人民法院典型案例（共4个）

目录

1．沙港公司诉开天公司执行分配方案异议案

2．张丰春与泰安市中心医院医疗服务合同纠纷案

3．赵春连申请执行张宇昊机动车交通事故案

4．潘文才申请执行债权转让合同纠纷案

一、沙港公司诉开天公司执行分配方案异议案

（一）基本案情

2010年6月11日，松江法院作出（2010）松民二（商）初字第275号民事判决，茸城公司应当向沙港公司支付货款以及相应利息损失。275号案判决生效后进入执行程序，因未查实茸城公司可供执行的财产线索，终结执行。茸城公司被注销后，沙港公司申请恢复执行，松江法院裁定恢复执行，并追加茸城公司股东开天公司及7名自然人股东为被执行人，并在各自出资不实范围内向沙港公司承担责任，扣划到开天公司和4个自然人股东款项共计696,505.68元（包括开天公司出资不足的45万元）。2012年7月18日，该院分别立案受理由开天公司提起的两个诉讼：（2012）松民二（商）初字第1436号案和（2012）松民三（民）初字第2084号案，开天公司要求茸城公司8个股东在各自出资不实范围内对茸城公司欠付开天公司借款万元以及相应利息、房屋租金以及相应逾期付款违约金承担连带清偿责任。该两案判决生效后均进入执行程序。

2013年2月27日，沙港公司收到松江法院执行局送达的《被执行人茸城公司追加股东执行款分配方案表》。分配方案表将上述三案合并，确定执行款696,505.68元在先行发还三案诉讼费用后，余款再按31.825%同比例分配，今后继续执行到款项再行分配处理。沙港公司后向松江法院提交《执行分配方案异议书》，认为开天公司不能就其因出资不到位而被扣划的款项参与分配，且对分配方案未将逾期付款双倍利息纳入执行标的不予认可开天公司对沙港公司上述执行分配方案异议提出反对意见，要求按原定方案分配。松江法院将此函告沙港公司，2013年4月27日，松江法院依法受理原告沙港公司提起的本案诉讼。

另查明，上述三案裁判文书认定了茸城公司股东各自应缴注册资本金数额和实缴数额的情况。

（二）裁判结果

法院一审认为，本案是一起执行分配方案异议之诉。原、被告双方在本案中围绕相关执行分配方案存在两个争议焦点，一是针对开天公司出资不实而被法院扣划的45万元，开天公司能否以对公司也享有债权为由与沙港公司共同分配该部分执行款；二是执行标的是否应包括加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。关于第一个争议焦点，公司法律明确规定有限责任公司的股东以其认缴的出资额为限对公司承担责任。开天公司因出资不实而被扣划的45万元应首先补足茸城公司责任资产向作为公司外部的债权人原告沙港公司进行清偿。开天公司以其对茸城公司也享有债权要求参与其自身被扣划款项的分配，对公司外部债权人是不公平的，也与公司股东以其出资对公司承担责任的法律原则相悖。696,505.68元执行款中的45万元应先由原告受偿，余款再按比例进行分配的意见予以采纳。关于第二个争议焦点，相关275号案、1436号案、2084号案民事判决书均判令如债务人未按指定期间履行金钱债务的，须加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。故对原告沙港公司关于执行标的应包括加倍支付迟延履行债务期间的利息的主张，予以采纳。原被告双方均对各自主张的迟延履行期间双倍利息明确了计算方式，原告沙港公司对系争执行分配方案所提主张基本成立，法院依法予以调整。一审判决后，当事人均未提出上诉，一审判决生效。

（三）典型意义

本案当事人对执行分配方案的主要争议在于，出资不实股东因向公司外部债权人承担出资不实的股东责任并被扣划款项后，能否以其对于公司的债权与外部债权人就上述款项进行分配。对此，我国法律尚未明确规定，而美国历史上深石案所确立的衡平居次原则对本案的处理具有一定的借鉴意义。在该类案件的审判实践中，若允许出资不实的问题股东就其对公司的债权与外部债权人处于同等受偿顺位，既会导致对公司外部债权人不公平的结果，也与公司法对于出资不实股东课以的法律责任相悖。故本案最终否定了出资不实股东进行同等顺位受偿的主张，社会效果较好，对同类案件的处理也有较好的借鉴意义。

二、张丰春与泰安市中心医院医疗服务合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

原告张丰春因道路交通事故受伤在山东省泰安市中心医院住院治疗，入院伤情诊断为全身多处软组织伤，住院43天，住院期间花费医疗费16747.64元、检查费4元，共计16751.64元。原告出院后，以机动车交通事故责任为由将侵权人孔凡忠及中华联合保险泰安支公司诉至泰安市泰山区人民法院，要求赔偿其因交通事故所遭受的经济损失。该案在审理过程中，中华联合保险泰安支公司申请对原告住院期间的用药合理性进行审查，剔除与交通事故所致伤情无关的用药。泰安东岳司法鉴定所出具司法鉴定意见书认为：被鉴定人张丰春住院期间所用药物奥扎格雷钠适应症为治疗急性血栓性脑梗死和脑梗死所伴随的运动障碍，被鉴定人本次交通事故损伤诊断为全身多处软组织挫伤，因此奥扎格雷钠为本次损伤治疗中的不合理用药，应去除费用为7250.40元。原告对该鉴定结论提出异议，并申请司法鉴定人员杨丰强出庭接受质询，同时申请其主治医师娄彦华、王震出庭作证，原告主治医师亦未能明确证明药品奥扎格雷钠的使用与治疗原告伤情之间的合理性与必要性。法院对鉴定意见予以采纳，判决认定原告受伤住院治疗过程中因使用奥扎格雷钠所花费的7250.40元为不合理用药，应在赔偿范围内予以扣除。因此，原告诉至法院，要求被告泰安市中心医院赔偿其因不合理用药所受到的经济损失。

（二）裁判结果

泰安市泰安区人民法院经审理认为，原告在被告处住院治疗，原、被告之间形成医疗服务合同关系，被告应当根据原告的病情使用药物并按照正确的方法、手段为原告提供医疗服务。根据泰安东岳司法鉴定所鉴定意见书以及民事判决书，足以认定原告张丰春因交通事故受伤住院期间所用药物奥扎格雷钠为不合理用药。药物奥扎格雷钠适应症为治疗急性血栓性脑梗死和脑梗死所伴随的运动障碍。原告陈述其并未有急性血栓性脑梗死及相关病史，在被告出具的住院病案中现病史、既往史部分亦未发现原告患有或曾经患有上述病症的记载。因此，被告泰安市中心医院未根据原告的病情为原告提供合理、恰当的医疗服务，原告因被告在治疗过程中不合理用药行为所造成的损失，应当由被告予以赔偿。法院判决泰安市中心医院赔偿原告张丰春经济损失共计7750.40元。被告已按判决履行完毕。

（三）典型意义

医疗服务合同是调整医疗机构与患者之间权利义务关系的合同，我国现阶段医疗纠纷日益增加，不仅影响到患者及家属的心理，也加重了医务人员的心理压力，降低了医疗单位和医务人员在社会上的声誉形象。在实践中确实存在部分医疗机构或医务人员为了追求经济利益，给患者开出价格较为昂贵或不必要的药物，加重了患者的经济负担。本案判令被告泰安市中心医院赔偿原告因不合理用药行为给原告造成的经济损失。通过本案，提醒医疗机构在为患者提供服务的过程中，应秉承“救死扶伤、治病救人”的宗旨，本着必要、合理的原则，为患者提供恰当的治疗方案，加强与患者及患者家属之间的沟通，充分尊重患者的知情权，以构建和谐的医患关系。

三、赵春连申请执行张宇昊机动车交通事故案

（一）基本案情

2010年7月31日21时41分李福胜驾驶三轮车（后乘申请人赵春连）与被执行人张宇昊发生机动车交通事故。事故造成赵春连脑外伤精神分裂，一级伤残，丧失诉讼能力，经交管部门鉴定，张宇昊负事故全部责任。2011年3月，赵春连之夫李福胜代其向北京市丰台区人民法院提起诉讼。北京市丰台区人民法院一审判决：张宇昊赔付赵春连医疗费、误工费、残疾赔偿金、住院伙食补助等共计129万余元。判决作出后，张宇昊向北京市第二中级人民法院提起上诉，北京市第二中级人民法院作出民事调解书，该调解书确定张宇昊分期给付赵春连各项赔偿款共计90万元。张宇昊于调解书作出当日给付赵春连20万元，其后对剩余赔偿款便不再按调解书继续给付。故李福胜代赵春连于2012年7月23日向北京市丰台区人民法院申请强制执行，该院依法受理。

在执行过程中，法院及时发出执行通知并多次传唤被执行人张宇昊，张宇昊拒不露面、隐匿行踪，承办法官多次到被执行人住所地查找张宇昊，亦未发现其下落。张宇昊名下的肇事车辆被依法查封档案，但无法查找到该车，其名下七个银行账户余额为零或只有几十元钱，名下也无房产登记信息，案件未能取得实际进展。该案申请执行人赵春连丧失劳动能力且生活不能自理，被执行人拒不执行的行为致使申请执行人一家的生活陷入困境。为维护申请执行人的合法权益，法院加大了对被执行人张宇昊财产线索的查找力度，承办法官先后到保险公司、银行等机构查询张宇昊的保险理赔金支取情况和资金往来状况，发现张宇昊在二审调解后申请执行前将保险公司赔付的10万元商业第三者责任险保险理赔金领取但未支付给申请执行人。同时，发现其银行账户虽无存款但之前每月有5000余元的流水记录。查明上述情况后，承办法官立即与被执行人张宇昊的父亲取得联系，要求张宇昊尽快履行义务，张宇昊父亲声称张宇昊不在北京且其无能力履行，张宇昊本人则仍旧拒不露面。鉴于张宇昊转移财产、规避执行的上述行为，依据法律有关规定，2014年10月18日, 北京市丰台区人民法院以涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪将案件移送北京市公安局丰台分局立案侦查。

（二）执行结果

北京市丰台区人民法院受理案件后，被执行人张宇昊拒不露面，转移财产，规避执行，涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。北京市丰台区人民法院将案件证据线索移送公安机关立案侦查后，张宇昊主动交纳10万元案款，其被刑事拘留后，张宇昊亲属将剩余60万元执行款交到法院，该案得以顺利执结。同时北京市公安局丰台分局以涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪将张宇昊移送到北京市丰台区人民检察院提起公诉。2015年2月4日，北京市丰台区人民法院依法判处张宇昊有期徒刑6个月，缓期一年执行。

（三）典型意义

本案是一起因被执行人拒不执行而将其犯罪线索移送公安机关追究其刑事责任的典型案例。本案标的额较大，所以在考虑被执行人履行能力的情况下，二审法院调解书确定被告张宇昊分期履行。但被告张宇昊在调解书生效后并没有积极的履行义务，无视法院判决，蔑视司法权威。申请执行人赵春连申请执行后，被执行人张宇昊又故意隐匿行踪，转移财产规避执行，主观恶意明显，并导致申请执行人因事故造成的损害进一步扩大，使其家庭生活陷入极度的困顿。在法官掌握被告转移财产、规避执行的证据后再次要求被执行人履行义务，并告知其如果继续规避执行将要承担刑事责任，但被执行人依旧拒不露面，抗拒法院执行，无视司法权威。鉴于被执行人的上述行为，承办法官依据相关法律规定，将其拒不执行法院生效判决的证据和线索移送公安机关，由公安机关立案侦查，追究其刑事责任。最终在刑事处罚的威慑下，被执行人主动履行了判决义务，这也从另一个方面证明了其实际具有履行能力，被执行人张宇昊必将因其损害司法权威，妨害司法秩序的行为而付出沉重的代价。该案通过追究被执行人刑事责任，维护了申请人的合法权益，捍卫了法律和司法的尊严，警示和威慑了所有意图拒不履行义务，拒不履行法院判决、裁定确定义务的被执行人。

四、潘文才申请执行债权转让合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

申请人潘文财依据北京市第二中级人民法院作出的民事判决，向北京市通州区人民法院申请执行，要被执行人中扶建设有限责任公司北京路通同泰建筑分公司（以下简称路通同泰建筑分公司）给付货款、违约金、迟延履行期间的债务利息，共计115万余元。执行法院通过相关查询、现场勘查，发现路通同泰建筑分公司没有能力履行全部债务。

（二）执行结果

北京市通州区人民法院经查明：被执行人路通同泰建筑分公司系企业法人的分支机构，并不具有独立承担民事责任的法人资格。中扶建设有限责任公司为企业法人，其系被执行人路通同泰建筑分公司的开办单位，其所设立的分支机构在不能对外清偿债务时，企业法人应对其设立的分支机构对外承担清偿责任。故依法裁定：追加中扶建设有限责任公司为本案被执行人。随后北京市通州区人民法院对中扶建设有限责任公司采取了一系列强制执行措施，将本案执结。

（三）典型意义

本案是一起个人与分公司之间产生的债权转让合同纠纷，属于典型的分公司无力还款，总公司承担责任的执行案件。在追加中扶建设有限责任公司（以下简称中扶建设公司）为被执行人后，该企业懈怠履行债务，逃避执行，严重损害了申请人的合法权益。执行法院对中扶建设公司采取了一系列的执行措施。其中，采用具有执行联动效应的失信被执行人制度，将中扶建设公司纳入失信被执行人名单，向全社会公布。同时，对中扶建设公司限制高消费，对负有直接责任的法定代表人庄清良限制高消费、罚款，以进行惩戒。中扶建设公司因企业纳入失信名单而不能开展招投标业务，法人代表庄清良个人受到处罚等原因，该公司主动与申请人潘文财进行协商，达成和解协议，按约履行了相关债务。

在本案执行中，北京市通州区人民法院通过依法追加被执行人，维护了申请人的权益。执行法官在执行中采用多种执行措施，运用相关联动机制，对被执行人及法定代表人进行威慑，促成其积极履行债务。同时，有关企业可以从本案中认识到总公司的法律责任，以及涉及的法律风险，在一定程度上可规范相关企业的行为。

Typical Cases of People's Courts (4 in total)

catalogue

1. Sand Port Company v. Kaitian Company for Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan

2. Dispute case between Zhang Fengchun and the medical service contract of Tai'an Central Hospital

3. Zhao Chunlian's Application for Execution of Zhang Yuhao's Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Case

4. Pan Wencai's Application for the Execution of the Dispute over the Contract for the Transfer of Creditor's Rights

1、 Sha Gang Company v. Kai Tian Company for Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 11, 2010, the Songjiang Court issued a civil judgment (2010) Songmin'er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 275, stating that Rongcheng Company should pay the payment and corresponding interest losses to Shagang Company. After the judgment in Case No. 275 came into effect, the execution process was terminated due to the failure to verify the property clues available for execution by Rongcheng Company. After the cancellation of Rongcheng Company, Shagang Company applied for resumption of execution, and the Songjiang Court ruled to resume execution. The shareholders of Rongcheng Company, Kaitian Company and 7 natural person shareholders, were added as the executors, and they were responsible to Shagang Company within the scope of their respective false contributions. A total of 696505.68 yuan (including 450000 yuan of insufficient contributions from Kaitian Company) was deducted from the funds of Kaitian Company and 4 natural person shareholders. On July 18, 2012, the court filed two lawsuits against Kaitian Company: (2012) Songmin Er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 1436 case and (2012) Songmin San (Min) Chu Zi No. 2084 case. Kaitian Company required 8 shareholders of Rongcheng Company to bear joint and several liability for the debt owed by Rongcheng Company to Kaitian Company of RMB 10000, as well as corresponding interest, housing rent, and corresponding overdue payment penalty, within the scope of their respective false capital contributions. After the judgments in both cases take effect, they enter the execution process.

On February 27, 2013, Shagang Company received the "Distribution Plan for Additional Shareholders' Execution Funds of the Executed Person Rongcheng Company" sent by the Executive Bureau of Songjiang Court. The distribution plan table consolidates the three cases mentioned above, and determines that the execution amount of 696505.68 yuan will be distributed in the same proportion as 31.825% after the first repayment of the litigation costs in the three cases. In the future, the execution will continue until the payment is distributed. Shagang Company later submitted an "Objection to the Implementation of the Distribution Plan" to the Songjiang Court, stating that Kaitian Company cannot participate in the distribution of the funds deducted due to insufficient capital contributions, and does not recognize the failure of the distribution plan to include double interest on overdue payments as the subject matter of execution. Kaitian Company raised objections to Shagang Company's aforementioned implementation of the distribution plan and requested that it be distributed according to the original plan. The Songjiang Court filed this letter with Shagang Company. On April 27, 2013, the Songjiang Court accepted the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Shagang Company in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, it has been found that the above-mentioned three cases' judgment documents have determined the amount of registered capital that each shareholder of Rongcheng Company should pay and the actual amount paid.

（2） Judgment results

The court held in the first instance that this case is an objection to the implementation of the distribution plan. There are two controversial points between the plaintiff and defendant in this case regarding the relevant execution distribution plan. Firstly, regarding the deduction of 450000 yuan by the court due to the untrue investment of Kaitian Company, can Kaitian Company jointly distribute this part of the execution payment with Shagang Company on the grounds that it also has a debt to the company; The second is whether the subject matter of execution should include double payment of debt interest during the delayed performance period. Regarding the first focus of controversy, the company law clearly stipulates that shareholders of a limited liability company shall be liable to the company to the extent of their subscribed capital contributions. The 450000 yuan deducted by Kaitian Company due to false investment should first supplement the liability assets of Rongcheng Company to repay the plaintiff Shagang Company as an external creditor of the company. Kaitian Company demands to participate in the distribution of its own deducted funds due to its creditor's rights towards Rongcheng Company, which is unfair to external creditors of the company and contradicts the legal principle that shareholders of the company are responsible for the company based on their capital contributions. The suggestion that 450000 yuan of the execution fee of 696505.68 yuan should be compensated by the plaintiff first, and the remaining amount should be distributed proportionally should be adopted. Regarding the second focus of controversy, the relevant civil judgments in cases 275, 1436, and 2084 have all ordered that if the debtor fails to fulfill the monetary debt within the specified period, the debt interest during the delayed performance period must be doubled. Therefore, the plaintiff Shagang Company's claim that the subject matter of execution should include double payment of interest during the period of delayed performance of the debt is adopted. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have clarified the calculation method for the double interest claimed during the delayed performance period. The plaintiff Shagang Company's claim for the disputed execution distribution plan is basically valid, and the court has made adjustments in accordance with the law. After the first instance judgment, if no party has filed an appeal, the first instance judgment shall take effect.

（3） Typical significance

The main dispute between the parties involved in this case regarding the implementation of the distribution plan lies in whether the shareholders who make false contributions can distribute the above-mentioned funds with external creditors based on their creditor's rights to the company after assuming shareholder responsibility for the false contributions to external creditors of the company and being deducted funds. In this regard, Chinese law has not yet clearly stipulated it, and the principle of equitable subordination established in the Deep Stone case in American history has certain reference significance for the handling of this case. In the trial practice of such cases, allowing shareholders with false capital contributions to be in the same order of repayment as external creditors for their debts to the company will not only result in unfair treatment of external creditors of the company, but also contradict the legal responsibilities imposed by the company law on shareholders with false capital contributions. Therefore, this case ultimately denied the claim that shareholders with false capital contributions should receive equal compensation in order, which has a good social effect and has good reference significance for the handling of similar cases.

2、 Zhang Fengchun and the Medical Service Contract Dispute Case of Tai'an Central Hospital

（1） Basic facts of the case

The plaintiff Zhang Fengchun was injured in a road traffic accident and hospitalized at Tai'an Central Hospital in Shandong Province. The diagnosis of the injury was multiple soft tissue injuries throughout the body, and he was hospitalized for 43 days. During the hospitalization, he spent 16747.64 yuan on medical expenses and 4 yuan on examination fees, totaling 16751.64 yuan. After leaving the hospital, the plaintiff sued the infringer Kong Fanzhong and China United Insurance Tai'an Branch Company to the People's Court of Mount Taishan District, Tai'an City for compensation for their economic losses caused by the traffic accident on the ground of motor vehicle traffic accident liability. During the trial process of this case, China United Insurance Taian Branch applied to review the rationality of the plaintiff's medication during hospitalization, and excluded medication unrelated to the injuries caused by traffic accidents. The judicial appraisal opinion issued by the Tai'an Dongyue Judicial Appraisal Institute believes that the indication for the medication used by Zhang Fengchun during his hospitalization, ozagrel sodium, is to treat acute thrombotic cerebral infarction and the movement disorders accompanying cerebral infarction. The traffic accident injury of the appraised person was diagnosed as multiple soft tissue contusions throughout the body. Therefore, ozagrel sodium is an unreasonable medication in the treatment of this injury, and the cost should be removed at 7250.40 yuan. The plaintiff raised objections to the appraisal conclusion and applied for judicial appraiser Yang Fengqiang to appear in court for questioning. At the same time, they applied for their attending physicians Lou Yanhua and Wang Zhen to testify in court. The plaintiff's attending physicians also failed to clearly prove the rationality and necessity between the use of the drug Ozagrel sodium and the treatment of the plaintiff's injury. The court accepted the appraisal opinion and ruled that the 7250.40 yuan spent on the use of ozagrel sodium during the plaintiff's hospitalization for injury was unreasonable medication and should be deducted within the compensation scope. Therefore, the plaintiff informed the court and requested the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital to compensate for the economic losses suffered due to unreasonable medication.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tai'an District, Tai'an City, after trial, found that the plaintiff was hospitalized at the defendant's place for treatment, and a medical service contract relationship was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant should use drugs based on the plaintiff's condition and provide medical services to the plaintiff in the correct way and means. According to the appraisal opinion and civil judgment of the Tai'an Dongyue Judicial Appraisal Institute, it is sufficient to determine that the drug Ozagrel sodium used by the plaintiff Zhang Fengchun during his hospitalization due to traffic accident injury is unreasonable. The indication for the drug ozagrel sodium is to treat acute thrombotic cerebral infarction and motor disorders associated with cerebral infarction. The plaintiff stated that they did not have a history of acute thrombotic cerebral infarction or related diseases, and there were no records of the plaintiff suffering from or having suffered from the aforementioned diseases in the current and past medical records provided by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital did not provide reasonable and appropriate medical services to the plaintiff based on their condition. The plaintiff should compensate for the losses caused by the defendant's unreasonable medication behavior during the treatment process. The court ruled that Tai'an Central Hospital compensated the plaintiff Zhang Fengchun with a total of 7750.40 yuan in economic losses. The defendant has fulfilled the judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Medical service contracts are contracts that adjust the rights and obligations between medical institutions and patients. At present, the number of medical disputes in China is increasing, which not only affects the psychology of patients and their families, but also increases the psychological pressure of medical personnel, reducing the reputation and image of medical units and medical personnel in society. In practice, there are indeed some medical institutions or personnel who prescribe expensive or unnecessary drugs to patients in pursuit of economic benefits, which increases the economic burden on patients. This case orders the defendant Tai'an Central Hospital to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses caused by the plaintiff's unreasonable drug use behavior. Through this case, it is reminded that medical institutions should adhere to the principle of "saving lives and injuries, treating diseases and saving people" in the process of providing services to patients, provide appropriate treatment plans for patients based on necessary and reasonable principles, strengthen communication with patients and their families, fully respect patients' right to know, and build a harmonious doctor-patient relationship.

3、 Zhao Chunlian's Application for Execution of Zhang Yuhao's Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

At 21:41 on July 31, 2010, Li Fusheng had a motor vehicle traffic accident with the respondent Zhang Yuhao while driving a tricycle (later taking the applicant Zhao Chunlian). The accident caused Zhao Chunlian to suffer from traumatic brain injury and schizophrenia, with first degree disability and loss of litigation ability. After appraisal by the traffic management department, Zhang Yuhao is fully responsible for the accident. In March 2011, Li Fusheng, the husband of Zhao Chunlian, filed a lawsuit on his behalf to the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing. The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing: Zhang Yuhao compensated Zhao Chunlian with a total of over 1.29 million yuan in medical expenses, work delay expenses, disability compensation, and hospitalization food subsidies. After the judgment was made, Zhang Yuhao appealed to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, which issued a civil mediation agreement that determined that Zhang Yuhao would pay Zhao Chunlian a total of 900000 yuan in compensation in installments. Zhang Yuhao paid Zhao Chunlian 200000 yuan on the day of the mediation agreement, and the remaining compensation will no longer be paid according to the mediation agreement. Therefore, Li Fusheng, on behalf of Zhao Chunlian, applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Fengtai District, Beijing on July 23, 2012, which was accepted in accordance with the law.

During the execution process, the court promptly issued a notice of execution and repeatedly summoned the person subjected to execution, Zhang Yuhao. Zhang Yuhao refused to appear or hide his whereabouts. The presiding judge visited the person's residence multiple times to search for Zhang Yuhao, but did not find his whereabouts. The accident vehicle under Zhang Yuhao's name has been sealed down according to law, but the vehicle cannot be found. The balance of seven bank accounts under his name is zero or only a few tens of yuan, and there is no real estate registration information under his name. The case has not made actual progress. The person applying for execution in this case, Zhao Chunlian, lost his ability to work and was unable to take care of himself. The refusal of the person being executed resulted in a difficult life for the applicant's family. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement, the court has increased its efforts to search for clues about the property of the executed person Zhang Yuhao. The presiding judge has visited insurance companies, banks, and other institutions to inquire about Zhang Yuhao's insurance claim withdrawal and financial transactions. It was found that Zhang Yuhao received the 100000 yuan commercial third-party liability insurance claim paid by the insurance company before applying for enforcement after mediation in the second instance, but did not pay it to the applicant for enforcement. At the same time, it was found that although there were no deposits in his bank account, he had a monthly record of over 5000 yuan. After investigating the above situation, the presiding judge immediately contacted the father of the executed person Zhang Yuhao and demanded that Zhang Yuhao fulfill his obligations as soon as possible. Zhang Yuhao's father claimed that Zhang Yuhao was not in Beijing and was unable to fulfill his obligations, while Zhang Yuhao himself still refused to appear. In view of Zhang Yuhao's above-mentioned behavior of transferring property and evading execution, in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, on October 18, 2014, the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing transferred the case to the Fengtai Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau for investigation on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

（2） Execution results

After the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing accepted the case, the person subjected to execution, Zhang Yuhao, refused to appear, transferred his property, and evaded execution, suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. After the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing transferred the evidence clues of the case to the public security organs for investigation, Zhang Yuhao voluntarily paid 100000 yuan in the case. After being criminally detained, Zhang Yuhao's relatives handed over the remaining 600000 yuan in execution to the court, and the case was successfully concluded. At the same time, the Fengtai Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau transferred Zhang Yuhao to the Fengtai District People's Procuratorate of Beijing for prosecution on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. On February 4, 2015, the Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing sentenced Zhang Yuhao to six months in prison with a one-year reprieve in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the person being executed refuses to execute and the criminal clues are transferred to the public security organs to pursue their criminal responsibility. The subject matter of this case is relatively large, so considering the ability of the person to be executed to perform, the mediation agreement of the second instance court determines that the defendant Zhang Yuhao will perform in installments. But the defendant Zhang Yuhao did not actively fulfill his obligations after the mediation agreement came into effect, disregarding the court's judgment and disregarding judicial authority. After the applicant Zhao Chunlian applied for execution, the executed person Zhang Yuhao intentionally concealed his whereabouts and transferred his property to evade execution, with obvious subjective malice, which further expanded the damage caused by the accident to the applicant and caused extreme hardship to his family life. After the judge obtained evidence of the defendant's transfer of property and evasion of execution, he again demanded that the person subjected to execution fulfill his obligations and informed him that if he continued to evade execution, he would bear criminal responsibility. However, the person subjected to execution still refused to appear, resisted court execution, and disregarded judicial authority. In view of the above-mentioned actions of the person subjected to execution, the presiding judge shall, in accordance with relevant legal provisions, transfer the evidence and clues of their refusal to execute the effective judgment of the court to the public security organs for investigation and investigation, and hold them criminally responsible. In the end, under the deterrence of criminal punishment, the executed person voluntarily fulfilled the judgment obligation, which also proves from another aspect that they actually have the ability to fulfill. The executed person Zhang Yuhao will inevitably pay a heavy price for his actions that damage judicial authority and disrupt judicial order. This case has upheld the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, safeguarded the dignity of the law and the judiciary, and warned and deterred all executed persons who intend to refuse to fulfill their obligations or refuse to fulfill the obligations determined by court judgments and rulings.

4、 Pan Wencai's Application for Execution of the Dispute over the Contract for Transfer of Creditor's Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

The applicant Pan Wenchai, based on the civil judgment made by the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, applies to the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing for enforcement. The respondent, Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. Beijing Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch (hereinafter referred to as Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch), is required to pay the payment, penalty, and debt interest during the delayed performance period, totaling over 1.15 million yuan. The execution court found through relevant inquiries and on-site inspections that the Road Tong Tai Construction Branch is unable to fulfill all its debts.

（2） Execution results

After investigation by the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, it has been found that the defendant, Lutong Tongtai Construction Branch, is a branch of an enterprise legal person and does not have the legal personality to independently bear civil liability. Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. is an enterprise legal person, which is the founding unit of the executed person Road Tong Tai Construction Branch. When the branch established by Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. is unable to repay its debts to the outside world, the enterprise legal person shall be responsible for the repayment of the branch established by it to the outside world. Therefore, it is ruled in accordance with the law that Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. shall be added as the person to be executed in this case. Subsequently, the People's Court of Tongzhou District in Beijing took a series of compulsory enforcement measures against Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd., and the case was concluded.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a dispute over a debt transfer contract between an individual and a branch, which is a typical execution case where the branch is unable to repay and the head office assumes responsibility. After adding Zhongfu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongfu Construction Company) as the subject of execution, the enterprise neglected to fulfill its debts, evaded execution, and seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant. The enforcement court has taken a series of enforcement measures against Zhongfu Construction Company. Among them, a dishonest executor system with execution linkage effect is adopted, and Zhongfu Construction Company is included in the list of dishonest executors and announced to the whole society. At the same time, the Zhongfu Construction Company is restricted from high consumption, and the legal representative Zhuang Qingliang, who is directly responsible, is restricted from high consumption and fined for punishment. Zhongfu Construction Company was unable to carry out bidding business due to being included in the dishonest list, and the legal representative Zhuang Qingliang was personally punished. The company took the initiative to negotiate with the applicant Pan Wenchai, reached a settlement agreement, and fulfilled the relevant debts as agreed.

In the execution of this case, the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing upheld the rights and interests of the applicant by adding the executed person in accordance with the law. The executing judge adopts various execution measures and relevant linkage mechanisms to deter the executed person and legal representative, and promote their active performance of debts. At the same time, relevant enterprises can recognize the legal responsibility of the head office and the legal risks involved from this case, which can to some extent regulate the behavior of relevant enterprises.