Case analysis

   Beginning in 1999, Hongkong Yifeng Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Yi Feng company") and Chinese silk materials import and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Silk Company '') and Guangdong Ceramic Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as the" Tao ") respectively, signed a number of textile auxiliaries" order contract "by the company and silk; Guang Tao as the sale of goods trade agents will be purchased to Beijing de ERON Business Development Center (hereinafter referred to as" ERON ").

   The performance of the contract process, Yi Feng company has been clearing and end users in China, and silk company and wide pottery did not pay the purchase price under the imported goods, ERON center and Yi Feng company reached an agreement on October 31, 2002 "payment". "Agreement" said: "the party: ERON business development center in Beijing Germany; Party B: Hongkong Yi Feng Co. ltd.. In 1999 September to 2002 March, attached to this Protocol shall sell invoice copy of the products to Party A China by some foreign trade companies, foreign trade agency is end pay Party B loan products for US$335 257.27, Party A is willing to pay to Party B for the foreign trade agency without payment. Party A shall pay to Party B prior to 30 April 2003 a total of 1570000 yuan ", with silk and ceramic two salesman in the agreement signed witness column under. Since then, the ERON center paid 300000 yuan in loans, has not been to the Yi Feng company to pay the balance.

   In 2003 June, Yi Feng company filed a lawsuit in Beijing second intermediate people's court, asked ERON center, silk company, Guang Tao the repayment of arrears of 1270000 yuan, the defendant shall bear joint and several liability. In December the same year, the Beijing second intermediate people's court Jing Chu Zi No. 161st decision, confirmed that the ERON Center for the arts repayment obligations Feng company, ordered the ERON center in the decision within 10 days after the commencement to repay to Yi Feng company owed 1270000 yuan; that request the silk company jointly and severally liable to the debts of the the lack of factual and legal basis, Yi Feng company claims rejected silk company shall bear joint and several liability litigation request. Yifeng company did not appeal, the trial verdict.  

   In 2004, Yi Feng company and file a lawsuit to the Beijing second intermediate people's court, the prosecution silk company. Claim: No. 161st decision ruled out silk company determined in the "agreement" in the debt obligations, and then confirmed the Yifeng company on silk company to exercise such rights shall be carried out in the "Protocol" outside. Therefore, the company should pay off US$62 894 to Yi Feng company. Beijing City II hospital that Yi Feng's behavior belongs to repeat the procedure, the court rejected the Yi Feng companies prosecution.

   Yi Feng company refuses to accept, appealed to the Beijing Higher People's court. The Beijing Municipal Higher People's court after examination that the"Agreement" is: "to" contract "to fulfill the settlement, and also" purchase contract "debtor changes in the agreement," evidence "and" different purchase contract agreement "has become the same legal facts, and not the different legal relationship. From the 161 sentence on hearing the facts of expression can also see that the decision is in the view of the facts of the case of entity identification, it has explained the "purchase contract" has all the goods under delivery, the company did not pay off the debt, and the main body of the changes of the agreement, payment etc. Therefore, 161 case verdict on "purchase contract", "the purchase contract performance" and "Protocol" relationship, the relationship between the parties and other facts have to be heard. As for the decision on the facts and the applicable law is clear, comprehensive, whether there exists contradiction between the decision reason, whether express, treatment results are correct, the parties can appeal or complaint to the problem, and should not be interpreted as in the "Protocol" outside "purchase contract" again the facts of litigation. Therefore, the court considered that 161 judgment has been fully focus on the case of dispute between the parties and the fact of a substantive hearing, if Yi Feng company considers the case of incorrect handling, can this case filed an appeal or complaint within the statutory time limit. The court should not be "facts" of the case on the purchase contract again".Finally, the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court rejected the appeal, maintain the original order.

   Please theory and res judicata in litigation of the Beijing second intermediate people's court and the Supreme People's Court of Beijing on the propriety of V.

Answer:

The litigation, the meaning of meaning, identification

   The object of action is the elements of lawsuit, refers to the civil legal relations between the parties in civil litigation dispute and request the people's court judge. Each procedure must contain at least one object of action, not the litigation is not exist. Litigation as the people's court civil trial object, the recognition is very important, there are theoretical recognition of different subject matter of litigation, the litigation theory occupies dominant position. The new theory of object of action, the claims and facts is reason to determine the object of litigation theory. To determine the significance of litigation is that: the parties are carried out around the subject of the proceedings in the litigation process, the decision of the court of final disposal of litigation, litigation is to identify whether the court for the same litigation evidence. The last point is crucial, which relates to the civil litigation "non bis in idem" implementation basis.

The case before and after the action object of litigation is the same

   In this case, the company signed with Phoenix silk company, Guang Tao "purchase contract", that the legal relationship of agency between Yi Feng company and silk company, Yi Feng company and wide pottery. The performance of the contract, Yi Feng company has direct calculation and end customers, agents that front is manifest agency. "Agreement" agreed to by the ERON center to Yi Feng company to pay the purchase price, company wide silk, pottery salesman are witness, signature, this is actually a creditors agree to transfer of debt. From the legal relationship of agency, it shall be made to provide goods payment payment agent, agent. While the "Protocol" agreed by the third party payment, payment, namely the change in agency relationship of contract for the sale of the debtor.

   Before prosecution, litigation Yi Feng company, ERON company, Ltd., Guangzhou silk pottery as a co defendant. According to the new theory of object of action, the claims are required to pay the remaining amount, the facts and grounds is based on "contract" and "agreement", should be the object of action is the payment of legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The latter litigation, Yi Feng Co. v. silk company, request the court to order the company to pay off the loan. After the lawsuit request with the same procedure before, or after the lawsuit request is part of a procedure before litigation request, the facts and reasons of the action is the "purchase contract". After the claim in litigation of payment of legal relationship is also art Feng company and silk company, but the object of action is also the former litigation of stripping. Yi Feng two lawsuit purpose is the same, is to discuss the purchase price, the former litigation the plaintiff will ERON center, company wide silk, pottery as a co defendant, is requesting the court to confirm the payment of legal relations between the defendant and three respectively, and the three defendant shall bear joint and several liability. The court made clear in the ERON center to assume responsibility, and silk company does not assume responsibility, namely, whether the existence of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the payment of silk company. According to the civil law "non bis in idem" principle, the parties can not according to the same legal fact filed repeated complaints, the Beijing second intermediate people's court ruled that the prosecution dismissed in accordance with the law. The art of Feng company can actually to appeal court confirmed that the company does not exist and wire payment obligation is to appeal against the verdict.

The theory of res Judicata

   Res judicata is about the end of litigation litigation theory, said popular point, res judicata is identified certainty has effective judgment, marking the same litigation cases have not re judgment, validity and made after the judgment or ruling, decision must acknowledge and abide by the former adjudication decision.

   For the parties to the same matter, a dispute, not allowed to raise legal fact has been determined and judgment conflicting claims. In this case, before the appeal of the verdict has been identified as the silk company should not assume joint responsibility, and silk company does not undertake any payment obligations. The plaintiff to bring litigation request is clearly contrary to the effective content of judgement, in violation of the principle of res judicata, the court should not support. Therefore, the Beijing high court ruling in accordance with law.