Source of case law:
First instance judgment No. 54/2018/DS-ST dated November 16, 2018 of the People's Court of Nha Trang city, Khanh Hoa province on the civil case "Service contract dispute" between the plaintiffs Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and the defendant V. Tourist Area Company Limited.
Location of case content :
Section 9 of “Court's Opinion”
Overview of the case law:
- Case law:
In the standard contract signed with consumers, there is a clause to choose foreign arbitration to resolve disputes. When a dispute arises, the consumer files a lawsuit in a Vietnamese court.
- Legal solution :
In this case, it must be determined that the consumer did not choose arbitration and has the right to choose a Vietnamese Court to resolve the matter.
Legal provisions relating to precedents:
Article 38 of the Law on Consumer Protection 2010;
Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010;
Clause 3, Article 26, Clause 1, Article 35 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code;
Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court guiding the implementation of a number of provisions of the Law on Commercial Arbitration.
Keywords of case law:
“Model Contract for the Selection of Foreign Arbitration”; “Consumer”; “Choice of Vietnamese Court”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the petition dated December 8, 2017, the self-declaration, the Minutes of Conciliation and at the trial, the plaintiff's authorized representative, Mr. Tran Duc P, stated:
On February 26, 2017, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S signed the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with V. Tourist Area Company Limited.
Accordingly, the value of the vacation ownership contract is 388,110,000 VND; vacation week: Week 16; Vacation apartment type: Type A.
As of March 15, 2017, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S have deposited 300,488,000 VND.
At the time of signing the contract, due to time constraints, Ms. T and Mr. S did not read the signed vacation ownership contract carefully. On April 26, 2017, after receiving an email from V Tourist Company Limited, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S carefully reviewed the signed contract and found that some terms of the contract were unreasonable, so they proactively requested to terminate the contract, but were not accepted by V Tourist Company Limited.
Therefore, to protect their rights, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S filed a lawsuit at the Court with the following content: Requesting the Court to declare the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 invalid and return to Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S the amount paid of 300,488,000 VND.
For the following reasons:
- V Tourist Area Company Limited deceived customers by holding a seminar on tourism but not implementing the content of the seminar program; about the project investor being an Israeli billionaire, Mr. I; about the investment capital to create trust for those who want to buy vacation ownership to sign contracts and make deposits.
- V Tourist Area Company Limited advertised that the product was designed according to the model that won the Asia-Pacific award, but when constructed, it did not follow the advertised model; the advertised model and the actual model were not the same; the tourist apartment was only designed for two people, but the apartment was advertised as being for five people; the project was located in Nha Trang.
- V Tourist Area Company Limited violated the law that foreign-invested enterprises are not allowed to send Vietnamese people abroad; and disposed of the deposit when it was not owned by them.
- Construction progress and official operation of the project are slower than committed, causing damage to those who have purchased vacation ownership.
According to the self-declaration, the minutes of conciliation and at the trial, the defendant's authorized representative, Ms. Pham Thi Kieu H, stated:
On February 26, 2017, V Tourist Company Limited signed the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 with Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S. The form and content of the contract are completely legal. The person signing the contract has full capacity and authority, is not forced and voluntarily signed this contract.
The reasons given by the Plaintiff as the basis for claiming that the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 is invalid, V Tourist Area Company Limited does not agree.
Because:
Firstly, the plaintiff's claim that the Company deceived consumers is a false statement based on subjective opinion. The Company affirms that it did not fabricate or provide false information to consumers. Company V has 02 capital contributors, including Mr. Duong Tuan A and Company E. In which, Company E is one of the enterprises under the control and ownership of Mr. I and his enterprises. Thus, Mr. I is an investor of the Company, making investments through the companies under his control.
The initial registered charter capital was 105 billion VND and is currently 486 billion VND. This is the capital contribution as committed by the investor to the Project Company, in accordance with the provisions of Vietnamese law. The investment capital of the project is 300 million USD or higher, which is the estimated investment capital value of the entire project including but not limited to: land rent, investment costs, construction, management, project operation, management costs, office...
Second, at the introduction, the Company clearly explained that this was a vacation purchase, not a real estate purchase, so there was no confusion about the contract; when working with customers, the Company explained and clearly stated in the contract how many vacations were purchased and what type of hotel.
Third, our company does not take customers abroad. In this case, if a vacationing customer does not like to stay in the country, they can exchange vacations with other customers to go abroad. This is only a customer activity. Our company does not do business in taking Vietnamese people abroad for tourism, but only supports customers.
Fourth, regarding the deposit, the law does not restrict the agreement on the use of the deposit. The Company's purpose of using the deposit does not violate the prohibition of the law.
Fifth, the construction progress and official opening date are clearly stated in Article 8 of the Contract, which is 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit of the project, with the right to extend for another 6 months. Currently, the final permit was issued in October 2018.
If the Plaintiff continues to perform the signed vacation ownership contract, the Defendant may consider reducing the price or supporting some other benefits.
Speaking at the trial, the representative of the Nha Trang City People's Procuracy concluded: The Nha Trang City People's Court had complied with the order and procedures of civil procedural law during the process of resolving the case, at the trial; the parties fully exercised their rights and obligations during the proceedings; and validly served the procedural documents. However, to clarify whether V Tourist Area LLC is allowed to trade and transfer vacation ownership rights, the Trial Panel requested that the trial be suspended to collect additional documents.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
[1] After studying the documents in the case file examined at the trial and based on the results of the debate at the trial, the Trial Panel determined:
[2] At the trial, the representative of the Nha Trang City People's Procuracy requested to suspend the trial to collect documents to determine whether V Tourist Area Company Limited is allowed to transfer apartments and vacations when the project has not been completed or not? This request of the representative of the Procuracy is unnecessary, because this is not a transfer contract related to real estate, but a service contract in the tourism sector, and is essentially a deposit contract for vacation ownership. At the time of the trial, there was no document from the competent authority restricting the right to deposit for vacation ownership of V Tourist Area Company Limited. Therefore, the Trial Panel continued to try the case according to general regulations.
[3] On December 17, 2017, Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T filed a lawsuit against V Tourist Area Company Limited at the Nha Trang City People's Court, requesting to declare the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 invalid and force V Tourist Area Company Limited to refund the deposit and payment of VND 300,488,000. This is the amount of money that Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T deposited to own a vacation from V Tourist Area Company Limited.
[4] At the trial, the plaintiff maintained the lawsuit request, requesting the Court to declare the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 invalid and force V Tourist Area Company Limited to refund the deposit and payment of VND 300,488,000.
[5] Thus, the disputed legal relationship is determined to be a "Service Contract" as stipulated in Article 513 of the 2015 Civil Code and Article 14 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights.
[6] In Article 12.3 of the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, the parties agreed to choose the agency and method of dispute resolution as the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) according to the arbitration rules of SIAC in effect at the time of dispute resolution.
[7] However, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and guidance in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court stipulates on unenforceable arbitration agreements:
[8] “The supplier of goods and services and the consumer have an arbitration agreement clause recorded in the general conditions for the provision of goods and services prepared by the supplier as prescribed in Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, but when a dispute arises, the consumer does not agree to choose Arbitration to resolve the dispute”.
[9] The vacation ownership contract No. PBRC-S-064621 is a type of pre-drafted contract provided by the service provider, pre-drafted with provisions on arbitration agreement, now the plaintiff is the consumer who does not agree to choose arbitration and requests the People's Court of Nha Trang City to resolve the dispute in accordance with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and the guidance in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01/2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20, 2014 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court. Therefore, the People's Court of Nha Trang City has the right to accept and resolve the dispute according to Clause 3, Article 26, Clause 1, Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code and is still within the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit as prescribed in Article 429 of the 2015 Civil Code, Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[10] Considering the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 signed between V Tourist Company Limited and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T, it is found that: The person directly signing the contract as a representative of V Tourist Company Limited is Mr. Le Huu B, Head of Finance Department of V Tourist Company Limited Representative Office in Ho Chi Minh City and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T. Mr. Le Huu B is not the legal representative of V Tourist Company Limited, but at the time of signing, the legal representative of V Tourist Company Limited had a written authorization dated February 1, 2017 for Mr. Le Huu B to sign the contract on behalf of the legal representative in accordance with the order, procedures and content prescribed by law. Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T have full civil act capacity.
[11] According to the content of the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, the Plaintiff registered to buy the 16th week vacation, the type of resort apartment is A; the time starts from the year with the official opening date until the end of the Project term. Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T can sell or transfer to others or exchange vacations in some places in the world (Optional Vacation Rights). The buyer must pay in installments according to the project construction progress. Specifically, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S have paid 3 installments of deposit with the amount of 310,488,000 VND (with a discount of 10,000,000 VND).
[12] The official opening date is determined in accordance with Article 8 of the Contract. That is, within 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit and extended by 6 months, the Company will send a notice of completion to the customer.
[13] In addition, every year from the official opening date, the customer must pay the maintenance fee or management fee according to Article 3 of Appendix C attached to the contract stipulating the rights and obligations of the parties, terms of payment, deposit, transfer and obligations arising from the contract.
[14] The parties have entered into a free and voluntary vacation ownership contract, committed and agreed that the content does not violate the prohibitions of the law, is not contrary to social ethics and is effective for the parties and must be respected by other entities and is the basis for dispute resolution.
[15] The Trial Panel found:
[16] V Tourist Area Company Limited was granted a Business Registration Certificate by the People's Committee of Khanh Hoa province on February 5, 2013, registered for the 4th change on April 8, 2016 and amended for the 5th time on October 15, 2018; Investment Certificate No. 371022000419 dated February 5, 2013 and changed its registration for the 3rd time on January 27, 2015 to invest and implement the ALMA Luxury Resort project at land lots D7a2, TT4, X6 in the North Peninsula R Tourist Area, C district, Khanh Hoa.
[17] During the investment and implementation of the project, V Tourist Area Company Limited organized introduction sessions on the resort model in a number of localities, including Ho Chi Minh City.
[18] Plaintiff was one of many customers invited by V Tourist Company Limited to attend the event on February 26, 2017.
[19] At the event, the plaintiff directly signed the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 with V. Tourist Area Company Limited. As of March 15, 2017, the plaintiff had paid a deposit of VND 310,488,000, of which VND 10,000,000 was entitled to preferential policies, the actual amount paid was VND 300,488,000.
[20] While waiting for the official opening date, the plaintiff claimed that the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 contained many inappropriate provisions, causing damage to the plaintiff's interests, so he met with V Tourist Company Limited many times to negotiate termination of the contract, but was not responded by V Tourist Company Limited. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit and requested the Court to consider declaring the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 invalid on the grounds of deception, confusion, violation of the law, and delay in putting the project into use.
[21] Speaking in defense of the defendant's rights, the lawyer stated that the reasons the plaintiff raised as the basis for requesting the Court to declare the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 invalid, such as being deceived, mistaken, violating the prohibition of the law, cannot be accepted for the reasons that the defendant raised above, along with the argument sent to the Trial Panel.
[22] Consider:
[23] First of all, it is necessary to realize that this is a new ownership concept in Vietnam, in which the owner is allowed to exercise his rights within a certain period of time (07 days) at the place where the vacation was purchased. It is not synonymous with real estate ownership. Real estate ownership still belongs to the investor, V Tourist Area Company Limited, during the period of being granted a valid license.
[24] Thus, the ownership of the vacation that Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T deposited to reserve a place is considered a type of property (right) formed in the future. However, after the time of signing the contract, when the tourist area is officially put into use, it will belong to Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T. The parties' transaction of depositing and reserving a place to own the vacation (performing the contract) is in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2, Article 108, Article 328 of the 2015 Civil Code.
[25] The Plaintiff claims that V Tourist Company Limited deceived about the project investor, an Israeli billionaire, Mr. I, and about the investment capital. However, through the documents provided by the Defendant and publicly verified, it is shown that V Tourist Company Limited has 02 capital contributing members, including Company E and Mr. Duong Tuan A. In which, Company E is one of the enterprises under the control and ownership of Mr. I and his enterprises. Thus, Mr. I is an investor (not the investor) of the Company, making investments through the companies under his control, which is true. The Plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove that V Tourist Company Limited deceived by affirming that Mr. I is the project investor.
[26] The initial registered charter capital is 105 billion VND, the investment capital to implement the project according to the 5th amended business registration certificate dated October 15, 2018 is 426 billion VND. This is the capital contribution as committed by the investor to the project company, in accordance with the provisions of Vietnamese law, excluding but not limited to: land rent, investment costs, construction, management, project operation and other costs.
[27] Thus, the project's estimated investment capital of 300 million USD is the estimated total investment capital of the entire project, not the charter capital.
[28] The Plaintiff stated the reasons: The Defendant advertised the product as designed according to the award-winning model, but when built, it was not like the award-winning model; the advertised model and the actual model were not the same. The magazines published to promote the product were dishonest.
[29] However, the model design issue has been approved for change by Khanh Hoa Provincial People's Committee in Official Dispatch No. 3590/UBND-XDND dated May 27, 2016 and has been notified to vacation owners.
[30] The advertising on publications has a legal publishing license and as of the date of the first instance trial, there has been no document from the competent authority canceling or withdrawing these publications.
[31] When participating in an event and officially signing a contract, the participants must know what event they are participating in, what contract they are signing, and where their investment is located. The location of the tourist area is publicly announced by the Tourist Area Company Limited; the location of the ALMA Nha Trang area is also shown on documents and transaction papers. It cannot be said that V Tourist Area Company Limited used the name ALMA Nha Trang or the invitation to the seminar to introduce the model and products as a deception to customers.
[32] Therefore, there is no evidence that one of the contracting parties was deceived as prescribed in Article 127 of the 2015 Civil Code. Therefore, the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 and the appendices attached to the contract come into effect.
[33] The provisions of Clause 4.4 Article 4 of the Contract on Optional Vacation Rights, Section 2 Appendix B, the terms and conditions of the vacation rights are essentially the exchange of vacation ownership at other Resorts around the world, operating in the same manner as at the Resort, participating in the exchange network.
[34] In fact, if a vacationer does not stay at the Resort where he/she has purchased a vacation ownership, he/she can exchange his/her vacation with another vacationer, including a vacation abroad. This is an activity of a vacationer choosing an alternative vacation opportunity from a series of vacation opportunities that the Exchange Company can provide. V Tourist Area Company Limited does not do business in taking Vietnamese people abroad for tourism, but only supports vacationers in connecting tourist destinations. Among the vacationers; many have exchanged vacations through the Optional Vacation Rights and they directly contact the alternative vacationer and complete the procedures for traveling abroad arranged by the Company with relevant parties so that the vacationer can be provided with vacation services by other vacationer service providers at the place chosen by the vacationer.
[35] The Company's support and assistance to resort guests in choosing a place to exchange their vacations and the procedures for other resort service providers to provide resort services to resort guests cannot be considered a step in sending resort guests abroad as the plaintiff argued. The plaintiff also failed to provide evidence to prove that V Tourist Area Company Limited had illegally sent people abroad.
[36] Thus, there is no document or evidence to prove that V Tourist LLC personally took vacation ownership buyers on overseas trips.
[37] According to the provisions of Clause 5.2, Article 5 of the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, Clause 2.2, Article 2 of Appendix C attached to the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017, which stipulates the deposit and payment schedule, the amount that Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T paid is the deposit. When and only when after the official opening date, the amount paid will become part of the payment.
[38] Thus, the deposit of Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T is to perform the contract as prescribed in Article 328 of the 2015 Civil Code.
[39] The deposit amount that V Tourist LLC receives from the Resort Guests (not precious metals, gemstones or valuables) is determined by the Company in the form of investment in the project and reasonable expenses that are not prohibited by law, and do not restrict the agreement of the parties on the use of the deposit. In case of having to refund or compensate for any reason, people calculate the value of the money that needs to be refunded or compensated, no one requests to pay the exact amount of money deposited as stated by the representative of the plaintiff.
[40] The cover page of the Contract clearly states “vacation ownership”, Article 3 of the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 states “The vacationer, under this contract, agrees to rent a room from the Company...” and in Appendix A, Part III, IV, the Plaintiff also confirms the reservation of the type of resort apartment, the vacation week and the payment for the room rental, which is not real estate ownership or payment for real estate. Such clear provisions in the contract cannot be confused with real estate ownership. The reason the Plaintiff gives for being confused with real estate ownership is unacceptable.
[41] The Plaintiff argued that, when signing the contract, the marketing staff of Khu Du Lich V Company Limited did not give the Plaintiff reasonable time to study the contract content, which was a violation of Article 17 of the Law on Consumer Protection. However, taking time to study the contract is the consumer's right, and the Plaintiff's failure to exercise this right is considered a waiver of his/her right. The Law on Consumer Protection as well as the Civil Code do not have provisions that if an organization or individual trading in goods or services does not take reasonable time for the consumer to study the contract, the contract will be invalid. Therefore, the Plaintiff's voluntary signing of the contract is true, and at the trial, the Plaintiff's representative still affirmed that the signing of the contract was completely voluntary. Therefore, the contract is valid.
[42] Regarding the project implementation progress: The official opening date is determined according to Article 8 of the Contract within 36 months from the date of issuance of the final construction permit and extended by 6 months (if any), the Company will send a completion notice to the customer. Currently, the file shows 2 construction permits:
- Construction permit No. 67/GPXD-SXD dated April 28, 2017.
- Construction permit No. 133/GPXD-SXD dated October 24, 2018.
[43] Thus, as of the trial date, if based on the Construction Permit dated April 28, 2017, it has not been more than 36 months since the date of issuance of the construction permit. Meanwhile, on October 24, 2018, V Tourist Company Limited continued to be granted a construction permit. Therefore, there is no basis to believe that V Tourist Company Limited violated the construction schedule, delayed the commissioning of the project, and violated the deadline for handing over the vacation to the owners.
[44] From the above arguments and analysis, it can be seen that the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 and the attached Appendices do not fall under the cases of invalid civil transactions stipulated from Articles 122 to 129 of the 2015 Civil Code. Therefore, Article 131 of the 2015 Civil Code shall not be applied to handle as requested by the plaintiff.
[45] For request for return of deposit.
[46] Considering: The nature of the booking confirmation is a deposit contract. According to the agreement, the deposit amount will be converted into the first payment amount upon the official opening date. Thus, at the time of establishing the booking confirmation, the above amount is a deposit to ensure the performance of the service contract. This deposit contract is not illegal and not against social ethics. On the other hand, Section 4.1 of the Contract also stipulates: “The resort guest, under this Contract, commits not to cancel and agrees to make a reservation to enjoy the right to stay according to the terms and conditions of this Contract. To make a reservation, the resort guest will pay a deposit to the Company according to Article 5.2 of Appendix C”. The defendant did not breach the contract, the plaintiff also has no evidence to prove that the defendant breached the deposit contract; and the parties have agreed that the Contract cannot be cancelled; The “Holiday Ownership Contract” is not invalid as requested by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff's request for refund of the deposit of VND 300,488,000 is unfounded.
[47] Regarding court fees: Because the request of Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S was not accepted, they must pay court fees of 300,000 VND for the request to declare the Contract invalid and 15,024,400 VND for the first instance civil court fee for the part requesting a refund of 300,488,000 VND. Thus, Mr. Nguyen Hoang S and Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T must pay the first instance civil court fee of 15,324,400 VND.
For the above reasons,
DECISION :
Apply Articles 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 328, 401, 513 of the 2015 Civil Code; Article 14, Article 42, Article 43 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights; Article 74 of the Commercial Law; Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration; Section 4, Chapter IV of the Law on Tourism; Article 147, Article 273 of the Civil Procedure Code;
Apply Clause 1, Article 26, Clause 3, Article 27 of Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly regulating the collection, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of court fees and charges.
Judgment: Not accepting the request of the plaintiff, Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S to declare the Vacation Ownership Contract No. PBRC-S-064621 dated February 26, 2017 signed between Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S with V Tourist Area Company Limited invalid and to return the deposit paid of 300,488,000 VND because there is no basis.
Regarding court fees: Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S must pay 15,324,400 VND in first instance civil court fees.
Refund to Ms. Nguyen Thi Long T and Mr. Nguyen Hoang S 7,512,000 VND in advance court fees according to receipt number AA/2016/0008400 dated February 1, 2018 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Office of Nha Trang city.
Inform the plaintiff and defendant that they have the right to appeal the first instance judgment within 15 days from the date of judgment to request the People's Court of Khanh Hoa province to re-try according to the appeal procedure.
CONTENT OF PRECEDENT
“ [9] The vacation ownership contract No. PBRC -S-064621 is a type of pre-prepared contract provided by the service provider, pre-prepared with provisions on arbitration agreement, now the plaintiff is a consumer who does not agree to choose arbitration and requests the People's Court of Nha Trang city to resolve the matter in accordance with Article 38 of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, Article 17 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and the guidance in Clause 5, Article 4 of Resolution No. 01 / 2014/NQ-HDTP dated March 20 , 2014 of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court . Therefore , Nha Trang City People's Court's acceptance and settlement of the dispute is within its jurisdiction under Clause 3, Article 26, Clause 1, Article 35 of the Civil Procedure Code and within the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit as prescribed in Article 429 of the 2015 Civil Code, Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code.
.png)
0911.688.554
Về chúng tôi
