[ad_1]
The defendant Lam Hoang Tung (blue shirt) was escorted to the trial – Photo: QUANG DINH.
According to Mr. Tung, the buy-and-sell transaction between Ms. Hoang Trong Anh Chi and Hoang Thi Thu Thao was done through a deposit contract (VND 7 billion), and Ms. Thao built and completed the construction to sign the purchase contract. to sell.
However, the wrong construction process should have been sanctioned 2 times, making it impossible to continue with the execution of the contract. When she asked to stop the transaction, Ms. Thao asked for a double deposit penalty.
Defendant Tung said that in witnessing 5 times the building inspector made construction records, but when the building inspector arrived, the people from the house slipped away, but at night they went to build again.
Mr. Tung also said that enforcement decisions are handed over to the investor and require redress, not the investor coordinating with the authorities to remove the wrong part.
When the lawyer asked who had the right to legal residence in project 29 Nguyen Binh Khiem, Tung replied that only the owner of the property or house had the remaining legal right to stay. Get it right if the landlord doesn’t agree or gives permission.
Regarding taking the children out of the house, Mr. Tung said: “I don’t force, I put pressure on people within the project to leave, there are people who still create conditions for them to stay. I don’t know where they are from, who the children are, it is very dangerous to let them stay in the repair work.
The women appeared screaming, rolling in front of the door. 29 Nguyen Binh Khiem repeatedly told me to pay. When I took the children out of the house, these people were still crying, but no one picked them up, they just hung up the phone to record a video.
In response to questioning by the lawyers, Ms. Hoang Trong Anh Chi said that she called and sent documents to Ms. Thao’s business establishments many times to request her work back, but Ms. Thao did not respond.
The two defendants were accompanied at the trial on December 29. Photo: QUANG DINH
“The first time I was authorized, I was attacked by Ms. Thao, by someone who burned down my mother-in-law’s house, we panicked and left. After I changed my residence and provided a new address to the authorities, immediately someone came to attack, so I no longer trusted anyone, ”Ms. Thao said.
Ms. Chi also said that up to this point, Ms. Thao was not the one who suffered the loss, but Ms. Chi was the one who lost because Ms. Thao had just deposited it but had seized and leased the proceeds.
“I know Thao lives there with his family and rents his room through Thao’s commercial websites. I never gave up the building for residential purposes, but I only let Thao coordinate with my contractor.” .
Ms. Chi also said that after the breach occurred, she was unable to return the money, Ms. Thao wanted to get back the deposit and interest of one billion VND each month, so she disagreed.
“When we spoke, Ms. Thao brought a lot of gangsters. After that, my house was haunted, those days were terrible for me and my family. I was so frustrated that I took the petition to sue to find out Thao sued me in District 1 People’s Court, “Ms Chi provided.
Ms. Chi said that during the 2 years of the incident, she was prosecuted and sent everywhere for help, but it was not resolved.
The trial ends the questioning part. Tomorrow we will continue debating.
Former Deputy District Judge 4: Human must have integrity
