涉民生执行典型案例

目录

1.被执行人广州振君服饰有限公司拖欠劳动报酬系列纠纷案

2.杜伯东申请执行广州罗邑贸易有限公司工资支付案

3.许春财与杨顺局抚养费纠纷案

4.三鹿乳业有限公司拖欠职工工资执行案

5.吴庆模等19244名蔗农追索蔗款纠纷案

6.安徽现在彩色印务有限公司拒不执行仲裁法律文书案

7.渠敬枝与刘亮机动车交通事故赔偿案

8.陈星润等人交通肇事救助案

9.郭可存拒不执行判决、裁定案

10.罗小荣拒不执行判决、裁定案

11.陈奇妨害公务案

12.被执行人杨正田诚信履行赔偿义务案

一、被执行人广州振君服饰有限公司拖欠劳动报酬系列纠纷案

——执行法官跑遍7市，全国26家法院协助，为百余名工人追讨拖欠工资82万元

（一）基本案情

2015年3、4月份，被执行人广州振君服饰有限公司经营不善致拖欠工人工资，为此，该公司工人向广州市海珠区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请仲裁。经该委裁决，广州振君服饰有限公司应向彭某等153名工人支付拖欠工资报酬合计210多万元。裁决生效后，广州市振君服饰有限公司未履行义务，彭某等人遂向法院申请强制执行。

广州市海珠区人民法院立案执行后，即向银行、车管、房管、工商等部门调查被执行人财产，除扣划银行存款7万余元外，未发现被执行人有可供执行财产。经搜查发现，该公司已不再经营。为打破执行僵局，执行法官积极与工人沟通，得知被执行人在全国各地有多家直营店铺，可能有应收营业款及押金可供执行。执行法官在45天内奔赴广东省内广州、深圳、珠海、江门等七个城市，并联系湖南、重庆等广东省外26家法院，共向100多个直营店铺所在商场送达执行裁定书及协助执行通知书，要求将未结算给被执行人的款项直接汇给法院处理，并持续与上述商场沟通。截至2015年10月24日，执行到位24笔执行款合计75万余元，加上7万元扣划存款，总计82万余元。

款项到账后，执行法官多次召开包括供货商在内的债权人会议。经过耐心工作，供货商们同意放弃在本次执行款中参与分配，从而使执行款可以全部分配给工人。2015年11月10日，广州市海珠区人民法院将执行款82万多元按比例发还给工人们，得到当事人和社会舆论的一致好评。

（二）典型意义

本案的典型意义体现在：第一，强化法院间相互协助。为防止被执行人转移财产，执行法官迅速反应，对省内财产直接执行，并联系省外法院协助执行，确保执行效果。第二，依法执行对第三人到期债权。为避免各地商场不配合执行，执行法官持续沟通释法，赢得第三人积极支持。第三，促使工人工资优先受偿。在现有法律制度框架下，通过债权人会议促使供货商主动放弃参与分配，支持工人工资优先受偿。

二、杜伯东申请执行广州罗邑贸易有限公司工资支付案

——通过网络查询发现被执行人天猫网店，依法冻结、扣划支付宝账户资金

（一）基本案情

2015年3月25日，北京市西城区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会对杜伯东与广州罗邑贸易有限公司工资等争议一案作出裁决，裁令广州罗邑贸易有限公司支付杜伯东工资、基本生活费以及解除劳动合同经济补偿共计约9万元。裁决发生法律效力后，广州罗邑贸易有限公司未履行义务，杜伯东依法向北京市西城区人民法院申请强制执行。

立案后，北京市西城区人民法院依法向广州罗邑贸易有限公司住所地寄送执行通知，但执行通知以“被执行单位已倒闭”为由退回。执行人员遂通过最高人民法院执行网络查控系统对被执行人财产情况进行查询，未发现被执行人存款。申请执行人杜伯东亦表示广州罗邑贸易有限公司位于广州的工厂已停产很久，公司已经倒闭多时，单位员工无法联系上公司的负责人，广州工厂的货物及其他财产也早被处理完毕，其不能提供被执行人其他财产线索。

执行人员通过与杜伯东沟通注意到，广州罗邑贸易有限公司曾在北京运作天猫网店，遂通过网络查找到了该公司注册运营的天猫网店，并在第一时间与支付宝（中国）网络技术有限公司联系，查询被执行人账户及账户余额。经查，被执行人支付宝账户余额约为3.1万元，执行人员当即向支付宝（中国）网络技术有限公司寄送冻结裁定及扣划裁定。在被执行人支付宝账户被冻结后，仍有款项陆续进入。2015年12月23日，在支付宝（中国）网络技术有限公司协助下，执行法院成功从广州罗邑贸易有限公司的支付宝账户中扣划约5.3万元，对不足部分进行额度冻结。截至2015年12月29日，对被执行人支付宝账户又冻结金额约1.3万元。

（二）典型意义

此案属于新形势下通过网络查询被执行人财产的有益尝试。网络购物的普及，使得支付宝在电子商家和网络买家中广泛使用。支付宝账户内的款项作为被执行人名下财产，根据法律规定属于法院可执行的财产范围。本案执行人员不局限于传统的财产调查模式，借助网络信息，拓展查询思路，根据案件情况调查被执行人是否有运营网店等情况，挖掘被执行人的新类型财产线索。在查找到被执行人支付宝账户后，及时采取有效措施，有力地推进了案件的执行。

三、许春财与杨顺局抚养费纠纷案

——被执行人不履行支付抚养费的义务，执行法院通过全国法院网络查控系统冻结其银行账户后，被执行人迫于压力，主动履行义务

（一）基本案情

许春财与杨顺局抚养费纠纷一案，山东省临沂市兰山区人民法院判决准予杨顺局与许春财离婚，双方婚生女由许春财抚养，杨顺局每月支付抚养费人民币400元，自2013年6月份起至女儿能够独立生活之日止。2013年度的抚养费2800元于2013年12月1日前付清，以后每年度的抚养费于每年7月1日前付清。

判决生效后，杨顺局一直未履行法律文书确定的义务，许春财于2015年11月17日向临沂市兰山区人民法院申请执行，要求杨顺局支付女儿抚养费12400元。案件进入执行程序后，了解到申请执行人家庭十分困难，被抚养人年纪尚幼，亟需此笔抚养费，执行法院加快了执行速度。但被执行人杨顺局离婚后，一直逃避法院执行。2015年11月底，临沂市兰山区人民法院开通全国法院网络执行查控平台后，承办法官于11月30日将该案输入全国法院网络执行查控系统，该系统于当天下午反馈信息：被执行人杨顺局在银行账户内有存款8048.32元。12月1日上午承办法官通过系统冻结杨顺局银行账户，下午银行反馈信息显示已成功冻结。随后，承办法官与杨顺局取得联系，对其进行批评教育。杨顺局慑于网络查控的巨大震慑力和执行工作的强大力度，于12月9日下午主动将剩余抚养费4400元打入法院专用账户，并保证以后每年主动支付抚养费5000元。

（二）典型意义

追索抚养费的案件关系到未成年人的健康成长，本案中，申请执行人家庭困难，且被抚养人年纪尚幼，被执行人一直躲避法院执行，迁离了原址，执行难度较大。执行法院充分利用全国法院网络查控系统，加大对被执行人的财产查控力度，高效执结了案件，及时维护了当事人的合法权益。

四、三鹿乳业有限公司拖欠职工工资执行案

-——执行法院采取多种措施，将189名职工工资、补偿费和社会保险等费用520余万元执行到位

（一）基本案情

河北省行唐三鹿乳业有限公司是由原石家庄三鹿集团股份有限公司占有51%股份的有限公司，因“三鹿奶粉”事件，于2008年9月停产，除少数职工留守外，其他职工全部放假。2010年10月该公司营业执照被有关部门依法吊销。到2013年3月，该公司除其他债务外（另案处理），尚拖欠189名职工的工资、补偿费、养老保险、失业保险费等520余万元。189名职工多次向有关部门反映，并将三鹿乳业有限公司诉至法院。河北省行唐县人民法院经审理后，依法做出判决：一、在判决生效后30内，三鹿乳业有限公司将189名职工的工资、经济补偿费和社会保险等费用全部补发、补缴。二、三鹿乳业有限公司与189名职工解除劳动关系。

判决生效后，三鹿乳业有限公司未能主动履行义务，2013年9月当事人提出执行申请。因该公司拖欠债务较多，行唐县人民法院与有关部门沟通协调后，依法对该公司的资产进行了评估、拍卖。面对涉及人数众多、具体情况差异大、标的额不同的情况，执行人员逐个认真核对，在确保数额准确无误的情况下，将拖欠的工资、补偿费用300余万元发放到189名职工手中，剩余的各类社会保险220余万元，经社保有关单位及县就业局审核确认后，一次性全部交至相关保险公司。至此,长达两年半的劳动关系、工资、经济补偿和社会保险劳动争议案件，圆满执结。

（二）典型意义

本案是一起典型的涉民生案件，涉及人数众多，社会影响较大。执行这类案件，首先要加强沟通协调。执行法院多次找职工代表和企业负责人谈话，多次与政府主管部门协调沟通，取得了各方面的积极支持。其次要注意规范执行行为。在执行时，执行法院依法将以该公司为被执行人案件并案执行，确保相关职工利益得到公平保障，同时依法评估和公开拍卖，依法制定执行款分配方案，确保执行活动合法合规。

五、吴庆模等19244名蔗农追索蔗款纠纷案

——广西永凯糖纸集团有限责任公司宾阳大桥分公司等拖欠蔗农甘蔗款2.5亿元，被依法强制执行，蔗农甘蔗款全部执行到位

（一）基本案情

2015年1月，广西永凯糖纸集团有限责任公司宾阳大桥分公司因拖欠吴庆模等19244名蔗农甘蔗款被诉至广西宾阳县人民法院，后经宾阳县人民法院主持调解，确认广西永凯糖纸集团有限责任公司宾阳大桥分公司应向吴庆模等19244人支付甘蔗款共计2.5亿元，分三期履行完毕。广西永凯糖纸集团有限责任公司、宾阳县永凯大桥制糖有限责任公司承担连带付款责任。调解书生效后，广西永凯糖纸集团有限责任公司宾阳大桥分公司未履行义务，19244名蔗农向宾阳县人民法院依法申请强制执行。因本案与蔗农生计息息相关，且涉及人数众数、数额巨大，在办案过程中，执行法院注重向蔗农辩法释理，引导蔗农依法行使诉讼权利，维护合法权益；同时，宾阳县人民法院启动涉民生案件优先执行、快速执行机制，立即向被执行人送达执行通知书，并以最快速度采取执行措施查控被执行人的银行存款、土地使用权、厂房及生产设备等资产，部分资产经依法评估后予以拍卖。经过艰苦努力，被执行人拖欠蔗农的2.5亿元蔗款全部执行到位。

（二）典型意义

广西三分之一的土地是甘蔗田，种植甘蔗的农民近2000万。执行法院高度重视与蔗农生计休戚相关的案件执行，为此类案件开辟“绿色通道”，采取优先立案、快速执行的方式予以办理。执行法院在该案执行阶段仅用时两个半月，执行全程公开透明，以2.5亿元兑现了近2万蔗农甘蔗款，执行效果良好。

六、安徽现在彩色印务有限公司拒不执行仲裁法律文书案

——被执行人逃避执行，其法定代表人王明峰被法院移送公安机关协查，被采取拘留措施后全部履行到位

（一）基本案情

安徽现在彩色印务有限公司是安徽省合肥市长丰县双凤经济开发区内一家从事包装品印刷的企业，因种种原因，自2014年9月开始拖欠工人工资，涉及工人150多人，累计金额达100余万元。2015年初，徐传翠等80人向长丰县劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请劳动仲裁。仲裁委员会经审理后作出了仲裁调解书，确认应支付上述80人的工资合计50余万元。仲裁法律文书生效后，徐传翠等80人分别向安徽省合肥市长丰县人民法院申请强制执行。

长丰县人民法院立案执行后，执行人员发现，企业大门紧闭，一片萧条，已停产多日，生产设备已被合肥市瑶海区人民法院等多家法院查封。通过进一步查询发现，该公司无房产、土地及银行存款等可供执行的财产，法定代表人王明峰去向不明，案件执行陷入困境。

随后，执行人员根据申请执行人提供的该公司日常工作负责人王某的电话，多次依法、依情、依理与其进行沟通，但王某始终没有提出具体的解决措施或方案，也没有提供法定代表人王明峰的去向，案件没有实质性进展。在此情况下，执行法院将该案移送公安机关，请求协查王明峰的下落。公安机关依法对王明峰进行网上协查。后王明峰在合肥的某浴场出现，公安机关及时将其控制并移交至执行法院。在强大的法律威慑下，安徽现在彩色印务有限公司将拖欠一年之久的工资如数交到法院。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人采取逃避的方式拒不履行生效法律文书确定的义务，致使80名工人的工资难以兑现。在多次执行无果的情况下，执行法院请求公安机关协查法定代表人下落，由此打开了整个案件的突破口。公安机关充分利用网络平台优势，及时发布协查信息，迅速对被执行单位法定代表人进行了定位和控制。慑于法律威严，被执行人最终支付了拖欠的工资。实践证明，执行联动机制对解决执行难问题具有重要意义，人民法院应当积极借助公安机关力量，通过网上协查等方式迅速找到被执行人或被执行人法定代表人。

七、渠敬枝与刘亮机动车交通事故赔偿案

——被执行人躲避执行，法院协调公安机关进行查控，促使其全部履行义务

（一）基本案情

2014年3月13日，刘亮无证驾驶小型普通客车，沿348省道自西向东行驶至山东省鱼台县唐马镇杨辛庄路口时，与自南向北行驶至路口处的渠敬枝所骑的电动三轮车相撞，后渠敬枝起诉至山东省鱼台县人民法院。2014年8月8日，鱼台县人民法院作出判决，判令刘亮赔偿渠敬枝因本次交通事故造成的经济损失78207.54元。

判决生效后，刘亮未主动履行判决确定的义务，渠敬枝向鱼台县人民法院申请强制执行。受理执行申请后，鱼台县人民法院向刘亮送达了执行通知书及财产报告令，但在法院指定的期限内，刘亮拒不履行义务，也未报告财产状况。鱼台县人民法院于2015年1月23日依法对刘亮作出司法拘留15日、罚款5万元的决定。被司法拘留后，刘亮既不履行法律义务，也不主动交纳罚款，拘留期满后仍躲避执行。申请执行人渠敬枝因伤致残，家庭生活困难，鱼台县人民法院按有关规定给予司法救助7000元。2015年11月，鱼台县人民法院向鱼台县公安局发出协查函，请公安机关协助查找被执行人刘亮下落，发现后立即采取临时控制措施。2015年11月13日，鱼台县公安局辖区派出所民警将刘亮找到并控制。接到派出所的通知后，执行人员即刻前往派出所对刘亮采取司法拘留措施。2015年11月26日，被执行人刘亮认识到自己的错误，表示愿意履行法律义务，当日，双方当事人达成执行和解协议并履行完毕，本案得以执结。

（二）典型意义

本案中，被执行人刘亮被采取司法拘留措施后，仍不履行义务，逃避执行，使得申请执行人的权益得不到实现。执行法院加强与公安机关协调配合，及时将案件移送公安机关协查、控制，依法采取司法拘留措施，对被执行人形成震慑，使案件得以执结。本案充分说明，公安机关配合执行法院采取协查措施，对查找被执行人下落具有重要意义。

八、陈星润等人交通肇事救助案

——申请执行人瘫痪在床，法院决定救助48万元

（一）基本案情

2009年，被执行人张伟驾驶拖拉机由云南省弥勒市西二镇雨龙革村驶往西龙方向。行至西二镇大茂卜村路段时，车辆翻至道路右侧的水沟中，造成乘车人保天有、张宏波当场死亡，陈星润二人（两人系堂姐妹，姓名相同）均腰椎断裂，造成一级伤残，至今瘫痪在床，韩绍虎、许进才、周琼玉、周朝贵轻伤。法院认定张伟犯交通肇事罪，判处有期徒刑五年，并判决赔偿保天有四名亲属经济损失104910元，赔偿陈星润（1992年）193846.7元，赔偿陈星润（1984年）194488.43元，赔偿周琼玉1494.32元，赔偿许进才1886.3元，赔偿韩绍虎2145.5元，共计赔偿约50万元。张伟于2013年4月份出狱，出狱后外出打工，现下落不明，且无财产可供执行。申请执行人陈星润二人在此次交通事故中腰椎断裂，瘫痪在床，一直无钱医治，且二人脚部均已开始腐烂，即将感染到上身，急需治疗费。云南省高级人民法院根据《云南省开展国家司法救助工作实施办法（试行）》的规定，对陈星润二人及其他申请执行人救助48万元。

（二）典型意义

交通肇事案件是法院执行的难点，在农村地区农用车造成的群死群伤案件尤难执行。云南省积极完善救助制度配套措施，将相关资金列入预算，由省级司法机关统一管理使用。云南省高级人民法院执行部门2015年使用救助资金近1000万元，化解了很多中基层法院无法解决的大额救助案件，有效发挥了司法救助机制的作用。

九、郭可存拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人拖欠数名农民工工资，两次拘留后仍拒不履行，被判处有期徒刑二年六个月

（一）基本案情

2014年3月至2014年12月，自诉人刘大龙带领17名工人在冯桥乡曹庄窑厂给郭可存干活，郭可存欠其工钱118000元。2015年1月13日，河南省商丘市睢阳区人民法院作出民事调解书，确认由郭可存于2015年1月15日以前支付给刘大龙9800元，2015年1月20日以前支付20000元，其余88200元于2015年4月15日前付清。郭可存于2015年1月14日支付刘大龙9800元，其余款项没有按时给付。2015年2月2日，刘大龙向商丘市睢阳区人民法院申请强制执行，该院于当日立案后，向郭可存送达执行通知书，并责令郭可存申报财产状况，但郭可存拒不履行支付义务并拒绝报告财产情况。2015年5月18日，商丘市睢阳区人民法院因郭可存拒不向法院申报财产，决定对其拘留15日。此后，郭可存仍拒不履行给付义务。2015年11月20日，商丘市睢阳区人民法院再次决定对其拘留15日。截至2015年11月24日，郭可存仍拖欠刘大龙劳动报酬108200元及迟延履行金。

郭可存在法院执行期间的问话笔录证实，其在2015年3月底开始恢复生产，总共生产一百多万块砖。证人宋某证言证实，郭可存被拘留后，孙某又卖出了二、三十万块砖，且郭可存在窑厂尚有资产。借条复印件及收据证实，郭可存在本案执行期间借、收款金额达313660元。

商丘市睢阳区人民法院认为，被告人郭可存有能力执行人民法院的判决、裁定而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。自诉人刘大龙指控罪名成立。依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第三百一十三条的规定，判决被告人郭可存犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪，判处有期徒刑二年六个月。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人郭可存经营窑场，有履行能力却拖欠多名农民工工资，执行法院两次对其司法拘留，郭可存仍不悔改，逃避执行。进入刑事追责程序后，仍置多名农民工的生活困难于不顾，拒不履行生效判决确定的义务，没有认罪悔罪的实际表现，最终被以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处有期徒刑二年六个月，为其拒不执行行为付出了应有的法律代价。

十、罗小荣拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人已有占地150平米三层楼房又新建占地200平米四层楼房，却不履行15万余元的法定义务，被判处拘役5个月

（一）基本案情

江西省于都县人民法院对周来女诉罗小荣人身损害赔偿纠纷一案作出民事判决，罗小荣不服，上诉至江西省赣州市中级人民法院，该院判决罗小荣赔偿周来女医疗费、误工费、护理费等共计15万余元。判决生效后，罗小荣未履行义务，周来女于2012年7月12日向于都县人民法院申请强制执行。于都县人民法院立案执行后，依法向罗小荣送达了执行通知书，但罗小荣在支付部分款项后以种种理由拒不履行其余义务，于都县人民法院遂对罗小荣作出司法拘留决定，罗小荣亲属次日便支付了10000元的执行款。

法院查明，罗小荣于2003年建有一栋占地面积150平方米左右、三层楼高的房子并居住其中。2014年8月起，又新建一栋占地面积200余平方米的房子。2015年7月7日，罗小荣因涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪被刑事拘留。同年7月9日，罗小荣亲属与周来女签订和解协议，一次性支付周来女赔偿费用115000元，周来女出具谅解书。

2015年8月12日，于都县人民法院对罗小荣一案作出判决，认为罗小荣有能力执行法院已生效的民事判决而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。罗小荣在2014年被法院司法拘留并出具保证书后仍未履行判决确定的义务，宣告缓刑对其居住的社区有不良影响，故不予适用缓刑。结合罗小荣归案后与周来女达成和解协议并履行完毕，获得对方谅解，以及罗小荣的认罪、悔罪表现，判处罗小荣拘役五个月。宣判后，罗小荣表示服判，未上诉。

（二）典型意义

本案中，被执行人罗小荣已有一栋占地150平方米左右的三层楼房，又新建一栋占地200余平方米的四层楼房，完全有能力履行生效判决确定的15万余元还款义务，但其一直不完全履行生效判决，被司法拘留并作出还款保证后，仍不悔改，继续对抗执行，情节严重，依法应当追究刑事责任。如果罗小荣在被执行法院司法拘留期间，能及时悔悟，自动履行判决确定的义务，可能不会被移送追究刑事责任。正是由于其存在一定的侥幸心理，误判了形势，最终被严格依法追究了刑事责任，受到法律的惩处。

十一、陈奇妨害公务案

——被执行人藏匿行踪拒不执行生效法律文书确定的义务，被传唤时暴力抗法，导致执行人员轻微伤，被依法追究刑事责任

（一）基本案情

上海市普陀区人民法院在执行吴静华申请执行上海快恰房地产经纪事务所劳动人事争议仲裁案中，依法追加该经纪事务所的投资人陈奇为被执行人。2014年9月10日上午，申请执行人吴静华致电执行法官称发现陈奇行踪，普陀区人民法院执行法官即至普陀区东新路传唤陈奇，但陈奇拒不配合并伺机逃跑，后陈奇将执行法官摔倒在地，致其头部着地，身体多处受伤。经司法鉴定，执行法官遭外力作用致头皮挫伤，右上臂、左肘部、左膝多处软组织挫伤，面积超过15平方厘米，构成轻微伤。

陈奇被接警至现场的民警带至公安机关，并因涉嫌妨害公务罪被上海市公安局普陀分局刑事拘留，同年10月16日被依法逮捕。同年12月27日，上海市普陀区人民检察院以陈奇犯妨害公务罪向普陀区人民法院提起公诉。普陀区人民法院经审理认为，陈奇以暴力方法，阻碍国家机关工作人员依法执行职务，致一人轻微伤，其行为已构成妨害公务罪，依法应予处罚。2015年1月20日依法判决陈奇犯妨害公务罪，判处有期徒刑10个月。陈奇不服判决提出上诉，上海市第二中级人民法院经审理后，于2015年3月24日作出驳回上诉、维持原判的终审裁定。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人不但逃避执行，还在被发现行踪后拒不配合法院的传唤，并以暴力行为抗拒，致执行法官轻微伤，严重妨害了公务，故被追究妨害公务罪刑事责任。该案例表明，执行法官依法执行公务的行为不受侵犯，任何妨害公务的不法行为都将受到惩处。

十二、被执行人杨正田诚信履行赔偿义务案

——被执行人杨正田诚实守信，多年如期履行债务，被赞为“最诚信被执行人”

（一）基本案情

2005年的一天晚上，被执行人杨正田在回家途中，将铲车停路边，由于未采取相关措施，导致一辆客运轿车追尾，造成一人死亡、四人受伤的交通事故。经新疆温宿县人民法院和阿克苏地区中级人民法院审理后，判决杨正田赔偿艾合提来木、玉山克依木、吐拉甫托乎提、杨正芳等四人共计40.59万元。

2007年和2008年，四人陆续向温宿县人民法院申请执行。为确保申请执行的权益得到保障，同时也不让被执行人陷入绝境，双方当事人在法院的主持下达成执行和解协议，由杨正田每年向法院交纳四万元，每位申请人分得一万元，分十年付清。达成和解协议之后，为了履行诺言，杨正田千方百计节省各种开支，驾驶铲车四处找活干，有时每天工作十几个小时，同时还打零工挣钱。为了帮家里减轻压力，他妻子也主动到砖厂搬砖，常年的体力劳动，也落下了一身病痛。为了节约费用，夫妻俩从1995年到新疆后20余年从未回过老家。从2008年至2015年，杨正田从不需要提醒，总是准时到法院不折不扣地履行自已的承诺，至今已经履行到位30余万元，得到了申请执行人的认可，被赞为“最诚信被执行人”。

（二）典型意义

诚信是为人之本，多年坚守更需要坚定的信念。杨正田作为被执行人，尊重法律，信守诺言，每年坚持如期到法院缴纳执行款。相比“老赖”想方设法规避、抗拒执行而言，杨正田夫妇的精神更显珍贵，他们用实际行动践行了社会主义核心价值观，弘扬了正能量。

Typical Cases of Implementation Involving People's Livelihood

catalogue

1. A series of disputes over unpaid labor remuneration by the executed party Guangzhou Zhenjun Clothing Co., Ltd

2. Du Bodong's Application for Execution of Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. Salary Payment Case

3. Xu Chuncai and Yang Shunju's custody dispute case

4. Execution case of Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. defaulting on employee wages

5. Wu Qingmo and 19244 sugarcane farmers' dispute over the pursuit of sugarcane payments

6. Anhui Now Color Printing Co., Ltd. Refuses to Execute Arbitration Legal Documents Case

7. Qu Jingzhi and Liu Liang's Compensation Case for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents

8. Traffic accident rescue case involving Chen Xingrun and others

9. Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

10. Case of Luo Xiaorong Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

11. Chen Qi's obstruction of official duties case

12. Case of Yang Zhengtian, the executed person, fulfilling his obligation to compensate in good faith

1、 A series of disputes over unpaid labor remuneration by the executed party Guangzhou Zhenjun Clothing Co., Ltd

——The executing judge has traveled to 7 cities, assisted by 26 courts nationwide, and recovered 820000 yuan in unpaid wages for over a hundred workers

（1） Basic facts of the case

In March and April 2015, the executor Guangzhou Zhenjun Clothing Co., Ltd. was found to be in arrears with workers' wages due to poor management. Therefore, the company's workers applied for arbitration to the Guangzhou Haizhu District Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee. According to the ruling of the committee, Guangzhou Zhenjun Clothing Co., Ltd. should pay a total of over 2.1 million yuan in unpaid wages to 153 workers including Peng. After the ruling came into effect, Guangzhou Zhenjun Clothing Co., Ltd. failed to fulfill its obligations, and Peng and others applied to the court for compulsory execution.

After the People's Court of Haizhu District in Guangzhou filed and executed the case, it immediately investigated the property of the person subjected to execution with the banks, vehicle management, housing management, industry and commerce departments. Except for deducting more than 70000 yuan from bank deposits, it was not found that the person subjected to execution had any property available for execution. After a search, it was found that the company is no longer operating. In order to break the execution deadlock, the executing judge actively communicated with the workers and learned that the person being executed has multiple directly operated stores across the country, and may have receivables and deposits available for execution. The executing judge rushed to seven cities in Guangdong Province, including Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai, and Jiangmen, within 45 days, and contacted 26 courts outside Guangdong Province, including Hunan and Chongqing. They delivered execution rulings and assistance notices to over 100 shopping malls where directly operated stores were located, requesting that the outstanding amounts to the executed person be directly remitted to the court for processing, and continued communication with the aforementioned shopping malls. As of October 24, 2015, a total of over 750000 yuan has been paid for 24 executed funds, including 70000 yuan of deducted deposits, resulting in a total of over 820000 yuan.

After the payment was received, the executing judge held multiple meetings of creditors, including suppliers. After patient work, the suppliers agreed to waive their participation in the distribution of this execution payment, so that all execution payments can be distributed to the workers. On November 10, 2015, the People's Court of Haizhu District, Guangzhou City distributed the execution fee of over 820000 yuan to the workers in proportion, which received unanimous praise from the parties and public opinion.

（2） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is reflected in: firstly, strengthening mutual assistance between courts. In order to prevent the person being executed from transferring property, the executing judge quickly responds, directly executes the property within the province, and contacts courts outside the province to assist in the execution, ensuring the effectiveness of the execution. Secondly, enforce the due creditor's rights against third parties in accordance with the law. In order to avoid local shopping malls not cooperating with the execution, the executing judge continued to communicate and interpret the law, winning the active support of a third party. Thirdly, promote priority compensation for workers' wages. Under the existing legal framework, encourage suppliers to voluntarily give up participating in distribution through creditor meetings and support workers in prioritizing their wages.

2、 Du Bodong's Application for Execution of Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. Salary Payment Case

——Through online query, it is found that the executed person's Tmall online store freezes and deducts funds from Alipay account according to law

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 25, 2015, the Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Commission of Xicheng District, Beijing made a ruling on the dispute between Du Bodong and Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. over wages and other related matters, ordering Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. to pay Du Bodong a total of approximately 90000 yuan in wages, basic living expenses, and economic compensation for terminating the labor contract. After the ruling took legal effect, Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. failed to fulfill its obligations, and Du Bodong applied for compulsory execution to the Xicheng District People's Court of Beijing in accordance with the law.

After filing the case, the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing sent an enforcement notice to the residence of Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. in accordance with the law, but the enforcement notice was returned on the grounds that "the executed unit has closed down". The execution personnel then searched the property situation of the executed person through the Supreme People's Court's execution network inspection and control system, but did not find any deposits of the executed person. The applicant, Du Bodong, also stated that the factory of Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. located in Guangzhou has been suspended for a long time, and the company has been closed for a long time. The employees of the unit are unable to contact the company's person in charge, and the goods and other assets of the Guangzhou factory have also been disposed of earlier. They cannot provide any other clues to the property of the executed person.

The executive noticed through communication with Du Bodong that Guangzhou Luoyi Trading Co., Ltd. had once operated a Tmall online store in Beijing, so he found the company's registered Tmall online store through the network, and immediately contacted Alipay (China) Network Technology Co., Ltd. to check the account and account balance of the subject. Upon investigation, the balance of Alipay account of the executed person was about 31000 yuan. The execution personnel immediately sent the freezing ruling and deduction ruling to Alipay (China) Network Technology Co., Ltd. After the Alipay account of the executed person was frozen, there was still money coming in. On December 23, 2015, with the assistance of Alipay (China) Network Technology Co., Ltd., the executive court successfully deducted about 53000 yuan from the Alipay account of Guangzhou Luoyi Trade Co., Ltd., and frozen the amount of the insufficient part. As of December 29, 2015, the Alipay account of the executed person had been frozen for about 13000 yuan.

（2） Typical significance

This case is a beneficial attempt to search for the property of the executed person through the internet under the new situation. The popularity of online shopping has made Alipay widely used in electronic businesses and online buyers. The money in the Alipay account, as the property under the name of the person being enforced, belongs to the property scope that can be enforced by the court according to the law. The execution personnel of this case are not limited to the traditional property investigation mode. They use network information to expand their search ideas, investigate whether the person being executed has operated an online store or not based on the case situation, and explore new types of property clues for the person being executed. After finding the Alipay account of the person being executed, effective measures were taken in a timely manner, effectively promoting the execution of the case.

3、 Xu Chuncai and Yang Shunju's custody dispute case

——The person subjected to execution did not fulfill their obligation to pay maintenance fees. After the execution court froze their bank account through the national court network inspection and control system, the person subjected to execution was under pressure and voluntarily fulfilled their obligations

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a dispute over maintenance fees between Xu Chuncai and Yang Shunju, the People's Court of Lanshan District, Linyi City, Shandong Province ruled to allow Yang Shunju and Xu Chuncai to divorce. The daughter of both parties was raised by Xu Chuncai, and Yang Shunju paid a monthly maintenance fee of RMB 400 from June 2013 until the day when the daughter could live independently. The maintenance fee of 2800 yuan for the year 2013 was paid before December 1, 2013, and the maintenance fee for each subsequent year was paid before July 1 each year.

After the judgment came into effect, Yang Shun Bureau has not fulfilled its obligations as determined by legal documents. Xu Chuncai applied to the Lanshan District People's Court of Linyi City for enforcement on November 17, 2015, demanding that Yang Shun Bureau pay 12400 yuan in daughter support. After the case entered the execution process, it was learned that the applicant's family was very difficult, and the dependent was still young and urgently needed this maintenance fee. The execution court accelerated the execution speed. But after Yang Shunju's divorce, the executed person has been evading court enforcement. At the end of November 2015, after the Lanshan District People's Court of Linyi City opened the National Court Network Execution and Control Platform, the presiding judge inputted the case into the National Court Network Execution and Control System on November 30. The system provided feedback on the afternoon of the same day that the defendant Yang Shunju had a deposit of 8048.32 yuan in his bank account. On the morning of December 1st, the presiding judge froze the bank account of Yang Shunju through the system. In the afternoon, the bank provided feedback that it had been successfully frozen. Subsequently, the presiding judge contacted Yang Shun Bureau to provide criticism and education. Yang Shun Bureau was intimidated by the enormous deterrent power of online investigation and enforcement work, and on the afternoon of December 9th, took the initiative to transfer the remaining 4400 yuan of maintenance fees to the court's dedicated account, and promised to pay 5000 yuan of maintenance fees annually in the future.

（2） Typical significance

The case of seeking alimony is related to the healthy growth of minors. In this case, the applicant's family is in difficulty, and the dependent is still young. The dependent has been avoiding court enforcement and has relocated from their original address, making enforcement difficult. The enforcement court fully utilized the national court network inspection and control system, increased its efforts to inspect and control the property of the executed person, efficiently concluded the case, and promptly safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.

4、 Execution case of Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd.'s arrears of employee wages

-The enforcement court has taken various measures to ensure that 189 employees' salaries, compensation fees, and social insurance costs of over 5.2 million yuan are fully implemented

（1） Basic facts of the case

Hebei Xingtang Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. is a limited company owned by the former Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group Co., Ltd. with 51% of the shares. Due to the "Sanlu Milk Powder" incident, it ceased production in September 2008. Except for a few employees who stayed behind, all other employees were on vacation. In October 2010, the company's business license was lawfully revoked by relevant departments. As of March 2013, in addition to other debts (handled separately), the company still owed more than 5.2 million yuan to 189 employees, including wages, compensation fees, pension insurance, and unemployment insurance premiums. 189 employees have repeatedly reported to relevant departments and filed a lawsuit against Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. in court. After trial, the People's Court of Xingtang County, Hebei Province made a judgment in accordance with the law: 1. Within 30 days after the judgment came into effect, Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. will reissue and pay all the wages, economic compensation fees, social insurance and other expenses of 189 employees. 2、 Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. has terminated labor relations with 189 employees.

After the judgment came into effect, Sanlu Dairy Co., Ltd. failed to proactively fulfill its obligations, and in September 2013, the parties filed an application for enforcement. Due to the large amount of debt owed by the company, the Xingtang County People's Court, after communication and coordination with relevant departments, evaluated and auctioned the company's assets in accordance with the law. In the face of situations involving a large number of people, significant differences in specific situations, and different target amounts, the execution personnel carefully checked each one and, while ensuring the accuracy of the amounts, distributed more than 3 million yuan of unpaid wages and compensation expenses to 189 employees. The remaining 2.2 million yuan of various types of social insurance was reviewed and confirmed by the relevant social security units and the county employment bureau, and all of them were handed over to the relevant insurance companies in one go. At this point, the labor relations, wages, economic compensation, and social insurance labor dispute cases that lasted for two and a half years have been successfully concluded.

（2） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving people's livelihood, involving a large number of people and having a significant social impact. To execute such cases, it is first necessary to strengthen communication and coordination. The execution court has had multiple conversations with employee representatives and enterprise leaders, coordinated and communicated with government authorities, and obtained active support from all aspects. Secondly, attention should be paid to standardizing execution behavior. During the execution, the executing court will combine the case with the company as the subject of execution in accordance with the law, ensuring that the interests of relevant employees are fairly protected. At the same time, it will evaluate and publicly auction in accordance with the law, formulate a distribution plan for execution funds in accordance with the law, and ensure the legality and compliance of execution activities.

5、 Wu Qingmo and 19244 sugarcane farmers involved in a dispute over the recovery of sugarcane payments

——Guangxi Yongkai Sugar Paper Group Co., Ltd. Binyang Bridge Branch and other companies have defaulted 250 million yuan in sugarcane payments to sugarcane farmers, which have been enforced in accordance with the law. All sugarcane payments to sugarcane farmers have been fully executed

（1） Basic facts of the case

In January 2015, Guangxi Yongkai Sugar Paper Group Co., Ltd. Binyang Bridge Branch was sued to the People's Court of Binyang County in Guangxi for defaulting on sugarcane payments to 19244 sugarcane farmers including Wu Qingmo. After mediation by the People's Court of Binyang County, it was confirmed that Guangxi Yongkai Sugar Paper Group Co., Ltd. Binyang Bridge Branch should pay a total of 250 million yuan in sugarcane payments to 19244 sugarcane farmers including Wu Qingmo, which was fulfilled in three phases. Guangxi Yongkai Sugar Paper Group Co., Ltd. and Binyang Yongkai Bridge Sugar Manufacturing Co., Ltd. shall bear joint and several payment responsibilities. After the mediation agreement came into effect, Guangxi Yongkai Sugar Paper Group Co., Ltd. Binyang Bridge Branch failed to fulfill its obligations, and 19244 sugarcane farmers applied to the Binyang County People's Court for compulsory execution in accordance with the law. Due to the close relationship between this case and the livelihood of sugarcane farmers, as well as the large number and amount involved, the enforcement court focused on explaining the law to sugarcane farmers, guiding them to exercise their litigation rights in accordance with the law, and safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests during the process of handling the case; At the same time, the People's Court of Binyang County has initiated a priority and rapid enforcement mechanism for cases involving people's livelihoods, immediately serving an enforcement notice to the person subjected to enforcement, and taking enforcement measures as quickly as possible to investigate and control the person's bank deposits, land use rights, factory buildings, and production equipment. Some assets have been evaluated in accordance with the law and then auctioned off. After hard work, all the 250 million yuan of sugarcane payment owed to sugarcane farmers by the executed person has been fully implemented.

（2） Typical significance

One-third of the land in Guangxi is sugarcane fields, with nearly 20 million farmers growing sugarcane. The enforcement court attaches great importance to the execution of cases related to the livelihood of sugarcane farmers, opens up a "green channel" for such cases, and adopts a priority filing and rapid execution method to handle them. The execution court only took two and a half months during the execution stage of the case, and the entire execution process was transparent and transparent. It cashed in nearly 20000 sugarcane farmers' sugarcane payments for 250 million yuan, and the execution effect was good.

6、 Anhui Now Color Printing Co., Ltd. Refuses to Execute Arbitration Legal Documents Case

——The person subjected to execution evaded execution, and their legal representative Wang Mingfeng was transferred by the court to the public security organs for investigation. After being detained, they fully fulfilled their obligations

（1） Basic facts of the case

Anhui Now Color Printing Co., Ltd. is an enterprise engaged in packaging printing in Shuangfeng Economic Development Zone, Changfeng County, Hefei City, Anhui Province. Due to various reasons, it has been defaulting on workers' wages since September 2014, involving more than 150 workers, with a cumulative amount of over 1 million yuan. At the beginning of 2015, 80 people including Xu Chuancui applied for labor arbitration to the Changfeng County Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee. After trial, the arbitration committee issued an arbitration mediation agreement, confirming that the total salary to be paid to the 80 people mentioned above was over 500000 yuan. After the arbitration legal documents came into effect, Xu Chuancui and 80 others respectively applied to the People's Court of Changfeng County, Hefei City, Anhui Province for compulsory execution.

After the People's Court of Changfeng County filed a case for enforcement, the enforcement personnel found that the company's doors were tightly closed and in a state of depression. Production had been suspended for several days, and production equipment had been sealed off by multiple courts such as the Yaohai District People's Court in Hefei City. Through further investigation, it was found that the company has no property, land, or bank deposits available for execution. The whereabouts of the legal representative Wang Mingfeng are unknown, and the execution of the case is in difficulty.

Subsequently, the enforcement personnel communicated with Wang, the daily work manager of the company, multiple times in accordance with the law, situation, and reason based on the phone number provided by the applicant for enforcement. However, Wang did not propose specific solutions or plans, nor did he provide the whereabouts of the legal representative Wang Mingfeng, resulting in no substantial progress in the case. In this case, the executing court transferred the case to the public security organs and requested assistance in investigating the whereabouts of Wang Mingfeng. The public security organs conducted online investigations on Wang Mingfeng in accordance with the law. After Wang Mingfeng appeared at a bathhouse in Hefei, the public security organs promptly took control of him and handed him over to the enforcement court. Under strong legal deterrence, Anhui Color Printing Co., Ltd. has handed over all the wages that have been owed for a year to the court.

（2） Typical significance

The person subjected to execution in this case refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents by evading, resulting in difficulty in fulfilling the wages of 80 workers. In the case of multiple unsuccessful executions, the executing court requested the public security organs to assist in investigating the whereabouts of the legal representative, thus opening a breakthrough in the entire case. The public security organs have made full use of the advantages of online platforms, promptly released joint investigation information, and quickly positioned and controlled the legal representative of the executed unit. Due to the authority of the law, the person subjected to enforcement ultimately paid the unpaid wages. Practice has proven that the execution linkage mechanism is of great significance in solving the problem of difficult execution. People's courts should actively use the power of public security organs to quickly find the person being executed or the legal representative of the person being executed through online cooperation and other means.

7、 Qu Jingzhi and Liu Liang's Compensation Case for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents

——The person being executed evades execution, and the court coordinates with the public security organs to investigate and prosecute, urging them to fully fulfill their obligations

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 13, 2014, Liu Liang drove a small ordinary bus without a license along Provincial Highway 348 from west to east to the intersection of Yangxinzhuang in Tangma Town, Yutai County, Shandong Province. He collided with the electric tricycle ridden by Qu Jingzhi, who was driving from south to north to the intersection. Later, Qu Jingzhi sued the People's Court of Yutai County, Shandong Province. On August 8, 2014, the People's Court of Yutai County made a judgment ordering Liu Liang to compensate Qu Jingzhi for the economic losses caused by this traffic accident of 78207.54 yuan.

After the judgment came into effect, Liu Liang did not actively fulfill the obligations determined by the judgment, and Qu Jingzhi applied to the People's Court of Yutai County for compulsory execution. After accepting the execution application, the People's Court of Yutai County served Liu Liang with the execution notice and property report order, but within the time limit specified by the court, Liu Liang refused to fulfill his obligations and did not report the property status. On January 23, 2015, the People's Court of Yutai County made a decision to detain Liu Liang for 15 days and impose a fine of 50000 yuan in accordance with the law. After being detained by the judiciary, Liu Liang neither fulfilled his legal obligations nor voluntarily paid a fine. After the detention period, he still evaded execution. The applicant, Qu Jingzhi, was disabled due to injury and had difficulty living in his family. The People's Court of Yutai County granted judicial assistance of 7000 yuan in accordance with relevant regulations. In November 2015, the People's Court of Yutai County issued an investigation letter to the Public Security Bureau of Yutai County, requesting the assistance of the public security organs in searching for the whereabouts of the executed person Liu Liang. Upon discovery, temporary control measures were immediately taken. On November 13, 2015, police officers from the police station under the jurisdiction of the Yutai County Public Security Bureau found and controlled Liu Liang. After receiving the notice from the police station, the execution personnel immediately went to the station to take judicial detention measures against Liu Liang. On November 26, 2015, the executed person Liu Liang realized his mistake and expressed willingness to fulfill his legal obligations. On that day, both parties reached a settlement agreement and fulfilled it, and the case was able to be concluded.

（2） Typical significance

In this case, after being subjected to judicial detention measures, the executed person Liu Liang still failed to fulfill his obligations and evaded execution, resulting in the rights and interests of the applicant for execution not being realized. The enforcement court shall strengthen coordination and cooperation with the public security organs, promptly transfer the case to the public security organs for investigation and control, take judicial detention measures in accordance with the law, form a deterrent to the executed person, and enable the case to be concluded. This case fully demonstrates that the cooperation of the public security organs with the enforcement court to take cooperative investigation measures is of great significance in finding the whereabouts of the executed person.

8、 Traffic accident rescue case involving Chen Xingrun and others

——The applicant is paralyzed in bed, and the court has decided to rescue 480000 yuan

（1） Basic facts of the case

In 2009, the executed person Zhang Wei drove a tractor from Yulongge Village, Xi'er Town, Mile City, Yunnan Province to the direction of Xilong. When we arrived at the road section of Damaopu Village, Xier Town, the vehicle turned into the ditch on the right side of the road, causing passengers Bao Tianyou and Zhang Hongbo to die on the spot, and Chen Xingrun (the two are sisters of the same name) both suffered from lumbar fractures, resulting in Grade I disability, and has been paralyzed in bed so far. Han Shaohu, Xu Jincai, Zhou Qiongyu and Zhou Chaogui were slightly injured. The court found Zhang Wei guilty of traffic accidents and sentenced him to five years in prison. He also awarded compensation of 104910 yuan to four relatives of Baotianyou for economic losses, 193846.7 yuan to Chen Xingrun (1992), 194488.43 yuan to Chen Xingrun (1984), 1494.32 yuan to Zhou Qiongyu, 1886.3 yuan to Xu Jincai, and 2145.5 yuan to Han Shaohu, totaling approximately 500000 yuan. Zhang Wei was released from prison in April 2013 and went out to work. His whereabouts are unknown and he has no property to execute. The two applicants, Chen Xingrun, suffered a lumbar spine fracture and were paralyzed in bed in this traffic accident. They have not been able to receive medical treatment, and their feet have started to rot, which is about to infect their upper body. They urgently need treatment fees. According to the Implementation Measures for Carrying out National Judicial Assistance Work in Yunnan Province (Trial), the Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court provided a rescue of 480000 yuan to Chen Xingrun and other applicants for execution.

（2） Typical significance

Traffic accident cases are a difficult point for courts to enforce, especially in cases of group deaths and injuries caused by agricultural vehicles in rural areas. Yunnan Province actively improves the supporting measures of the relief system, includes relevant funds in the budget, and is managed and used by the provincial judicial organs in a unified manner. The executive department of the Yunnan Provincial High People's Court used nearly 10 million yuan in relief funds in 2015, resolving many large relief cases that cannot be resolved by grassroots courts, and effectively playing the role of the judicial relief mechanism.

9、 Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person subjected to execution defaulted on the wages of several migrant workers and refused to comply after being detained twice. He was sentenced to two years and six months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

From March 2014 to December 2014, the private prosecutor Liu Dalong led 17 workers to work for Guo Kecun at the Caozhuang Kiln Factory in Fengqiao Township. Guo Kecun owed him 118000 yuan in wages. On January 13, 2015, the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, Henan Province issued a civil mediation agreement, confirming that Guo Kecun had paid 9800 yuan to Liu Dalong before January 15, 2015, 20000 yuan before January 20, 2015, and the remaining 88200 yuan had been paid in full before April 15, 2015. Guo Kecun paid Liu Dalong 9800 yuan on January 14, 2015, but the remaining payments were not paid on time. On February 2, 2015, Liu Dalong applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City. After filing the case on that day, the court served an execution notice on Guo Kecun and ordered him to declare his property status. However, Guo Kecun refused to fulfill his payment obligations and refused to report his property status. On May 18, 2015, the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City decided to detain Guo Kecun for 15 days due to his refusal to declare his property to the court. Afterwards, Guo Kecun still refused to fulfill his payment obligation. On November 20, 2015, the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City once again decided to detain him for 15 days. As of November 24, 2015, Guo Kecun still owed Liu Dalong labor remuneration of 108200 yuan and delayed performance fees.

According to the interview transcripts during the execution period of Guo Ke's court, production resumed at the end of March 2015, with a total production of over one million bricks. Witness Song's testimony confirmed that after Guo Kecun was detained, Sun sold another 20000 to 300000 bricks, and Guo Kecun still had assets in the kiln. A copy of the promissory note and a receipt confirming that Guo Ke borrowed and received an amount of 313660 yuan during the execution of this case.

The People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City believes that the defendant Guo Kecun has the ability to execute the judgment or ruling of the People's Court but refuses to execute it. The circumstances are serious and his behavior has constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. The private prosecutor Liu Dalong was found guilty of the charges. According to Article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the defendant Guo Kecun was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

The executed person in this case, Guo Kecun, runs a kiln but has the ability to fulfill his obligations but owes several migrant workers their wages. The execution court has detained him twice, but Guo Kecun still refuses to repent and evades execution. After entering the criminal accountability procedure, he still disregarded the living difficulties of several migrant workers, refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, and did not show actual repentance. He was ultimately sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling, paying the legal price for his refusal to execute.

10、 Case of Luo Xiaorong Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person subjected to execution has a three story building covering an area of 150 square meters and a new four story building covering an area of 200 square meters, but fails to fulfill the legal obligation of over 150000 yuan, and is sentenced to 5 months of detention

（1） Basic facts of the case

The People's Court of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province made a civil judgment in the case of Zhou Lai's female lawsuit against Luo Xiaorong for personal injury compensation. Luo Xiaorong was not satisfied and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Ganzhou City, Jiangxi Province. The court ruled that Luo Xiaorong would compensate Zhou Lai's female medical expenses, work delay expenses, nursing expenses, and a total of over 150000 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Luo Xiaorong failed to fulfill her obligations. On July 12, 2012, Zhou Lainu applied to the People's Court of Yudu County for compulsory execution. After the case was filed and executed by the People's Court of Yudu County, a notice of execution was sent to Luo Xiaorong in accordance with the law. However, Luo Xiaorong refused to fulfill his remaining obligations for various reasons after paying a portion of the payment. Therefore, the People's Court of Yudu County made a judicial detention decision against Luo Xiaorong, and Luo Xiaorong's relatives paid 10000 yuan in execution the next day.

The court found that Luo Xiaorong built a three story house with an area of about 150 square meters and lived in it in 2003. Starting from August 2014, a new house covering an area of over 200 square meters was built. On July 7, 2015, Luo Xiaorong was criminally detained on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. On July 9th of the same year, Luo Xiaorong's relatives signed a settlement agreement with Zhou Lainu, paying Zhou Lainu a one-time compensation fee of 115000 yuan. Zhou Lainu issued a letter of understanding.

On August 12, 2015, the People's Court of Yudu County made a judgment in the case of Luo Xiaorong, believing that Luo Xiaorong had the ability to execute the effective civil judgment of the court and refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After being detained by the court in 2014 and issuing a guarantee letter, Luo Xiaorong still failed to fulfill his obligations as determined by the judgment. The suspension of sentence has a negative impact on the community in which he resides, so it is not applicable. After Luo Xiaorong was brought to justice, he reached a settlement agreement with Zhou Lainu and fulfilled it, obtained the other party's understanding, as well as Luo Xiaorong's confession and repentance, and was sentenced to five months of detention. After the verdict was pronounced, Luo Xiaorong expressed satisfaction with the verdict and did not appeal.

（2） Typical significance

In this case, the executed person Luo Xiaorong already has a three story building covering an area of about 150 square meters and a newly built four story building covering an area of over 200 square meters. He is fully capable of fulfilling the repayment obligation of over 150000 yuan determined by the effective judgment, but he has not fully fulfilled the effective judgment. After being detained by the judiciary and given a repayment guarantee, he still does not repent and continues to resist execution. The circumstances are serious, and criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law. If Luo Xiaorong can timely repent and automatically fulfill the obligations determined by the judgment during the judicial detention by the executing court, he may not be transferred to pursue criminal responsibility. It was precisely due to his certain sense of luck that he misjudged the situation and was ultimately held criminally responsible in strict accordance with the law and punished by the law.

11、 Chen Qi's obstruction of official duties case

——The person subjected to execution conceals their whereabouts and refuses to fulfill their obligations under the effective legal documents. When summoned, they violently resist the law, resulting in minor injuries to the execution personnel and being held criminally responsible in accordance with the law

（1） Basic facts of the case

The People's Court of Putuo District, Shanghai added Chen Qi, the investor of the Shanghai Kuaiqia Real Estate Brokerage Firm, as the person to be executed in accordance with the law in the arbitration case of labor and personnel disputes applied by Wu Jinghua. On the morning of September 10, 2014, the applicant for enforcement, Wu Jinghua, called the enforcement judge to announce the discovery of Chen Qi's whereabouts. The enforcement judge of the Putuo District People's Court immediately summoned Chen Qi to Dongxin Road in Putuo District, but Chen Qi refused to cooperate and waited for an opportunity to escape. Later, Chen Qi fell the enforcement judge to the ground, causing his head to land and multiple injuries to his body. After judicial appraisal, the executing judge suffered scalp contusion due to external force, as well as multiple soft tissue contusions on the right upper arm, left elbow, and left knee, with an area exceeding 15 square centimeters, constituting minor injuries.

Chen Qi was taken to the public security organs by the police officers who were summoned to the scene, and was criminally detained by the Putuo Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau on suspicion of obstructing official duties. He was arrested according to law on October 16 of the same year. On December 27 of the same year, the People's Procuratorate of Putuo District, Shanghai filed a public prosecution with the Putuo District People's Court for Chen Qi's crime of obstructing official duties. After trial, the People's Court of Putuo District found that Chen Qi used violent methods to obstruct government officials from performing their duties in accordance with the law, resulting in a minor injury to one person. His behavior has constituted the crime of obstructing official duties and should be punished in accordance with the law. On January 20, 2015, Chen Qi was sentenced to 10 months in prison for obstructing official duties in accordance with the law. Chen Qi appealed against the judgment. After trial, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling on March 24, 2015, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

（2） Typical significance

The person who was executed in this case not only evaded execution, but also refused to cooperate with the court's summons after being found out of their whereabouts, and resisted with violent behavior, causing minor injuries to the executing judge and seriously obstructing official duties. Therefore, they were held criminally responsible for the crime of obstructing official duties. This case demonstrates that the act of the executing judge in performing official duties in accordance with the law is inviolable, and any illegal act that obstructs official duties will be punished.

12、 Case of Yang Zhengtian, the executed person, fulfilling his obligation of compensation in good faith

——Yang Zhengtian, the executor, is honest and trustworthy, has fulfilled his debts as scheduled for many years, and is praised as the "most honest executor"

（1） Basic facts of the case

On a night in 2005, the executed person Yang Zhengtian parked his forklift on the roadside on his way home. However, due to failure to take relevant measures, a passenger car rear-ended, resulting in a traffic accident where one person died and four others were injured. After being tried by the People's Court of Wensu County and the Intermediate People's Court of Aksu Prefecture in Xinjiang, Yang Zhengtian was awarded compensation of a total of 405900 yuan to Aihetilimu, Yushan Keyimu, Turafutohuti, and Yang Zhengfang.

In 2007 and 2008, the four individuals successively applied for enforcement to the People's Court of Wensu County. In order to ensure the protection of the rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement and not to put the person subjected to enforcement in a desperate situation, both parties reached an enforcement settlement agreement under the auspices of the court. Yang Zhengtian paid 40000 yuan annually to the court, and each applicant received 10000 yuan, which was paid in full over ten years. After reaching a settlement agreement, in order to fulfill his promise, Yang Zhengtian made every effort to save various expenses, driving a forklift to look for work everywhere, sometimes working more than ten hours a day, while also working part-time to earn money. In order to help alleviate the pressure on his family, his wife also took the initiative to move bricks at the brick factory, and despite years of physical labor, she also fell ill. In order to save costs, the couple never returned to their hometown for over 20 years after arriving in Xinjiang in 1995. From 2008 to 2015, Yang Zhengtian never needed to be reminded and always went to the court on time to fulfill his promises without compromise. He has fulfilled more than 300000 yuan so far and has been recognized by the applicant for enforcement, earning him the title of "the most trustworthy person to be executed".

（2） Typical significance

Honesty is the foundation of being a person, and years of perseverance require a firm belief. As the person being executed, Yang Zhengtian respects the law, keeps his promise, and insists on paying the execution fee to the court as scheduled every year. Compared to the "old rascals" who try to avoid and resist execution, the spirit of Yang Zhengtian and his wife is more precious. They have practiced the core socialist values and promoted positive energy through practical actions.