Yibin Chinese Court does not accept the "wine cellar door" leadership called "Mo Talk about property rights"

Liang Ye Ming wine cellar information Pictures Wuliangye Wine cellar property rights dispute has made new progress. August 3, Sichuan yibin Chinese Academy issued the "Administrative decision", said that Yin Hio Kong prosecution Yibin, Cuiping District Two levels of government administrative proceedings are not in the jurisdiction of the People's Court, should apply to the relevant departments to solve, so the ruling is inadmissible. That afternoon, Yin Hio Kong was Yibin Cuiping District Government Office, Discipline Inspection, legal Office, Petition Bureau and other department leaders please go to the Cuiping District government office "interview" said, "Yin and Wuliangye origin, Wu Liang Ye wine industry played a fundamental role and the beginning of the role, the proposal does not involve the wine cellar property rights, the proposed program to facilitate leadership solutions." "Yin Hio Kong told the network Reporter:" June 20, my family had to Sichuan High Court on Wu Ye wine cellar Administrative prosecution, August 3 suddenly received the notice of Yibin, let me go to get "administrative verdict." We feel very strange, because my family has never filed any lawsuit to the Yibin, at the beginning, we thought that the "administrative verdict" which is called by the Chinese Academy was served by the provincial High Court, but it was later found that it was a verdict made by Yibin Chinese Academy. The verdict says: Yibin Cuiping District Government to the original county-level Yibin government in the review of the conclusion of private housing notice to the yin of the contents of the wine cellar, and made the "Yibin Cuiping District the government to revoke the notice of the review of private housing findings" notice of the relevant content, It is the specific administrative act of the administrative organ to implement the private house reform policy, and it solves the real estate dispute of the nature of implementing the policy before the implementation of the administrative Procedure Law. According to the provisions of article III of the Supreme Court (1992) 38th "Notice on the admissibility of real estate cases", the plaintiff does not belong to the jurisdiction of the People's Court and the prosecution shall apply to the relevant departments for settlement.　　Therefore, the ruling is inadmissible. Article III of the Supreme Court's notice on the admissibility of real estate cases is as follows: Any real estate dispute which does not conform to the law of Civil Procedure and administrative procedure, which belongs to the nature of the implementation policy of historical trade, is adjusted by the administrative instruction, and the real estate disputes caused by the withdrawal and separation of the institutions are due to the house building within the unit,　　Housing, such as housing, Tengfang and other real estate disputes, not belong to the People's Court in charge of the scope of work, the parties to bring the lawsuit, the people's Court shall not accept or dismiss the prosecution, may inform it to find the relevant departments to apply for settlement. Yin's attorney, in his blog, questioned: "Administrative Procedure Law" was implemented in 1990, Cuiping the Government's specific administrative acts infringe the yin right, it is May 12, 2010, this completely conforms to "administrative Procedure Law" administrative tort of the new Administrative Act, yibin Chinese courtyard how he sentenced to "historical problems"? In addition, the Yin specifically to the "wine cellar" question, when the court turned him into a "real estate" problem? The law of application is also made by analogy and enlargement? The indictment never mentioned a real estate lawsuit. (Reporter Lu Wei)