办 公:

手 机:

主页 > 新闻动态 > 婚姻调查 > 文章详情

离婚诉讼-被告上诉状

发布时间:2019-01-18 16:05
上诉人:陈xx,女,汉族,1981年9月12日生,住郑州市二七区xx村。
 
Appellant: Chen xx, female, Han nationality, born on September 12, 1981, living in XX village, Erqi District, Zhengzhou City.
 
 
 
被上诉人:刘xx,男,汉族,1978年8月25日生,住郑州市xx区xx路办事处xxx村18号。
 
Appellee: Liu xx, male, Han nationality, born on August 25, 1978, living in No. 18, XX Road Office, XX District, Zhengzhou City.
 
 
 
上诉人因与被上诉人离婚纠纷一案,不服郑州市xx区人民法院(2006)x民一初字第37xx号民事判决书,特依法提起上诉。
 
In the case of divorce dispute between the appellant and the appellant, the appellant refused to accept the civil judgment No. 37x X of the People's Court of x x District of Zhengzhou City (2006), and filed an appeal according to law.
 
 
 
上诉请求:
 
Appeal request:
 
 
 
1、请求二审法院依法撤销一审错误判决,并予以改判或者发回重审。
 
1. Request the court of second instance to revoke the wrong judgment of first instance according to law, and to change the judgment or send it back for retrial.
 
 
 
2、诉讼费判由被上诉人承担。
 
2. The litigation fee shall be borne by the appellant.
 
 
 
事实与理由:
 
Facts and Reasons:
 
 
 
一、一审判决认定上诉人与被上诉人已无和好可能、感情确已破裂,判令离婚,错误。
 
1. The first-instance judgment finds that the appellant and the appellant have no possibility of reconciliation, and that their feelings have indeed broken down. It orders divorce and makes mistakes.
 
 
 
上诉人与被上诉人于2001年恋爱至2002年4月10日登记结婚,在长达近一年的时间里,两人共同度过了漫长而又甜蜜的热恋岁月。两人从相识、相知到相爱,关系从恋人到夫妻,两人的感情也随着甜蜜爱情的浇灌,由热恋到结婚,双方相互了解,性格相投,爱好一致,自然建立了较好的夫妻感情。
 
The appellant and the appellant were in love in 2001 and registered to marry on April 10, 2002. In nearly a year, they had a long and sweet love life together. Two people from acquaintance, acquaintance to love, relationship from lover to husband and wife, their feelings are also watered by sweet love, from love to marriage, mutual understanding, similar personality, hobbies, naturally established a better relationship between husband and wife.
 
 
 
登记结婚不久,即2002年4月26日,上诉人因发生交通事故造成残疾,在此情况下,被上诉人与上诉人之间的感情不但没有破裂,反而使被上诉人更加关心、爱护、体贴上诉人,双方恩恩爱爱、卿卿我我的步入了婚礼的殿堂,即2003年4月举行了婚礼,这些都是铁的事实,这些事实不会随着上诉人发生交通事故造成残疾,也不会因为被上诉人的母亲劝说被上诉人离婚甩掉累赘而改变。
 
Shortly after the registration of the marriage, that is, on April 26, 2002, the Appellant was disabled due to a traffic accident. In this case, the relationship between the appellant and the appellant did not break down. On the contrary, the Appellant was more concerned, loving and considerate about the appellant. The love and affection between the two parties and the affection of the two parties entered the wedding hall, that is, the wedding was held in April 2003. These are all ironclad facts. These facts will not change with the appellant's disability caused by a traffic accident or the appellant's mother's persuasion to divorce the appellant.
 
 
 
被上诉人在先后中,均系母亲被迫而实施,被上诉人的表里不一,内心对上诉人及和上诉人温馨浪漫的共同生活非常思念、牵挂之恋,根本不愿意弃这个以前曾经拥有温馨的家,根本不愿意和上诉人离婚,导致今天两人离婚只是被上诉人父母被迫所致,因此,上诉人与被上诉人有很好的感情基础,双方相互思念,如果人为的把一个幸福美满的家庭拆散,还不如成全被上诉人和上诉人,而一审法院对此不予查明,人为的认定双方已无和好可能,感情确已破裂,显然错误,请二审人民法院查明本案事实后,予以改判或者发回重审。
 
In succession, the Appellant was forced to implement by his mother, the appellant's appearance was different, the appellant's heart missed and cared about the appellant and appellant's warm and romantic life together. He was unwilling to abandon the family which had been warm before, and he was unwilling to divorce the appellant at all. As a result, the divorce between the two people today was only caused by the parents of the appellant, so he appealed. People and the appellant have a good emotional foundation. Both sides miss each other. If a happy and happy family is artificially dismantled, it is better for the appellant and the appellant to be completely dismantled. If the court of first instance fails to ascertain this, it is impossible for the two parties to reconcile artificially, and their feelings have indeed broken down. Obviously, the people's court of second instance should correct the verdict or send it back to the people's court of second instance after ascertaining the facts of the case. Trial.
 
 
 
二、一审判决认定上诉人与被上诉人共同债务为23876.70元,错误。
 
2. The judgment of the first instance found that the joint debt of the appellant and the Appellant was 23876.70 yuan, which was wrong.
 
 
 
1、上诉人向其父亲先后借款共计115600元的共同债务,应依法认定。
 
1. The appellant's joint debts totaling 115,600 yuan borrowed from his father shall be recognized in accordance with the law.
 
 
 
上诉人于2002年4月26日发生交通事故,在郑州市第二人民医院住院治疗,于2002年10月31日出院,住院治疗费104660元。发生交通事故后,被上诉人母亲看到上诉人伤情严重,就制止被上诉人不准到医院陪护上诉人,在住院期间,所交的医疗费自然只能向自己的父母借款。出院时,共向其父亲借款110000元整,而交通事故的肇事方于2003年3月26日才向上诉人赔付医疗费、误工费、护理费、精神损害赔偿费等共计86300元。而一审判决连最起码的先后时间不予考虑,就径直对上诉人先后向其父亲陈喜拴借款共计115600元因被上诉人未签名、系父女关系不予认定,明显错误。 2、上诉人获得医疗费、误工费、伤残补助费等费用系上诉人的个人财产。
 
The Appellant was hospitalized in Zhengzhou Second People's Hospital on April 26, 2002 and discharged on October 31, 2002. The hospitalization fee was 104660 yuan. After a traffic accident, the mother of the appellant, seeing that the Appellant was seriously injured, stopped the appellant from accompanying the appellant in the hospital. During the hospitalization period, the medical expenses paid naturally could only be borrowed from her parents. When discharged from hospital, 110,000 yuan was borrowed from his father, while the party responsible for the traffic accident only paid the appellant 86,300 yuan for medical expenses, missed work expenses, nursing expenses and compensation for mental damage on March 26, 2003. Without considering the minimum time of the trial decision, the appellant directly borrowed 115,600 yuan from his father, Chen Xitie, because the appellant did not sign and the paternity relationship was not recognized, which was obviously wrong. 2. Appellant's medical expenses, missed work expenses, disability allowances and other expenses are the personal property of the appellant.
 
 
 
上诉人因交通事故致残,且在事故中承担重要责任,获得的赔偿费用86300元仅是总费用的40%。我国第18条规定:“有下列情况之一的,为夫妻一方财产:(一)、一方的;(二)、一方因身体受到伤害获得的医疗费、残疾人生活补助费等费用。”因此,上诉人获得40%的赔偿费用应系上诉人的个人财产。而一审判决混淆共同财产和个人财产的概念,获得赔偿的费用86300元和共同债务115600元相互冲抵后,就是共同债务,显然错误,望二审人民法院依法查明本案事实后,予以改判。
 
The appellant is disabled by traffic accident and bears important responsibility in the accident. The compensation cost of 86300 yuan is only 40% of the total cost. Article 18 of our country stipulates: "In one of the following circumstances, the property of one spouse is the property of one spouse: (1) the property of one spouse; (2) the expenses of medical treatment and living allowance for the disabled obtained by one spouse due to physical injury." Therefore, the appellant's 40% compensation fee should be the appellant's personal property. When the first instance judgment confuses the concepts of common property and personal property, the cost of compensation of 86300 yuan and the common debt of 1156,600 yuan offset each other, it is common debt. Obviously, it is wrong. We hope that the people's court of second instance will correct the judgment after finding out the facts of the case according to law.
 
 
 
三、一审判决对上诉人与被上诉人共同拥有的四层楼房因拆迁而获得的补偿费16万元的共同财产不予认定,错误。
 
3. The judgment of the first instance does not recognize the common property of the four-storey building owned by the appellant and the appellant, which is compensated by 160,000 yuan for demolition.
 
 
 
上诉人与被上诉人于2002年4月10日登记结婚,俩人为了有一个温馨而又美满的家庭,于2002年10月在郑州市郑东新区栋十里铺村建设了栋 400平方米的二层楼房,该楼房系上诉人与被上诉人结婚后共同建设的(有建筑许可证为证); 2005年初,因规划被拆迁,政府对该房屋补偿了16万元人民币(每平方米400元),该房屋拆迁补偿费系上诉人与被上诉人共同所有。上诉人在一审诉讼中,再三申请法院对该楼房拆迁补偿进行调查,而一审法院对该楼房的建设时间、坐落位置、拆迁时间、补偿标准、补偿费用的多少不予查明,以证据不足为由不予认定,明显错误。
 
The appellant and the appellant registered for marriage on April 10, 2002. In order to have a warm and happy family, they built a 400-square-metre two-storey building in Dongshilipu Village, Zhengdong New District, Zhengzhou City, in October 2002. The building was built jointly by the appellant and the appellant after their marriage (with building permit as certificate). In early 2005, the government demolished the building because of planning. The house compensation is 160,000 yuan (400 yuan per square meter). The house demolition compensation fee is owned jointly by the appellant and the appellant. In the first instance litigation, the appellant repeatedly applied for the court to investigate the compensation for the demolition of the building, while the court of first instance did not ascertain the construction time, location, demolition time, compensation standard and compensation cost of the building, and did not recognize it on the grounds of insufficient evidence, which was obviously wrong.
 
 
 
四、一审判决对上诉人与被上诉人举行婚礼时收取的礼钱5900元不予查明,错误。
 
Fourth, the first trial judgment failed to find out the 5,900 yuan of gifts charged by the appellant and the appellant at their wedding, which was wrong.
 
 
 
上诉人
 
Appellant

关于我们| 新闻动态| 成功案例| 收费标准| 服务范围| 联系我们|

Copyright © 2002-2017 DEDECMS. 上海腾达商务调查公司 版权所有