User:Godblessyzj/sanbox

Qi Yuling v. Chen Xiaoqi
The defendant Chen Xiaoqi stole the admission notice of the plaintiff Qi Yuxi and went to school and work as the plaintiff. After several decades, the plaintiff discovered the matter and sued the defendant.

Facts
In 1990, the plaintiff Qi Yuxi and one of the defendants, Chen Xiaoqi, both junior high school students from the 8th Middle School of Tengzhou City, Shandong Province, all participated in the pre-selection examination of the secondary school. Chen Xiaoqi failed to pass the pre-selected exam and lost the qualification to continue to take the unified admission examination. After Qi Yuzhen passed the pre-selection examination, he scored more than the scores of the admission scores of the Peking University students in the combined admission examination. Jining Commercial School of Shandong Province issued an acceptance letter to Qi Yuzhen, which was transferred from Tengzhou No. 8 Middle School. Chen Xiaoqi received Qi Yunyu’s acceptance letter from Tengzhou No. 8 Middle School, and under the planning of his father Chen Kezheng, he used various means to attend the Jining Business School in the name of Qi Yuzhen until graduation. After graduation, Chen Xiaoqi still uses the name of Qi Yuxi to work at the Bank of China Tengzhou Branch.

Decision
The Intermediate People's Court of Zaozhuang City was found after trial ：

(1) The defendant Chen Xiaoqi stopped the infringement of the plaintiff Qi Yuxi's name right;

(2) the defendant Chen Xiaoqi, Chen Kezheng, Jining Business School, Tengzhou Bazhong, Tengzhou Education Committee apologised to the plaintiff Qi Yuxi;

(3) the plaintiff Qi Yuxi paid the lawyer's agency fee of 825 yuan. The defendant Chen Xiaoqi was burdened by the defendant Chen Kezheng, Jining Business School, Tengzhou Bazhong and Tengzhou Education Committee.

(4) The plaintiff Qi Yuxi’s mental damage fee was 35,000 yuan, and the defendant Chen Xiaoqi and Chen Kezheng each shouldered 5,000 yuan. Jining Business School The charge is 15,000 yuan, the burden of Tengzhou 8th Middle School is 6,000 yuan, and the Tengzhou Education Commission is 4,000 yuan;

(5) the other claims of Qi Yuxi are rejected.

In accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution [5] and the Supreme People's Court, the Shandong Higher People's Court partially maintained and partially revoked the first-instance judgment of the Zaozhuang Intermediate People's Court and sentenced:

(1) the appellee Chen Xiaoqi and Chen Kezheng compensated Qi Yuzhen. The direct economic loss caused by the violation of the right to education was 7,000 yuan. The appellant Jining Business School, Tengzhou Eighth Middle School, and Tengzhou Education Committee assumed joint liability;

(2) The appellee Chen Xiaoqi and Chen Kezheng compensated Qi Yuzhen for his right to education. The indirect economic loss caused by the infringement (calculated according to Chen Xiaoqi’s salary in the name of Qi Yuxi after deducting the minimum living allowance) is RMB 41,045.

The appellee Jining Business School, Tengzhou No. 8 Middle School and Tengzhou Education Committee shall be jointly and severally liable for compensation;

(3) Appellee Chen Xiaoqi, Chen Kezheng, Jining Business School, Tengzhou Eighth Middle School, and Tengzhou Education Committee compensated Qi Yuxi for 50,000 yuan for mental damage.

Influence
From the occurrence of this case, the key point for Qi Yuxi is whether the court supports its claim that the right to education has been violated because it determines the amount of compensation that Qi Yuzhen can get. According to the method of the court of first instance and the court of second instance for the treatment of infringement compensation, if the court does not support it (just as the Intermediate People's Court of Zaozhuang City, Shandong Province), Qi Yuzhen can only obtain damages for his name, that is, compensation for mental damage; Support (just as the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court), Qi Yuxi can get all material losses and spiritual losses that have a causal relationship with his right to education. However, since the General Principles of Civil Law does not stipulate the right to education, and this case is a civil lawsuit case, the Shandong Higher People's Court deems that the application of the law is a difficult problem and requests the interpretation from the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme Court then made the above-mentioned "Reply" and found that Chen Xiaoqi and others infringed on Qi Yuxi's right to education under the Constitution. This approval is directly directed at the Qi Yuzhen case, which is currently under trial (the second instance stage). It is judicial in nature because it involves specific disputes. It is different from another kind of legislative interpretation of the Supreme Court; and, in the case of the infringement of the matter on the question of whether or not to bear civil liability, the court did not apply the Constitution directly and singly based on other specific laws. In terms of these two points, the judicial, academic, and media often referred to the case as "the first case of constitutional judicialization."