Le Hoang Diep Thao said "forced to divorce", the couple "king of coffee" appealed | News



[ad_1]

Before that, after nearly a month of trial in the lower court, on the afternoon of March 27, the HCM City People's Court sentenced and approved the parties to the divorce. As for the common child, Mrs. Thao created it and Mr. Vu had to support 10 billion VND / 4 children / year from 2013 until the children grew up and worked independently.

As for the division of 13 general properties (real estate), according to the court, the two sides agreed on the value of about 726 billion dong and the way of the division, each party enjoyed 50%. At the same time, at the trial, the parties agree that any owner and manager will continue to manage and own the property, so the Panel proclaims that Le Hoang Diep Thao continues to own 7 properties, Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu continues to own 6 properties remaining. Due to the disparity in property values ​​belonging to the parties, the Panel stated that Thao would pay the difference to Mr. Vu over 12 billion VND.

As for the assets are gold, foreign currencies, cash equivalent to more than VND 1,764 billion, the Panel proposes to divide according to the rate of 60% of Vu, Ms. Thao gets 40%. At the same time, Mr. Vu will hold all the common shares of the couple in Trung Nguyen and will refund an amount equivalent to 40% of the shares that Ms. Thao owns.

After calculating the common ownership of the proprietary parties and excluding obligations, the Panel declare Mr. Vu to pay more than the difference of 1.23 billion VND to Ms. Thao.

Le Hoang Diep Thao said she was forced to divorce; Mr Dang Le Nguyen Vu called for dividing 70% – 30%

Following the verdict mentioned above, on May 5, Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao lodged an appeal, saying that the first-instance verdict violated serious procedures.

Specifically, according to Ms. Thao, in the first instance trial, Ms. Thao decided to withdraw the application for divorce, the court must adjourn the case for Thao's family to meet again. "However, the Court of First Instance challenged the law to carry out a procedure to force the divorce so as not to let my family get together," said Thao's appeal.

As for her common assets as capital stock and contributions, Thao complained that when the court forced her to surrender her shares to Mr. Vu and receive the money, the Panel "deprived" of his property. , depriving the rights of a shareholder with a large percentage of shares in the Trung Nguyen Group

For gold, foreign currency, cash equivalent to more than 1,764 billion VND, according to Thao, the Panel said that "money in the account is common", but does not collect evidence about the establishment's time, base of establishment, no mediator of counterclaim demanded to split this money with Vu, so that the court's decision to resolve the request to split the amount of more than 1,764 billion dong was in spite of the regulation.

In addition, according to Ms. Thao, the Panel of first instance determines the division of assets Mr. Vu 60%, Ms. Thao 40% is impartial and skewed on the one hand and denies the contribution of Ms. Thao in his job. Group operations …

Le Hoang Diep Thao said "forced divorce," couple of coffee king & has appealed - photo 2 "data-src =" https://image.thanhnien.vn/660/uploaded/phanthuong/2019_04_18/ht_8_jqlk .jpg "caption =" Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao said "forced divorce & # 39; ; king coffee couple; appealed - photo 2 "style =" "/>

<div class=

Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu appeals for part of the lower court verdict.

HUNG THUAN

On the contrary, Mr Vu only appealed a part of the verdict of first instance, proposed the level of appeal to consider the division of assets at the rate of 70% (Mr. Vu) and Ms. Thao 30% for shares of the shares, share contribute capital of both in Trung Nguyen; assets are money, gold … more than 1,764 billion VND. Thus, Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu only had to pay the difference of more than 448 billion VND for Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao.

People's Committee of the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City appealed against the first-instance trial

According to the HCM City People's Procuratorate, the first-instance verdict violates the procedures and content.

Specifically, points firstThe verdict did not identify and incorrectly stated incorrect views of HCM City Attorney's representatives participating in the trial.

MondayThe Court violated the case when it accepted Mr. Vu's counter-claims treatment of the division of money, gold and foreign currencies, but did not hold a meeting to verify the delivery, access, publicity of evidence and conciliation. Prize before opening the trial.

TuesdayThe verdict proclaims the support time of 2013 until the children are mature, working and self-sufficient are not consistent with the will of the litigants at trial and make enforcement of the sentence difficult.

WednesdayThe judgment of the assets of the couple in 7 companies is not correct, the correct number is more than 5.655 billion VND, not more than 5.777 billion VND.

ThursdayDang Le Nguyen Vu divided his sentence to enjoy 60%, Ms. Le Hoang Diep Thao enjoyed that 40% of the shares were inappropriate, and awarded Mr. Vu ownership of all shares of 7 companies and pay the difference. Miss Thao's property is unfair, depriving Thao of her rights under the Business Act of 2014.

Friday, the judgment did not suspend the settlement of the petition and the counterclaim was omitted.

Saturday, judgments for the application of Resolution 326 of the Judges Committee as a basis for the calculation of judicial costs are not precise, due to the case of 2015.

Eighth, the judgment on the suspension of other litigant petitions for Trung Nguyen Group companies arising from commercial activities is beyond the uncontested litigant requirements. Micro resolution of the case and causing difficulties for the execution of the judgment.

Ninth, the court did not verify the origin of the amount of money, gold, foreign currency equivalent to more than 1,764 billion VND, but determined that common property to divide according to the antithesis of Mr. Dang Le Nguyen Vu is inadequate …

[ad_2]

Source link