Avoidance In The Face Of Lawsuits Is Not A Way To Solve The Problem.

The plaintiff sues the court and the court accepts the case. Regardless of whether the two sides are right or wrong, the civil procedure of the case must go, and the entity trial is inevitable. Blindly evading and passive responding can only be "deceiving the ear and stealing the bell", deceiving oneself and deceiving others. Finally, not only can we not steal the bell, but we may also be caught.

For malicious evasion of execution Executor China's courts are cracking down on "enforcement difficulties" by means of detention, restricting high consumption, restricting exit, publishing the list of executors who have broken faith, and investigating the crime of refusing to hold, thus enhancing judicial coercive power and credibility. I believe that there will be more regulations and sanctions against future judicial authority. For those who shun justice, they will pay a heavy price for hiding.

"Black is black, white is white"! Violation of routine things must be regulated by law to bring it back to the right track. Evasion is not a way. The escape of "hiding the ear and stealing the bell" is even more challenging and can not get real escape or even profit. Taking seriously and actively presenting evidence is the right way to safeguard rights.

　　 Passive litigation In fact, it is difficult to "hide from the sea" and evade fulfilling obligations. Each procedure has its existence meaning in the pleading period, the proof period, the court investigation and the court debate in the civil procedure. The so-called "truth is the more debates and clearer". Only when the two sides fully explain the facts and reasons according to the focus of dispute, can they provide evidence to support the judge to get closer to the truth of the incident.

In essence, negative response is an opportunity to give up his own plea and proof, and to give up the persuasion of evidence. Judge The opportunity to give up the right to win for oneself and win the chance to win. The judge can only listen to the other side's "one-sided statement" to decide the case, but it is not conducive to the protection and protection of his rights. Even if the judge wants to find out the facts, it will make the judges unable to do anything and help them because of their deliberate evasion.