Search method · Conclusions · Legal map · Case rules · Creditors · Heirs' defences · Argument vs outcome · Judgments · Enforcement · Authoritative cases · Index
Core conclusion: heirs' liability for the deceased's taxes and debts is limited to the actual value of the estate inherited (Civil Code Article 1161); whether an heir escapes liability depends on the form, timing and genuineness of "renunciation"; in enforcement, the court may only target the estate itself, and in principle not the heirs' own property.
This report collects and checks 87 published texts: 35 first- and second-instance judgments, 36 enforcement objection and reconsideration rulings, 15 People's Court Case Database, Gazette and typical cases, and 1 correction ruling; 16 groups of statutory provisions checked word for word (including a practice note on citations of outdated article numbers). Every case links to its full-text page (in Chinese).
Inheritance · debtsLimited inheritanceRenunciationEnforcement · substituting and adding debtorsEstate administrator★ Key database case 2024-17-5-202-00887 textsReport date 2026-09-13Scope and exceptions as set out in the text · page structure updated 2026-09-19 · statute check dates in the text
Sources: published court judgments, the People's Court Case Database and public statute databases.
1. The counts cover judgments published online; publication rates vary by region, so "288 hits" is everything searchable, not everything the courts actually heard; the 35 judgments are a stratified sample, not exhaustive.
2. The interface returns only the top 20 results per query (by relevance, not date), so slices with more than 20 hits may still contain unlisted judgments; truncated slices were split down to quarters to minimise omissions, but absolute completeness cannot be claimed.
3. After retrieval, the outcome and operative part of each text were checked; where a public text lacks the facts, only the verifiable parts are cited.
1. The limit of liability is "the actual value of the estate inherited", not all the heir's property. Civil Code Article 1161 (text in section 3) establishes limited inheritance: heirs pay the deceased's taxes and debts up to the actual value of the estate inherited and are not liable beyond that, unless they pay voluntarily. Almost every one of the 35 judgments collected states "within the scope of (the actual value of) the estate of … inherited".
2. The only key to escaping liability is "renunciation", with strict requirements of form and timing. Renunciation must be made in writing before the estate is dealt with (Civil Code Art. 1124); without it, the heir is deemed to accept. An oral "renunciation" first raised at trial is rejected ((2021) 闽0304民初173号); conversely, a written renunciation made and accepted at the enforcement (even reconsideration) stage leads the court to set aside the substitution ruling ((2022) 粤06执复78号, (2025) 辽02执复18号).
3. The burden of proof decides cases: whoever says "there is no estate" or "I renounced" must prove it. Heirs who did not prove renunciation were held liable within the estate ((2021) 赣0981民初2398号, (2022) 豫1322民初1104号); heirs who argued "the deceased left nothing to pay with" without evidence bore the consequences ((2023) 内0784民初434号).
4. Conversely, a creditor claiming "this person is liable" must first prove who the heirs are and that there is an estate. Where the plaintiff could not prove the defendant was a statutory heir, that claim failed ((2023) 辽0604民初173号); in enforcement, where the applicant could not prove an estate existed or that heirs had received it, substitution or addition was refused ((2023) 川1425执异12号, (2024) 陕0118执异72号, (2021) 渝0109执异221号, (2023) 鄂06执复197号).
5. "The estate can't be fully identified yet" is not a reason to dismiss. An appeal court said: heirs know more about the estate, so the court's inability to establish its scope does not relieve them; it can order liability "within the scope of the inherited estate" and leave the amount to enforcement ((2021) 闽03民终562号); an enforcement court likewise held that how much was inherited is not for review in the substitution procedure ((2023) 辽06执复7号).
6. Orders for liability "within the scope of the inherited estate" can be enforced directly — Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008 sets the conditions. Ma Moujia, Wang Moushou and others v Li Mouxiong ((2022) 粤01执复582号, Guangzhou Intermediate Court) established two points: (1) such orders can be filed for enforcement, and the application should not be rejected on the ground that the enforcement basis is unclear; (2) the court must establish what the heirs inherited, and enforcement measures taken directly against heirs' property without doing so must be corrected — on that basis the measures against the heirs' properties and deposits were set aside.
7. Enforcement can only target the estate, in principle not heirs' own property. A database case holds that where there is no evidence of estate assets or of estate proceeds having become the heir's own property, the heir's own property should not be seized or frozen ((2021) 京01执复216号); (2026) 新01执复36号 adds that enforcement must target the estate itself and not extend to heirs' own property. But where heirs fail to cooperate or hide or move estate assets, coercive measures can be taken against them ((2024) 甘0702执异207号).
8. The estate administrator is the necessary route where "there are no heirs / all heirs renounce". Where all heirs renounce, an estate administrator can be chosen by the heirs or appointed by the court, and then ordered to pay within the actual value of the estate administered ((2026) 川0192民初2457号, (2023) 内0203民初8049号); in enforcement the administrator should be substituted rather than the estate being enforced directly (database case (2021) 京0115执异112号). But heirs who "renounce in writing but actually possess and dispose of" the estate are treated as not having renounced (SPC typical cases on the Civil Code estate administrator system, no. 2).
9. The reserved share is the only statutory "subtraction". Debts must be paid when the estate is divided, but a necessary share must be reserved for heirs who lack the ability to work and have no means of support (Civil Code Art. 1159); in a Tianjin typical case the court first reserved RMB 151,000 in living costs for a 5-year-old heir before paying the bank.
The following are taken word for word from the current versions in public statute databases; headings and notes are the report's own.
Where a natural person who is a judgment debtor dies or is declared dead, and the applicant for enforcement applies to substitute or add as judgment debtor that person's estate administrator, heirs, legatees or others who acquired the estate by reason of the death, to bear liability within the scope of the estate, the people's court shall support the application. Where a natural person who is a judgment debtor is declared missing, and the applicant applies to substitute the property custodian as judgment debtor, to bear liability within the scope of the property in custody, the people's court shall support the application.
Status: in force | Fa Shi [2020] No. 21
Where an heir's renunciation of the right to inherit makes the heir unable to perform statutory duties, the renunciation is void.
Status: in force | Fa Shi [2020] No. 23
Where, in litigation, an heir orally tells the people's court that they renounce the inheritance, a record shall be made and signed by the person renouncing.
Status: in force | Fa Shi [2020] No. 23
The effect of renunciation relates back to the time succession opened.
Status: in force | Fa Shi [2020] No. 23
Many of the enforcement rulings collected cite "Civil Procedure Law Art. 232 / Art. 239" and "Civil Procedure Law Interpretation Art. 471 / Art. 475". Checked word for word: in the current Civil Procedure Law (2023 amendment), "where a citizen who is a judgment debtor dies, the debt is paid from their estate" is Article 243; in the current Interpretation (2022 amendment), "substitution after the judgment debtor's death" is Article 473 — Article 471 now concerns enforcing against the obligor's property when an "other organisation" cannot perform, and Article 475 concerns refusal to enforce arbitral awards. So Articles 232 / 239 are the 2012 / 2021 numbering, and Articles 471 / 475 are old numbering or mis-citations. Cite the current numbers; if the other side or the court uses old numbers, point it out, but the substantive rule has not changed.
The chain is Civil Procedure Law Interpretation Art. 473 + Art. 10 of the Provisions on Changing and Adding Parties (above). How it works in practice was settled by the database case Ma Moujia, Wang Moushou and others v Li Mouxiong, enforcement reconsideration (Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008, (2022) 粤01执复582号): such orders can be filed for enforcement, and the application should not be rejected because the basis is unclear; but the court must establish what the heirs inherited, and measures taken directly against heirs' property without doing so must be corrected. In short, how the order is worded (a litigation question) and how far enforcement can go (an enforcement question) are settled together in this case.
Each rule is supported by specific texts collected in this study; click a case number for the full text. The rule summaries and "inference" passages are the author's analysis, not the courts' words.
The database case Ma Moujia, Wang Moushou and others v Li Mouxiong (Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008, (2022) 粤01执复582号, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court) set two rules for enforcing such orders: first, the enforcement court can file the case and should not reject the application because the enforcement basis is unclear; second, the court must establish what the heirs inherited, and measures taken directly against heirs' property without doing so must be corrected. There, the lower enforcement court had seized three properties and bank deposits in the heirs' names and dismissed their objection; on reconsideration the Guangzhou court set aside the objection ruling and the parts of the enforcement ruling directed at the heirs. A contemporaneous database case, (2024) 渝0110执恢160号 (enforcement for Chongqing Jin Mou Co., Ltd.), shows the other side: after a judgment ordered payment "limited to the actual value of the estate inherited", the court valued and auctioned as a whole a set of similar trademarks in the same industry within the estate.
[Inference] Such orders used to be refused filing as "unclear", forcing creditors to sue again; the database case rejects that. The correct sequence is: file for enforcement → establish the estate → enforce within the estate. Creditors should focus on "providing leads on the estate and pushing for it to be traced and seized", not on seizing heirs' own property; heirs should argue that measures were taken before the estate was established and ask for them to be set aside.
The operative wording in these judgments takes four forms: (a) "repay RMB … within the scope of the estate of … inherited" ((2021) 赣0981民初2398号, (2023) 辽0604民初173号); (b) "pay RMB … within the actual value of the estate of … inherited" ((2021) 赣0981民初2398号, (2022) 豫1322民初1104号); (c) "pay RMB … to …, limited to the actual value of the estate of the deceased … inherited" ((2023) 粤03民终5797号); (d) "repay, limited to the actual value of the estate of … administered" (the administrator version, (2026) 川0192民初2457号).
[Inference] (c) and (d) are clearest — they put the cap directly in "limited to"; (a) is easily confused with "the heir's own property" in enforcement and is a frequent source of objections (see Rule 6). When drafting the claim, plaintiffs should use "liable for … within the actual value of the estate of the deceased … inherited" and submit leads on the estate at the same time.
Courts check two things: form (writing) and timing (before the estate is dealt with). (2023) 辽0604民初173号: the children did not renounce in writing, so they are liable within the estate; (2021) 闽0304民初173号: the heirs did not clearly renounce after succession opened but argued renunciation at trial, and the argument was rejected; likewise (2022) 豫1322民初1104号, (2023) 豫0581民初404号 and (2025) 浙0324民初12224号.
[Inference] For defendants, "saying at the hearing that I renounce" is an ineffective defence; the right way is to submit a written renunciation (it can be notarised) before the estate is dealt with, and not to receive or dispose of estate assets before or after renouncing.
(2025) 浙1024民初115号: one heir had renounced in writing and was not liable; the other had not and was liable within the value inherited. (2021) 浙1024民初2793号: the defendant expressly renounced and need not pay. (2023) 内0203民初8049号: all heirs renounced and agreed that one of them would be estate administrator; the heirs had no obligation to pay, and the administrator was to pay within the estate administered. In enforcement: (2023) 湘0321执异60号, (2022) 粤06执复78号, (2025) 辽02执复18号 and (2026) 川0503执异3号 all refused substitution / addition or set aside earlier substitution because the heirs had renounced in writing.
[Inference] Renunciation is recognised both in litigation and in enforcement, and can still be raised at the enforcement (including reconsideration) stage — provided it is in writing, timely and not contradicted by conduct.
(2023) 粤03民终5797号 (Shenzhen Intermediate Court, appeal): the heirs said they had signed and notarised a renunciation, but it was made half a year after the death, and payment-account records obtained on appeal showed large sums transferred out of the deceased's account after death; the court held that "although renunciation was declared, this is not enough to find that they actually renounced", and still ordered payment limited to the actual value of the estate inherited. SPC typical cases on the Civil Code estate administrator system, no. 2 (Hua Mou Company and Ma Mougui, application to appoint an estate administrator): an heir who renounced in writing but actually received, possessed and disposed of the estate is treated as not having renounced; the application to appoint the civil affairs department as administrator was refused, with a note that "a creditor who finds that an heir declared renunciation in writing but still possesses and uses the estate should sue the heir directly".
[Inference] Creditors' two keys against "sham renunciation": first, obtain traces of what happened to the deceased's property after death (bank statements, payment-platform records, real-property registration, vehicle transfers); second, prove the heir actually possessed, used or took income from the estate.
Route one (the judgment orders liability "within the inherited estate"): on appeal, (2021) 闽03民终562号 said that, compared with creditors, heirs know the estate better, and the court's inability to establish "whether there is an estate and whether it suffices to pay the debt" does not relieve the heirs, so it ordered them to be liable within the inherited estate for the debt and legal fees. Route two (substitute first in enforcement, establish later): (2023) 辽06执复7号 held that whether and how much the heirs inherited is not reviewed in the substitution procedure and can be confirmed in implementation; (2022) 辽02执复480号 likewise held that the amount inherited can be confirmed in implementation and a freeze cannot be lifted merely because the estate's scope is uncertain.
[Inference] Both routes lead to the same conclusion: the risk of an uncertain estate falls mainly on the heirs (who hold the information); only where "there is no evidence of any estate at all" is the creditor's application refused (the reverse of Rule 6).
Database case (2021) 京01执复216号: in enforcing a deceased's debts, measures against the judgment debtor must be limited to the estate inherited; absent evidence of estate assets or of their proceeds having become the debtor's own property, the debtor's own property should not be seized or frozen. (2026) 新01执复36号: limited inheritance requires the court to target the estate itself, not extend seizure, attachment or freezing to the heir's own property; without clear evidence that property came from the estate, it must be excluded. (2025) 陕1026执异23号: the frozen account's funds were mainly a death pension, which is personal and not part of the estate, so the freeze was lifted. (2023) 吉0523执异46号: half of the marital property is estate, the other half the surviving spouse's own share, so enforcement against that half was suspended.
[Inference] In enforcement, the heir's main battleground is "identifying the target", not "whether liable": if the property being enforced against can be shown to be personal property, a death pension or the heir's own share of marital property, the measures should be lifted; conversely, creditors applying for substitution should submit estate leads at the same time (real property, vehicles, deposits, equity, claims against third parties — database case (2023) 宁04执复10号 supports substituting heirs who inherited a claim confirmed in another case).
Applications that failed: (2023) 川1425执异12号 (no evidence the heirs had received the estate; addition refused), (2024) 陕0118执异72号 (no evidence an estate was left; substitution refused), (2021) 渝0109执异221号 (the bank's evidence could not show whether there was an estate; refused), (2023) 鄂06执复197号 (the property claimed had been allocated to someone else on divorce, no other estate evidence; refused). Renunciations that succeeded: (2023) 湘0321执异60号 (heir expressly renounced at the hearing; substitution refused under Civil Code Art. 1161(2)), (2022) 粤06执复78号 (renounced at reconsideration; substitution set aside, with an order that the heir may not be added), (2025) 辽02执复18号 (those who signed a renunciation may not be substituted; those who said nothing may). And (2024) 辽0323执异61号 and (2025) 辽0103执异793号: the heirs admitted the death and did not clearly renounce, so they were substituted / added directly.
[Inference] The order of review in enforcement: (1) has the judgment debtor died → (2) is there an estate (applicant to prove) → (3) did the heirs accept (heirs' position) → (4) after substitution, liability within the estate. If any link is missing, the result flips.
Civil Code Article 1145 points "no heirs, or all heirs renounce" to the civil affairs department or villagers' committee of the deceased's last residence. (2026) 川0192民初2457号 (a 2026 judgment): after the statutory heirs renounced, the court first appointed a social work department as estate administrator, the bank then sued, and the administrator was ordered to repay the loan principal, interest, penalty interest and compound interest limited to the actual value of the estate administered, with the mortgage confirmed. (2023) 内0203民初8049号: all heirs renounced and chose one as administrator, who was ordered to pay within the estate administered. (2019) 苏0481民初4347号: ordered "to clear the estate and pay from the cleared or inherited estate". In enforcement: database case (2021) 京0115执异112号 holds that where all heirs renounce, the administrator should be substituted as judgment debtor, enforcement cannot bypass the administrator, and the substitution procedure can absorb the appointment procedure; (2026) 新7102执异5号 and (2025) 川0683执异73号 substituted heirs under the rule that "where heirs have not chosen an administrator, they act as administrators jointly"; (2025) 沪0116执异384号 the other way: where there is a dispute over who the administrator is, the special appointment procedure must come first, and direct substitution was refused.
[Inference] For creditors, "everyone renounced" is no longer a dead end: apply to appoint an administrator and sue, or apply in enforcement to substitute the administrator; for heirs, choosing an administrator is a tool to turn personal liability into an administrative duty — provided they do not possess or dispose of the estate.
Reserved share: Civil Code Art. 1159; in the Tianjin typical case (Fu Mou, Zhang Mou, Shen Mou), RMB 151,000 in living costs was first reserved for a 5-year-old heir before the bank was paid from the sale of the mortgaged property. Marital property and debts: (2021) 鲁1728民初4269号 ordered the spouse to repay directly (as a joint marital debt) + heirs jointly liable within the estate; (2022) 内0523民初1715号 and (2023) 吉2426民初97号 first split the deceased's house and tractor as marital property (half each), then determined the estate by inheritance shares; (2024) 浙1024民初28号 ordered heirs to repay the guarantor's payment within the estate, with a guarantor jointly liable for half of what could not be paid; (2022) 川1024执异12号 held that where the judgment named only one spouse, the other spouse's joint liability cannot be added in enforcement. On the standard of proof for joint marital debts see database case (2022) 晋08民再7号.
[Inference] Estate = the deceased's share of marital property + their separate property + their claims against others; death pensions and death compensation are not estate. Getting this calculation wrong directly affects whether the words "within the estate" in the order ever produce money.
This section separates "routes the law allows" from "moves that look effective but will be pierced". The former are defences; the latter are not, and may make things worse.
1. Saying "I renounce" for the first time at trial — rejected ((2021) 闽0304民初173号).
2. Declaring renunciation but continuing to receive, possess or dispose of the estate — treated as not renounced, still liable up to the actual value inherited, and possibly seen as evading liability ((2023) 粤03民终5797号; SPC typical cases on the estate administrator system, no. 2).
3. Hiding, moving or disposing of estate assets to avoid enforcement — the court can enforce against the estate directly; for non-cooperation or hiding assets it can freeze accounts and impose fines, detention or listing as a dishonest debtor; in serious cases criminal liability can follow (e.g. refusing to execute judgments or rulings, Criminal Law Art. 313) (the enforcement notices at the end of many judgments collected say so, e.g. (2025) 内0104民初4809号, (2023) 吉2426民初97号).
4. Not appearing or not responding — treated as giving up the rights to defend, give evidence and cross-examine; the court gives judgment in default, usually less favourable to the absent party ((2021) 赣0981民初2398号, (2023) 豫0581民初404号, (2025) 内0104民初4809号).
5. Refusing to pay because "I got nothing" or "the estate can't be identified" — courts at both levels in this study take the opposite view ((2021) 闽03民终562号, (2023) 辽06执复7号), and the person asserting "no estate" must prove it ((2023) 内0784民初434号). But note the distinction: establishing the estate is a precondition for enforcement measures (Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008); "can't be identified" neither relieves the heir nor justifies enforcing directly against the heir's own property.
| Stage | Argument | Outcome | Reason | Case number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litigation | Heir did not state renunciation (or did not appear) | Liable | Renunciation not proved; deemed to accept. | (2021) 赣0981民初2398号 |
| Litigation | Renunciation first argued at trial | Rejected | Must be in writing before the estate is dealt with; trial argument not accepted. | (2021) 闽0304民初173号 |
| Litigation | Notarised renunciation | Partly rejected | Made half a year after death, with large transfers from the account meanwhile; not enough to show actual renunciation. | (2023) 粤03民终5797号 |
| Litigation | Heir who renounced in writing claims no liability | Upheld | An heir who renounces need not pay the deceased's debts. | (2025) 浙1024民初115号 |
| Litigation | All heirs renounce and choose an administrator | Upheld (against the administrator) | Heirs not liable; the administrator pays within the estate administered. | (2023) 内0203民初8049号 |
| Litigation | Defendant says the deceased left nothing to pay with | Rejected | No evidence; bears the consequences. | (2023) 内0784民初434号 |
| Litigation | Claim that the defendant is an heir, without evidence | Rejected | Insufficient evidence that the defendant is a statutory heir. | (2023) 辽0604民初173号 |
| Litigation | Direct repayment claimed without the estate's scope stated | Partly upheld | Ordered to pay "within the inherited estate", scope left to enforcement. | (2021) 闽03民终562号 |
| Litigation | Reserved share for a minor heir | Upheld | A necessary share is reserved for heirs who cannot work and have no means of support. | People's Court Case Database · Tianjin typical case no. 5 on protecting minors |
| Litigation | Heir argues the debt is time-barred | Partly upheld | RMB 10,000 time-barred and the defence raised; not protected. | (2021) 闽0304民初173号 |
| Enforcement | Substituting an heir + evidence of an estate | Upheld | Debtor dead and heir has not renounced. | (2024) 辽0323执异61号 |
| Enforcement | Substituting an heir without estate evidence | Rejected | No evidence the heir received the estate. | (2023) 川1425执异12号 |
| Enforcement | Heir renounces in writing at the hearing | Application rejected | Not liable under Civil Code Art. 1161(2). | (2023) 湘0321执异60号 |
| Enforcement | Renunciation at reconsideration | For the heir | Substitution set aside; heir may not be added. | (2022) 粤06执复78号 |
| Enforcement | Substituting the estate administrator (all renounced) | Upheld | Enforcement cannot bypass the administrator. | Database case (2021) 京0115执异112号 |
| Enforcement | Direct substitution despite a dispute over the administrator | Rejected | The administrator must first be appointed through the special procedure. | (2025) 沪0116执异384号 |
| Enforcement | Heir seeks lifting of a freeze because the estate is uncertain | Rejected (in part) | Uncertain scope does not affect substitution; but necessary living costs must be considered. | (2022) 辽02执复480号 |
| Enforcement | Measures against the heir's own property | Rejected | No evidence the estate became the heir's own property. | Database case (2021) 京01执复216号 |
| Enforcement | Frozen funds are a death pension | Freeze lifted | A death pension is personal and not estate. | (2025) 陕1026执异23号 |
| Enforcement | A minor's family's necessary living costs may not be frozen | Partly upheld | Art. 3 of the provisions on seizure, attachment and freezing applies. | (2022) 辽02执复480号 |
| Enforcement | Making a spouse jointly liable for the other's debt without a judgment | Rejected | The judgment named only one spouse; enforcement cannot extend it. | (2022) 川1024执异12号 |
| Enforcement | Substituting heirs for a claim confirmed in another case | Upheld | The heirs inherited the claim and are liable within the estate. | Database case (2023) 宁04执复10号 |
| Enforcement | Refusing to file enforcement of an "within the inherited estate" order as "unclear" | Rejected | Such orders can be filed; the court must establish the estate before taking measures. | Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008 ((2022) 粤01执复582号) |
| Enforcement | Seizing three properties and deposits of heirs before establishing the estate | Corrected | Objection ruling and the measures against the heirs set aside on reconsideration. | (2022) 粤01执复582号 |
| Enforcement | Death pension claimed as estate to be divided | Rejected | Paid to close relatives; not part of the estate. | Database case (2019) 鄂05民终1588号 |
A stratified sample from the main search "liable for repayment within the scope of the inherited estate"; click a case number for the full text (in Chinese). The summaries are our condensed English renderings of the operative part.
| Case number | Court | Date | Cause of action | Operative part (summary) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (2021) 赣0981民初2398号 | Fengcheng People's Court, Yichun, Jiangxi | 2021-07-21 | Sales contract | Four heirs to pay RMB 320,000 for materials within the actual value of the estate inherited. |
| (2023) 辽0604民初173号 | Zhen'an District People's Court, Dandong, Liaoning | 2023-04-12 | Sales contract | Two heirs to repay RMB 187,226 for goods within the estate inherited; other claims dismissed; double interest for late performance. |
| (2024) 浙0226民初6077号 | Ninghai County People's Court, Ningbo, Zhejiang | 2025-01-06 | Sales contract | Two heirs to pay RMB 184,339 for goods within the actual value of the estate inherited. |
| (2025) 渝0104民初5749号 | Dadukou District People's Court, Chongqing | 2025-10-13 | Tort | One defendant to repay RMB 12,252.11 of rescue costs advanced; three heirs to repay RMB 73,520 within the estate inherited; an insurer to pay its share. |
| (2021) 闽03民终562号 | Putian Intermediate People's Court, Fujian | 2021-05-06 | Credit card | First-instance judgment set aside; three heirs liable within the estate for principal RMB 286,317.17 plus 12.6% interest and RMB 3,000 legal fees. |
| (2021) 闽0681民初2478号 | Longhai People's Court, Zhangzhou, Fujian | 2021-06-20 | Loan contract | Borrower to repay RMB 100,000 principal plus interest, penalty and compound interest to the bank; heirs liable within the estate. |
| (2025) 辽0191民初6837号 | Shenyang Economic and Technological Development Zone People's Court, Liaoning | 2026-01-22 | Loan contract | One defendant to repay RMB 1.5 million plus LPR interest; two defendants liable within the estate inherited. |
| (2021) 豫1281民初59号 | Yima People's Court, Sanmenxia, Henan | 2021-07-05 | Partnership agreement | Three heirs jointly to pay RMB 100,823.87 of partnership profits and advances owed by the deceased, within the estate. |
| (2025) 川0823民初337号 | Jiange County People's Court, Guangyuan, Sichuan | 2025-09-12 | Contract | One defendant to repay RMB 1.05 million plus interest; a company liable; heirs liable within the estate. |
| (2025) 冀0427民初3669号 | Ci County People's Court, Handan, Hebei | 2025-09-02 | House sale | One defendant to repay RMB 550,000 purchase price; an heir liable within the value of a half share of a rural house inherited. |
| (2022) 内0523民初1715号 | Kailu County People's Court, Tongliao, Inner Mongolia | 2022-04-06 | Work contract | One defendant to pay RMB 48,000 for works; an heir liable within the estate inherited. |
| (2024) 津0116民初32248号 | Binhai New Area People's Court, Tianjin | 2025-01-06 | Motor accident | Insurer to pay within compulsory and commercial cover; remaining liability on heirs within the estate. |
| (2026) 渝0115民初5769号 | Changshou District People's Court, Chongqing | 2026-08-14 | Motor accident | Three heirs to pay RMB 64,400 of rescue costs advanced by the relief fund, within the estate. |
| (2021) 鲁1728民初4269号 | Dongming County People's Court, Heze, Shandong | 2022-02-28 | Private lending | Spouse to repay RMB 39,500; two heirs jointly liable within the estate for the deceased's RMB 39,500 debt. |
| (2023) 吉2426民初97号 | Antu County People's Court, Yanbian, Jilin | 2023-01-13 | Private lending | Heir to repay RMB 30,000 principal within the estate inherited. |
| (2023) 粤03民终5797号 | Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong | 2024-01-17 | Private lending | First instance set aside; two heirs to repay RMB 36,488, limited to the actual value of the estate inherited. |
| (2025) 浙1024民初115号 | Xianju County People's Court, Taizhou, Zhejiang | 2025-01-22 | Private lending | Heir who had not renounced to return RMB 55,000 plus 3.1% interest within the value of the estate; other claims dismissed. |
| (2025) 冀0723民初1895号 | Kangbao County People's Court, Zhangjiakou, Hebei | 2026-02-13 | Private lending | Heir to repay RMB 662,880 principal plus 1% monthly interest within the estate. |
| (2021) 皖0503民初3668号 | Huashan District People's Court, Ma'anshan, Anhui | 2022-04-08 | Lease | A cooperative to return RMB 90,000 rent plus interest; an heir liable within the estate. |
| (2026) 川0192民初2457号 | Chengdu area court of Sichuan Tianfu New Area | 2026-04-15 | Succession | A government work department, as estate administrator, to repay about RMB 2.27 million principal plus interest, penalty and compound interest, limited to the actual value of the estate administered. |
| (2017) 吉0182民初4460号 | Yushu People's Court, Changchun, Jilin | 2018-01-23 | Deceased's debts | Four heirs to repay RMB 10,000 within the estate inherited. |
| (2019) 苏0481民初4347号 | Liyang People's Court, Changzhou, Jiangsu | 2019-11-08 | Deceased's debts | Heir to clear the estate within 30 days and repay RMB 110,000 from the cleared or inherited estate. |
| (2021) 闽0304民初173号 | Licheng District People's Court, Putian, Fujian | 2021-04-09 | Deceased's debts | Three heirs to repay RMB 30,000 within the estate each inherited; other claims (time-barred part) dismissed. |
| (2022) 豫1322民初1104号 | Fangcheng County People's Court, Nanyang, Henan | 2022-03-22 | Deceased's debts | Two heirs to pay RMB 7,431 within the actual value of the estate inherited. |
| (2023) 豫0581民初404号 | Linzhou People's Court, Anyang, Henan | 2023-02-27 | Deceased's debts | Three heirs to repay RMB 19,000 within the estate; voluntary payment beyond its actual value not restricted. |
| (2023) 内0203民初8049号 | Kundulun District People's Court, Baotou, Inner Mongolia | 2024-01-10 | Deceased's debts | The estate administrator to repay RMB 10,000 plus interest within the estate administered. |
| (2025) 浙0324民初12224号 | Yongjia County People's Court, Wenzhou, Zhejiang | 2026-01-30 | Deceased's debts | Five heirs to repay a rural commercial bank RMB 50,000 principal plus interest and penalties within the actual value of the estate. |
| (2021) 浙1024民初2793号 | Xianju County People's Court, Taizhou, Zhejiang | 2021-06-29 | Recourse | Heir to return RMB 108,466 paid on the deceased's behalf, within the estate; other heirs liable for 50% within the estate. |
| (2022) 辽0902民初729号 | Haizhou District People's Court, Fuxin, Liaoning | 2022-05-16 | Recourse | Defendants to pay an insurer RMB 27,385.47 plus penalty; two heirs liable within the estate. |
| (2024) 浙1024民初28号 | Xianju County People's Court, Taizhou, Zhejiang | 2024-01-12 | Recourse | Two heirs to return RMB 5,865,492.60 paid on the deceased's behalf within the estate; a guarantor jointly liable for half of what cannot be paid. |
| (2025) 内0104民初4809号 | Yuquan District People's Court, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia | 2025-11-03 | Recourse | Heir to pay an insurer RMB 205,140.04 within the estate inherited. |
| (2022) 浙1024民初2192号 | Xianju County People's Court, Taizhou, Zhejiang | 2022-05-27 | Financial loan | Heir to return RMB 200,000 principal plus interest and RMB 2,500 legal fees within the estate (capped at 2% a month). |
| (2023) 内0784民初434号 | Ergun People's Court, Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia | 2023-05-23 | Financial loan | Borrower to repay RMB 141,123.73 principal plus interest; guarantors and heirs liable (heirs within the estate). |
| (2024) 川1322民初5580号 | Yingshan County People's Court, Nanchong, Sichuan | 2025-06-18 | Deceased's debts | Four heirs to pay RMB 590,000 rent for building materials within the actual value of the estate. |
| (2024) 皖1323民初15号 | Lingbi County People's Court, Suzhou, Anhui | 2024-01-24 | Deceased's debts | Two heirs to pay RMB 57,928 paid on the deceased's behalf within the estate; voluntary payment beyond not restricted. |
Rulings on applications, after the judgment debtor's death, to substitute or add heirs or an estate administrator as judgment debtors liable within the estate. Many cite both Art. 10 of the Provisions on Changing and Adding Parties and Art. 473 of the Civil Procedure Law Interpretation (some cite old article numbers; see the note in section 3).
| Case number | Court | Date | Ruling (summary) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2024) 粤1971执异297号 | Dongguan No. 1 People's Court, Guangdong | 2024-07-17 | Outsider's objection dismissed; reconsideration available within ten days. |
| (2023) 川1425执异12号 | Qingshen County People's Court, Meishan, Sichuan | 2023-07-11 | Bank's application to add heirs dismissed (no evidence heirs received the estate). |
| (2024) 辽0323执异61号 | Xiuyan Manchu Autonomous County People's Court, Anshan, Liaoning | 2024-07-03 | Son substituted as judgment debtor, liable within his father's estate. |
| (2025) 沪0116执异384号 | Jinshan District People's Court, Shanghai | 2025-10-20 | Applications to add two persons dismissed (dispute over who is administrator; special procedure first). |
| (2023) 冀1126执异78号 | Gucheng County People's Court, Hengshui, Hebei | 2023-12-27 | Four persons added as judgment debtors, liable within the estate inherited or administered. |
| (2025) 陕0527执异1号 | Baishui County People's Court, Weinan, Shaanxi | 2025-01-16 | Judgment debtor substituted by an heir. |
| (2026) 渝0235执异30号 | Yunyang County People's Court, Chongqing | 2026-05-08 | Application to add three persons as judgment debtors dismissed. |
| (2024) 陕0118执异72号 | Huyi District People's Court, Xi'an, Shaanxi | 2024-12-14 | Application to substitute three heirs dismissed (no evidence an estate was left). |
| (2025) 黔0122执异11号 | Xifeng County People's Court, Guiyang, Guizhou | 2025-04-02 | Three heirs added, each liable within the estate inherited for what the deceased could not pay. |
| (2026) 鄂06执复3号 | Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court, Hubei | 2026-01-30 | Reconsideration dismissed; lower court's ruling upheld. |
| (2021) 渝0109执异221号 | Beibei District People's Court, Chongqing | 2021-10-27 | Bank's application dismissed (could not show whether an estate existed). |
| (2020) 陕0928执异19号 | Xunyang County People's Court, Ankang, Shaanxi | 2020-10-13 | Applicant's request dismissed. |
| (2021) 闽04执复1号 | Sanming Intermediate People's Court, Fujian | 2021-01-26 | Objection ruling set aside and remitted for fresh review. |
| (2022) 陕0928执异5号 | Xunyang County People's Court, Ankang, Shaanxi | 2022-03-23 | One heir substituted, liable within the estate; application against two others dismissed. |
| (2023) 辽06执复7号 | Dandong Intermediate People's Court, Liaoning | 2023-01-30 | Heirs' reconsideration dismissed; substitution upheld (amount inherited not reviewed at this stage). |
| (2023) 湘0321执异60号 | Xiangtan County People's Court, Hunan | 2024-01-05 | Bank's substitution application dismissed (heir renounced at the hearing). |
| (2025) 辽02执复18号 | Dalian Intermediate People's Court, Liaoning | 2025-01-16 | On reconsideration of a substitution of two heirs: those who signed renunciations may not be substituted; those who did not may. |
| (2026) 川0503执异3号 | Naxi District People's Court, Luzhou, Sichuan | 2026-01-08 | Objection dismissed (heir's written renunciation). |
| (2023) 鄂06执复197号 | Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court, Hubei | 2023-10-07 | Reconsideration dismissed (property claimed allocated to another on divorce; no other estate evidence). |
| (2026) 新7102执异5号 | Korla Railway Transport Court | 2026-04-28 | Three heirs added as judgment debtors within the estate. |
| (2022) 粤06执复78号 | Foshan Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong | 2022-03-17 | Substitution of an heir set aside; the heir may not be added (renounced at reconsideration). |
| (2024) 内01执复115号 | Hohhot Intermediate People's Court, Inner Mongolia | 2024-05-15 | Reconsideration dismissed; lower court's ruling upheld. |
| (2022) 新23执复10号 | Changji Intermediate People's Court, Xinjiang | 2022-03-16 | Heirs' reconsideration dismissed; lower court's ruling upheld. |
| (2025) 川0683执异73号 | Mianzhu People's Court, Deyang, Sichuan | 2025-11-12 | Three heirs substituted, liable within the estate. |
| (2022) 川1024执异12号 | Weiyuan County People's Court, Neijiang, Sichuan | 2022-06-13 | Surviving spouse substituted, liable only within the estate inherited (not jointly for the debt). |
| (2025) 内0429执异32号 | Ningcheng County People's Court, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia | 2025-04-27 | One heir added, liable within the estate inherited. |
| (2024) 冀01执复368号 | Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court, Hebei | 2024-11-26 | Lower ruling upheld, with the order varied: three heirs substituted, liable within the estate. |
| (2025) 辽0103执异793号 | Shenhe District People's Court, Shenyang, Liaoning | 2025-11-26 | Heirs substituted / added (they admitted the death and did not renounce). |
"Creditor's application refused" and "heir's application to lift measures" are the most useful outcomes for mapping the limits of enforcement: the first shows the cost of insufficient evidence; the second shows how estate and heirs' own property are told apart.
| Case number | Court | Date | Ruling (summary) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2024) 甘0702执异207号 | Ganzhou District People's Court, Zhangye, Gansu | 2024-08-22 | Heirs' objection dismissed (coercive measures for non-cooperation with the estate). |
| (2025) 陕1026执异23号 | Zhashui County People's Court, Shangluo, Shaanxi | 2025-08-01 | Freeze on an account (death pension) lifted; other objections dismissed. |
| (2021) 苏0322执异353号 | Pei County People's Court, Xuzhou, Jiangsu | 2021-12-07 | Objection dismissed. |
| (2022) 辽02执复480号 | Dalian Intermediate People's Court, Liaoning | 2022-11-04 | On the creditor's reconsideration about a frozen RMB 325,720 deposit in the widow's account: freeze partly lifted, considering necessary living costs; uncertain estate scope does not prevent substitution. |
| (2023) 吉0523执异46号 | Huinan County People's Court, Tonghua, Jilin | 2023-08-22 | Enforcement against half of a car and half of a RMB 40,000 deposit suspended (the surviving spouse's share); other objections dismissed. |
| (2024) 辽0102执异15号 | Heping District People's Court, Shenyang, Liaoning | 2024-01-04 | Objection dismissed. |
| (2025) 吉01执复35号 | Changchun Intermediate People's Court, Jilin | 2025-03-10 | Reconsideration dismissed; lower court's ruling upheld. |
| (2026) 新01执复36号 | Urumqi Intermediate People's Court, Xinjiang | 2026-05-13 | Reconsideration dismissed; enforcement must target the estate itself, not heirs' own property. |
Texts from the authoritative case databases (database cases, Gazette cases, SPC and local typical cases); their holdings can be cited directly. Click a title for the case text. Database and typical-case texts are not the original judgments; state the type when citing.
Searching the SPC Guiding Cases with queries such as "inheritance, debt, payment", "estate" and "within the estate, judgment debtor" returned 19 hits, but on reading each, none directly addresses "heirs paying the deceased's debts within the estate". The closest in principle is Guiding Case No. 34 (Li Xiaoling and Li Pengyu, enforcement reconsideration against Xiamen Ocean Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Ocean Industry Corporation) — "where the right holder under an effective legal document lawfully assigned the claim before enforcement, the assignee may apply for enforcement directly without a ruling substituting the applicant" — a general principle of succession to enforcement parties, but about assignment, not inheritance, so it cannot be the basis for decision on this issue. The authoritative sources on this issue are therefore 8 database cases, 1 Gazette case and 6 SPC and local typical cases (below); when citing, use two layers: "database holding + effective judgment".
Ma Moujia, Wang Moushou and others v Li Mouxiong, enforcement reconsideration | (2022) 粤01执复582号 | Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong | 2023-01-31
The database case directly on orders "liable within the scope of the inherited estate", establishing: (1) once such an order enters enforcement, the court can file the case and should not reject the application because the basis is unclear; (2) the court must establish what the heirs inherited, and measures taken directly against heirs' property without doing so must be corrected. There, the lower enforcement court seized (froze, deducted) heirs' deposits up to RMB 1.32 million and three properties in their names, and dismissed their objection; on reconsideration the Guangzhou court set aside the objection ruling and the parts of the enforcement ruling directed at the heirs.
This case is the report's axis: core conclusion 6 in section 2 (conditions for enforcement) · the practice note in section 3 (enforcement basis and article numbers) · Rule 1 in section 4 · steps zero to two of the creditor's enforcement route in section 5 · defence A.7 and risk B.5 in section 6 · the table in section 7 · the appendix in section 12. Click "(2022) 粤01执复582号" in the first row below for the case text.
| Case number / case | Type | Title | Date | Holding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (2022) 粤01执复582号 Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008 | Database case | Ma Moujia, Wang Moushou and others v Li Mouxiong, enforcement reconsideration | 2023-01-31 | Once an order in an effective legal document that a party is "liable within the scope of the inherited estate" enters enforcement, the court can file the case and should not reject the application because the basis is unclear. In enforcement, the court must establish what the heirs inherited; measures taken directly against heirs' property without doing so must be corrected. |
| (2021) 京01执复216号 | Database case | Zhao Moumou v a Beijing petroleum technology company, enforcement reconsideration | 2021-12-17 | 1. In enforcing a deceased's debts, measures against the judgment debtor are limited to the estate inherited; absent evidence of estate assets or their proceeds having become the debtor's own property, the debtor's own property should not be seized or frozen. 2. Renunciation is a disposal of property interests already acquired; where the judgment debtor renounces the whole estate at the enforcement stage, the premise of their obligation under the judgment disappears and they need not pay the deceased's debts. |
| (2021) 京0115执异112号 | Database case | A bank's application to substitute a Beijing district civil affairs bureau as judgment debtor | 2021-05-28 | Where the judgment debtor dies during enforcement and all heirs expressly renounce, the court should substitute the estate administrator as judgment debtor rather than enforce directly against the estate — enforcement cannot bypass the administrator. Where no administrator has been appointed, the substitution procedure can absorb the appointment procedure, reducing costs and time; both are non-contentious procedures, and combining them fits the theory of joinder and the aim of resolving disputes in one go. |
| (2023) 宁04执复10号 | Database case | Yuan Mouqi v Liu Moutai, enforcement reconsideration | 2023-06-08 | Where the judgment debtor dies and an heir inherits the debtor's claim against a third party, confirmed by an effective judgment in another case, an application to substitute that heir as judgment debtor, liable within the estate including the claim, shall be supported. |
| Case number not disclosed | Database case | Chen Moujia v Liu Moujia and others, payment of the deceased's debts | 2019-08-29 | 1. Where a minor's legal representatives have conflicting positions in litigation and direct representation could harm the minor, a temporary legal representative should be appointed to take part. 2. Where a parent-child or kinship relationship cannot be confirmed directly, a child born out of wedlock's relationship with the deceased can be inferred from evidence such as household registration certificates, birth certificates and original archived documents, protecting their inheritance rights equally. |
| (2022) 晋08民再7号 | Database case | Zhang Mou and Wang Mou v Song Mou and others, loan contract | 2022-06-08 | Where only one spouse signed the IOU and the lender claims a joint marital debt, the lender must prove the debt was used for joint family life or business or was based on both spouses' common intention. If the other spouse knew of the loan and expressed an intention to repay, even without knowing the amount, it is a joint marital debt. |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | SPC typical cases on the estate administrator system, no. 5: necessary and reasonable administration costs can be paid first from the estate | Administration costs are common-benefit debts and can be paid first from the estate; after checking their genuineness, necessity and reasonableness, the necessary costs of clearing, keeping, disposing of the estate and paying debts are paid with priority — easing administrators' worries about advancing funds. Civil Code Arts. 1145–1147. | |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | SPC typical cases on the estate administrator system, no. 2: Hua Mou Company and Ma Mougui, application to appoint an estate administrator | Civil Code Art. 1145 (civil affairs department or villagers' committee as administrator where there are no heirs or all renounce) aims to prevent estates going unmanaged, not to give heirs a tool to escape liability. An heir who renounced in writing but actually received, possessed and disposed of the estate is treated as not having renounced; the application to appoint the civil affairs department was refused, preventing heirs from "having it both ways". A creditor who finds an heir has renounced in writing but still uses the estate should sue the heir directly. | |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | SPC typical cases on the estate administrator system, no. 3: Ge Jiacheng and Li Mouping v a district civil affairs bureau, distribution of estate to a non-heir | Where the civil affairs department agrees to act as administrator and the parties do not dispute it, the court can appoint the administrator in the operative part of the judgment after explanation, without the special procedure; under Civil Code Art. 1131, a non-heir who supported the deceased substantially can be given an appropriate share. | |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | Tianjin courts' typical cases on protecting minors, no. 5: a Tianjin bank v Fu Mou, Zhang Mou and Shen Mou, payment of the deceased's debts | Under Civil Code Art. 1159, debts are paid when the estate is divided, but a necessary share is reserved for heirs who lack the ability to work and have no means of support. The deceased owed a mortgage-backed bank loan, the property's value was low, and the minor heir, raised by a mother with limited income, would face hardship if the house were sold; the court reserved a necessary share for the child. | |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | Typical cases on protecting the elderly, no. 5: resolving an inheritance dispute between parents who lost their only child | After an only child and spouse died, both sets of parents disputed the estate; the court identified the marital property and estate, confirmed each heir's share and resolved inheritance and the deceased's debts together, following "first split the property, then pay debts, then inherit", with elderly-friendly litigation services, ending in mediation. | |
| Case number not disclosed | Gazette case | Gu Moujia, Gu Mouyi and Gu Moubing, application to appoint an estate administrator | 2022-12-07 | Where there are no heirs, a person with no statutory duty of support who in fact supported the deceased substantially, and who meets Civil Code Art. 1131 ("may be given an appropriate share"), has a legal interest in the proper keeping of the estate and may apply to the court to appoint an estate administrator. |
| Case number not disclosed | Typical case | SPC typical cases on the estate administrator system, no. 4: the estate of a missing heir can be kept by the administrator through deposit | Where an heir is missing, by analogy with Civil Code Art. 1145 the civil affairs department or villagers' committee can act as administrator; the missing heir keeps the right to inherit, and the court can determine their share while assigning keeping to the administrator; a notary's dedicated deposit account prevents misuse. | |
| (2019) 鄂05民终1588号 | Database case | Zheng Mouyi v Hu Mou, partition of co-owned property | 2019-05-24 | A death pension is paid by the deceased's employer by law to close relatives as consolation and financial compensation; it is not the deceased's property, so it is not part of the estate and cannot be distributed under inheritance law. |
| (2024) 渝0110执恢160号 | Database case | Enforcement for Chongqing Jin Mou Co., Ltd. | 2024-07-23 | 1. Under Art. 42(2) of the Trademark Law, similar trademarks in the same industry with identical words and images have value as a whole and should be auctioned together; similarity is technical, so the enforcement department should hear the parties and consult the trademark authority. 2. Where such trademarks involve different enforcement cases, each mark should be valued separately and proceeds distributed in principle by priority of seizure, unless the conditions for participatory distribution are met. |
87 entries. Genuine court documents can be cited as judgments / rulings; database and typical cases are release-format texts and must be labelled as such. All texts are in Chinese.
| # | Case number / case | Court | Date | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–35 | The 35 judgments in section 8 (j01–j35) | See section 8 | 2018–2026 | Genuine court documents (judgments; (2024) 浙0226民初6077号 is a typical-case release) |
| 36–63 | The 28 enforcement rulings in section 9 (z01–z28) | See section 9 | 2020–2026 | Genuine court documents (rulings) |
| 64–71 | The 8 enforcement rulings in section 10 (n01–n08) | See section 10 | 2021–2026 | Genuine court documents (rulings) |
| 72 | (2022) 粤01执复582号 Database No. 2024-17-5-202-008 | Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong | 2023-01-31 | ★ Database case text (release format) |
| 73 | (2021) 京01执复216号 | Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court | 2021-12-17 | Database case text |
| 74 | (2021) 京0115执异112号 | Daxing District People's Court, Beijing | 2021-05-28 | Database case text |
| 75 | (2023) 宁04执复10号 | Guyuan Intermediate People's Court, Ningxia | 2023-06-08 | Database case text |
| 76 | Chen Moujia v Liu Moujia and others, payment of the deceased's debts | Minhang District People's Court, Shanghai | 2019-08-29 | Database case text |
| 77 | (2022) 晋08民再7号 | Yuncheng Intermediate People's Court, Shanxi | 2022-06-08 | Database case text |
| 78 | SPC estate administrator typical case no. 5 | Typical-case release | ||
| 79 | SPC estate administrator typical case no. 2 | Typical-case release | ||
| 80 | SPC estate administrator typical case no. 3 | Typical-case release | ||
| 81 | Tianjin minors' protection typical case no. 5 | Typical-case release | ||
| 82 | Elderly protection typical case no. 5 | Typical-case release | ||
| 83 | Gu Moujia and others, application to appoint an estate administrator | Taicang People's Court, Jiangsu | 2022-12-07 | Gazette case text |
| 84 | SPC estate administrator typical case no. 4 | Typical-case release | ||
| 85 | (2019) 鄂05民终1588号 | Yichang Intermediate People's Court, Hubei | 2019-05-24 | Database case text |
| 86 | (2024) 渝0110执恢160号 | Qijiang District People's Court, Chongqing | 2024-07-23 | Database case text |
| 87 | (2024) 沪0113民初24856号 | Baoshan District People's Court, Shanghai | 2025-01-15 | Correction ruling |
Genuine court documents: taken from published court documents (party names anonymised by the publishing channel), laid out in paragraphs without changes; some public texts lack party information or full facts.
People's Court Case Database texts: release format (keywords / holding / facts / related provisions), not the original judgment.
Typical-case releases: texts of typical cases released by the SPC or high courts (facts / outcome / significance), not the original judgment.
Sources: published court documents, the People's Court Case Database and public statute databases; search and check date 2026-09-13. This report is a lawyer's case research and not legal advice on any specific case.
Wang Xin works in English and Mandarin. Phone +86-18601139509 · WeChat wang223040 · weekdays 9:00–18:00 China time (UTC+8).
Contact Wang Xin