Accuser: wenzhou ouhai a fastener factory clear information group

Defendant: wenzhou ouhai administration for industry and commerce bureau

The entrusted agent: zhejiang united lawyer HeLianYing lawyer

Third: wenzhou ouhai a standard fastener factory) (hereinafter referred to as"

Third: wang mou, etc

A case

A third of its predecessor fastener factory mining machinery factory was established in November 1976. Enterprise properties for enterprise, employees and communes, director is the third wang mou husband. 1978 sought to build factories. 0.9 mu July 1989 to change the name of applicant for a while, at the same time, the change of the registered capital, the amount of registered capital in the articles of association of records for five natural person or any third parties (four). Wang mou husband, In October by the defendant approved registration. After the enterprise has been in operation. The local government in early 2004 for the enterprise to clear the restructuring. In the qing dynasty, the plaintiff found (1989 enterprise registration, the five persons (third husband died) has already wang mou, think the capital assets are not earnest examination situation of natural conditions, investment, a serious violation of the error registration of enterprise and worker of enterprise property rights, and the alteration registration with the specific administrative act, which mainly sued for evidence of the cancellation registration is approved... Five persons false investment registration... .

Second, the defendant lawyer

1 the plaintiff lawsuit has been the limitation of action. Controversial industry and commerce registration in October 1989, according to the supreme people's court on the implementation of the administrative procedure law of the People's Republic of China of the interpretations of article 42 regulation: "the citizen, legal person or other organization does not know administrative organs for the specific administrative act of the content of the realty. Involving specific administrative actions from the date of making more than 20 years, the other specific administrative actions from the date of making more than 5 years of legal proceedings, the people's court shall not accept the case." Industry and commerce registration of specific administrative actions "other", not "involves realty specific administrative actions". This controversial industry and commerce registration of a specific administrative act has been more than 15 years, so please court shall reject the plaintiff prosecution.

2 the plaintiff qualification. The third fastener factory of township enterprises, collective ownership or town? The plaintiff and the third controversy because of the enterprise, the competent departments of different properties is different also, involving enterprise property ownership of property is different, with applicable law is different. So first of enterprise property shall be identification. Pertaining to a third party to the plaintiff fastener factory clear information, the reason is not clear, it involves the endowment program is legal? Different nature enterprise information is different, the qing qing (main component of the approval procedure of different groups. This information is clear panel, lack of qualified raw file material evidence of identity, therefore the plaintiff's action body lacks legal basis.

Third, the court ruled that the recognition and

The first-i tance court ascertained that the defendant: "because of the specific administrative act in 1989, the plaintiff made in 2005 to the administrative litigation, exceed the legal limit and prosecution without justifiable reasons. In addition, the team was clear information... no legal basis for the plaintiff's action, the subject is, in accordance with the provisions of the supreme people's court about carrying out < > of line of the interpretations of the paragraph 1, article 44 ㈥ dimension of paragraph, ruling wenzhou ouhai as follows: reject the plaintiff fastener factory (clear... the team."