies the house payment without authorization, it is purely out of thin air and does not belong to this case. In addition, the appellant failed to explain where the court of first instance found the facts wrong in the appeal, so the appellant thought that the appeal reason for finding the facts wrong in the first instance was not established.
Two, the appellant and the appellee have a clear agreement on the right to use the land.
In the house sales contract submitted by the appellee to the court of first instance, Article 3 stipulates? When Party A delivers the house to Party B, the land use right within the occupied area of the house shall be transferred to Party B together. ? Therefore, the appellant and the appellee clearly agreed on the land use right in the original house sales contract.
Three, the appellant thinks that the second judgment made by the court of first instance beyond the appellee's claim violates the principle of non-litigation and disregard in civil trial, which is invalid and cannot be established.
On the basis of finding out the facts of the case in court session, the people's court of first instance decided that the appellant should assist the appellee in handling the transfer procedures, which should be included in the confirmation of the ownership of the land use right. Since the land use right has been confirmed to belong to the appellee, if the appellant does not cooperate with the appellee in handling the transfer procedures of the land use right certificate, the court of first instance only confirmed its land use right, which has no practical significance.
To sum it up. The people's court of first instance found the facts clear and the judgment was legal and reasonable. Request the people's court of second instance to reject the appellant's appeal according to law and uphold the original judgment.