[introduction of the lawyer in this case]
Luo Dan, senior partner of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. He has worked as a lawyer for many years, especially in the legal affairs of construction contracts, real estate, companies and financial assets. He has served as the legal adviser of many well-known enterprises, including Liaoning Branch of Huaneng new energy Co., Ltd. and all its subsidiaries, Liaoning Weihua group, all subsidiaries of Hong Kong Nanhua group in Shenyang, Shenyang Linlong Technology Co., Ltd., China Railway Express Shenyang Branch, etc. In 2018, he was appointed as the legal adviser of the people's Government of Liaoning Province.
In September 2015, a certain construction group filed a lawsuit with the people's Court of Shenhe District, Shenyang, claiming that you and a newspaper company infringed on their right of reputation, and applied to the court to judge the two defendants to apologize in the newspaper and compensate them for mental damages of 300000 yuan. As the agent of a newspaper company, after receiving the case, the lawyer immediately made a detailed investigation on the news reports involved in the case in response to the complaint of a construction group, and learned about the situation from the reporters of the news reports and obtained evidence.
[case details]
The content of the complaint filed by XX construction group is an anti-corruption news report published in the a evening news. The report mainly describes in detail the employment experience of Chen Changlin, a fallen official, and the whole process of his judicial investigation and punishment for violating laws and disciplines. Through interviews and investigations by various parties, our reporter found that Chen Changlin was reported by others in his real name, which led to judicial investigation. You, the defendant 2 of this case, was the informant. The main reason why you reported Chen Changlin was that you believed that Chen Changlin was once the general manager of a construction group. Although he left a construction group in the later period, Chen Changlin still had interest disputes with a construction group, In the case of the construction contract dispute between you and a construction group, Chen Changlin used his authority to interfere in the case. Therefore, you reported Chen Changlin.
The case was publicly tried in the people's Court of Shenhe District, Shenyang on May 4, 2016. During the trial, the two parties mainly provided evidence and debated whether the news report in the case had fabricated facts and whether the report had infringed the reputation of a certain construction group.
Judgment result: the court of first instance of this case ruled to reject all the claims of a certain construction group according to law. Subsequently, XX construction group filed an appeal to Shenyang intermediate people's court. After the second instance hearing, the Shenyang intermediate people's court finally decided to reject the appeal request of XX construction group and maintain the original judgment.
[case details]
In this case, the news report involved in the case is an anti-corruption news report. The content of the report mainly revolves around the employment experience of Chen Changlin, a fallen official, and the reason and process of his being investigated and dealt with by the judiciary. The news report has great social impact. Therefore, regarding this case, the lawyer has made a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the whole content of the news report and the evidence and arguments of both parties in the trial.
According to our lawyer's analysis of the whole report and the evidence provided by both parties in the trial, the news report involved in this case is only a regular anti-corruption news report. The reason why the report mentions the construction contract dispute case of a certain construction group is that when you reported Chen Changlin in real name, he clearly wrote in the report letter that you believed that the reason for Chen Changlin's violation of law and discipline was that he interfered with the case of the construction group. Therefore, The a evening news only reported the facts, but whether Chen Changlin really interfered in the case was not reported in the a evening news. Therefore, the content of the report was true and objective. According to Article 140, paragraph 2 of the opinions on several issues of the general principles of civil law of China and Article 9 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of reputation cases, the content of the report involved in this case did not infringe.
In this case, as the representative lawyer of the newspaper, the most important thing is to analyze the source of the whole news report and the factual basis of the report. In the process of verification, the lawyer has fully integrated the content of the news report, comprehensively analyzed and compiled the source of the report and the evidence materials. During this process, the lawyer has conducted a detailed investigation and obtained relevant legal documents to prove the facts and contents of the case of the construction contract dispute between XX construction group and you, However, as to whether Chen Changlin interfered in the construction contract dispute case, we need to investigate the trial materials and legal documents of Chen Changlin's case to find out, and all the contents of Chen Changlin's case are confidential materials, so we cannot obtain them. Finally, through the analysis of the content of the news reports, the lawyer found that although the content of the news reports involved in the case described the case of a construction contract dispute between a certain construction group and a certain you, the news reports involved did not make any evaluation language on whether Chen Changlin interfered with the progress of the case, and the news reports involved only made a narrative description of the case, Moreover, the content of the statement is based on the report, that is, the relevant judgment documents. In addition, the lawyer also obtained the report letter delivered by you to the relevant departments. In the report letter, you clearly stated the reason why he reported Chen Changlin, that is, you believed that Chen Changlin had interfered with the case of construction contract dispute between you and a construction group by using his power. To sum up, the news report involved in this case was only a declarative expression of the above facts without any evaluative language, And the expression of the above contents is based on reports. Therefore, there is no factual or legal basis for a certain construction group to claim that the news report infringed on its reputation.
Luo Dan, senior partner of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. He has worked as a lawyer for many years, especially in the legal affairs of construction contracts, real estate, companies and financial assets. He has served as the legal adviser of many well-known enterprises, including Liaoning Branch of Huaneng new energy Co., Ltd. and all its subsidiaries, Liaoning Weihua group, all subsidiaries of Hong Kong Nanhua group in Shenyang, Shenyang Linlong Technology Co., Ltd., China Railway Express Shenyang Branch, etc. In 2018, he was appointed as the legal adviser of the people's Government of Liaoning Province.
In September 2015, a certain construction group filed a lawsuit with the people's Court of Shenhe District, Shenyang, claiming that you and a newspaper company infringed on their right of reputation, and applied to the court to judge the two defendants to apologize in the newspaper and compensate them for mental damages of 300000 yuan. As the agent of a newspaper company, after receiving the case, the lawyer immediately made a detailed investigation on the news reports involved in the case in response to the complaint of a construction group, and learned about the situation from the reporters of the news reports and obtained evidence.
[case details]
The content of the complaint filed by XX construction group is an anti-corruption news report published in the a evening news. The report mainly describes in detail the employment experience of Chen Changlin, a fallen official, and the whole process of his judicial investigation and punishment for violating laws and disciplines. Through interviews and investigations by various parties, our reporter found that Chen Changlin was reported by others in his real name, which led to judicial investigation. You, the defendant 2 of this case, was the informant. The main reason why you reported Chen Changlin was that you believed that Chen Changlin was once the general manager of a construction group. Although he left a construction group in the later period, Chen Changlin still had interest disputes with a construction group, In the case of the construction contract dispute between you and a construction group, Chen Changlin used his authority to interfere in the case. Therefore, you reported Chen Changlin.
The case was publicly tried in the people's Court of Shenhe District, Shenyang on May 4, 2016. During the trial, the two parties mainly provided evidence and debated whether the news report in the case had fabricated facts and whether the report had infringed the reputation of a certain construction group.
Judgment result: the court of first instance of this case ruled to reject all the claims of a certain construction group according to law. Subsequently, XX construction group filed an appeal to Shenyang intermediate people's court. After the second instance hearing, the Shenyang intermediate people's court finally decided to reject the appeal request of XX construction group and maintain the original judgment.
[case details]
In this case, the news report involved in the case is an anti-corruption news report. The content of the report mainly revolves around the employment experience of Chen Changlin, a fallen official, and the reason and process of his being investigated and dealt with by the judiciary. The news report has great social impact. Therefore, regarding this case, the lawyer has made a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the whole content of the news report and the evidence and arguments of both parties in the trial.
According to our lawyer's analysis of the whole report and the evidence provided by both parties in the trial, the news report involved in this case is only a regular anti-corruption news report. The reason why the report mentions the construction contract dispute case of a certain construction group is that when you reported Chen Changlin in real name, he clearly wrote in the report letter that you believed that the reason for Chen Changlin's violation of law and discipline was that he interfered with the case of the construction group. Therefore, The a evening news only reported the facts, but whether Chen Changlin really interfered in the case was not reported in the a evening news. Therefore, the content of the report was true and objective. According to Article 140, paragraph 2 of the opinions on several issues of the general principles of civil law of China and Article 9 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of reputation cases, the content of the report involved in this case did not infringe.
In this case, as the representative lawyer of the newspaper, the most important thing is to analyze the source of the whole news report and the factual basis of the report. In the process of verification, the lawyer has fully integrated the content of the news report, comprehensively analyzed and compiled the source of the report and the evidence materials. During this process, the lawyer has conducted a detailed investigation and obtained relevant legal documents to prove the facts and contents of the case of the construction contract dispute between XX construction group and you, However, as to whether Chen Changlin interfered in the construction contract dispute case, we need to investigate the trial materials and legal documents of Chen Changlin's case to find out, and all the contents of Chen Changlin's case are confidential materials, so we cannot obtain them. Finally, through the analysis of the content of the news reports, the lawyer found that although the content of the news reports involved in the case described the case of a construction contract dispute between a certain construction group and a certain you, the news reports involved did not make any evaluation language on whether Chen Changlin interfered with the progress of the case, and the news reports involved only made a narrative description of the case, Moreover, the content of the statement is based on the report, that is, the relevant judgment documents. In addition, the lawyer also obtained the report letter delivered by you to the relevant departments. In the report letter, you clearly stated the reason why he reported Chen Changlin, that is, you believed that Chen Changlin had interfered with the case of construction contract dispute between you and a construction group by using his power. To sum up, the news report involved in this case was only a declarative expression of the above facts without any evaluative language, And the expression of the above contents is based on reports. Therefore, there is no factual or legal basis for a certain construction group to claim that the news report infringed on its reputation.
Legal consultation hotline