Precedent No. 81/2025/AL on determining civil disputes regarding reclaiming property

Precedent No. 81/2025/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on December 24, 2025, and published under Decision No. 339a/QĐ-CA dated December 25, 2025, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

1. What is a Precedent?

Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Courts regarding specific cases, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)

A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:

– It has value in clarifying legal provisions with different interpretations, analyzing and explaining legal issues and events, and pointing out principles, guidelines for handling, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case or demonstrating equity for issues not specifically regulated by law;

– It possesses standard characteristics;

– It has guiding value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.

2. Precedent No. 81/2025/AL on determining civil disputes regarding reclaiming property

2.1. Source of the Precedent

Cassation Decision No. 13/2022/KDTM-GĐT dated December 12, 2022, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the business and commercial case “Service contract dispute” between the plaintiff, M Company, and the defendant, A Joint Stock Company.

Location of the precedent content:

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the “Court’s Assessment” section.

2.2. Overview of the Precedent

– Precedent Situation:

The parties entered into and performed a service contract, then agreed to terminate the contract. The plaintiff (service provider) requested the defendant (service user) to pay the service fees; the defendant agreed to pay but had not yet paid, so the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Court requesting the defendant to pay. The defendant requested the application of the statute of limitations for filing the lawsuit.

– Legal Solution:

In this case, the Court must determine the dispute between the parties as a civil dispute regarding reclaiming property and shall not apply the statute of limitations for filing the lawsuit.

Legal provisions related to the precedent:

Clause 2, Article 155 of the Civil Code of Vietnam 2015.

Keywords of the precedent:

“Service contract”; “Reclaiming property”; “No application of the statute of limitations”.

CASE CONTENT:

According to the Petition dated November 26, 2018, and during the process of resolving the case, the plaintiff, M Company, stated:

On July 1, 2012, M Company and A Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as Company A) signed a service contract, whereby M Company would dispatch technical experts to provide services and technical guidance related to the production of Kraft pulp for Company A, based on the agreement between the two parties and Japanese law (Article 9 of the Contract).

From July 2012 to November 2012, M Company dispatched a total of 04 technical experts to Company A’s factory.

On November 2, 2012, Company A sent Document No. 319/AHP-HCNS to M Company proposing to terminate the service contract; on November 23, 2012, M Company agreed, and the service contract was terminated on November 23, 2012.

Due to the work performed and in accordance with the agreement in Article 4 of the Service Contract, M Company issued a total of 06 commercial invoices for service fees payable from July 2012 to November 2012 and costs incurred after November 2012, specifically:

After M Company issued the commercial invoices, Company A did not have any objections to the contents of these commercial invoices.

On December 8, 2012, and March 27, 2013, exchange meetings took place between M Company and Company A. In both of the aforementioned meetings, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Company A confirmed the payment to M Company according to the service contract.

By June 1, 2013, Company A sent Document No. 10/AHP-MC-2013 to M Company confirming once again that: Based on the confirmation by our Chairman, we hereby affirm that Company A will pay the service fees to M Company.

M Company has continuously requested Company A to pay through the sending of documents and official letters to Company A (such as Site Exchange Document No. SC-MC/AHP-2839, SC-MC/AHP-2842, and payment request documents on November 15, 2017, and May 23, 2018).

However, Company A has not made any payments for the fees and costs under the service contract, specifically 26,343,433 Japanese Yen as per the commercial invoices.

Company A has the obligation to pay according to Article 4 of the Service Contract. The payment deadlines were as follows:

Since Company A violated the payment obligation, it must pay late payment interest according to Article 3.5 of the Service Contract at 10%/year.

M Company requests the Court to compel Company A to pay the amount according to the commercial invoices of 26,343,433 Japanese Yen and the late payment interest provisionally calculated up to November 26, 2018, of 15,596,274 Japanese Yen. Converted into Vietnamese currency, this is equivalent to 8,762,510,504 Vietnamese dong.

The defendant, A Joint Stock Company, stated:

Does not agree with the lawsuit request of M Company as the statute of limitations for filing the lawsuit has expired, and requests the Court to apply the regulations on the statute of limitations to terminate the resolution of the case.

In the Decision to terminate the resolution of the business and commercial case No. 01/2019/QĐST-KDTM dated November 30, 2019, the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province decided:

1. Terminate the resolution of the business and commercial case registered as No. 01/2019/TLST-KDTM dated January 07, 2019, regarding “Service contract dispute” between the plaintiff, M Company, and the defendant, A Joint Stock Company.

2. Consequences of terminating the resolution of the case:

The involved parties do not have the right to file a lawsuit to request the Court to resolve the case again.

Return to M Company the entire amount of the provisional business and commercial court fee paid, which is 58,381,255 dong as per the Provisional Court Fee and Charge Receipt No. 0000507 dated January 07, 2019, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Department of Tuyen Quang Province (Paid on behalf by the Branch of Q Law Firm Co., Ltd.).

Return the petition and documents attached to the petition to the plaintiff (if requested).

On December 6, 2019, M Company filed an appeal.

In the Decision on resolving the appeal against the Decision to terminate the resolution of the case No. 37/2020/QĐ-PT dated May 06, 2020, the High People’s Court in Hanoi decided:

Not to accept the appeal of M Company; uphold the Decision to terminate the resolution of the business and commercial case No. 01/2019/QĐST-KDTM dated November 30, 2019, of the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province.

Additionally, the appellate Court also decided on the court fees.

On August 21, 2020, M Company filed a request to consider the aforementioned appellate decision under cassation procedures.

In the Cassation Protest Decision No. 24/2021/KN-KDTM dated December 23, 2021, the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court protested against the Decision on resolving the appeal against the Decision to terminate the resolution of the case No. 37/2020/QĐ-PT dated May 06, 2020, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi; proposed that the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court conduct a cassation trial, annul the aforementioned business and commercial appellate decision and annul the Decision to terminate the resolution of the business and commercial case No. 01/2019/QĐST-KDTM dated November 30, 2019, of the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province; and transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province for re-resolution according to first-instance procedures in accordance with the law.

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy agreed with the protest decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

COURT’S ASSESSMENT:

[1] On July 1, 2012, M Company and Company A signed a service contract, whereby M Company would dispatch technical experts to provide services and technical guidance related to the production of Kraft pulp for Company A, based on the agreement between the two parties and Japanese law (Article 9 of the contract).

[2] From July 2012 to November 2012, M Company dispatched a total of 04 technical experts to Company A’s factory. On November 2, 2012, Company A sent Document No. 319/AHP-HCNS to M Company proposing to terminate the service contract. On November 23, 2012, M Company and Company A agreed to terminate the service contract effective from November 23, 2012.

[3] M Company issued 06 commercial invoices for service fees payable from July 2012 to November 2012 and costs incurred after November 2012, totaling 26,343,433 Japanese Yen. Company A had the obligation to pay the final invoice before March 31, 2013.

[4] On June 1, 2013, Company A issued Official Letter No. 10/AH-MC-2013 signed by Mr. Phan A1, Deputy General Director, reaffirming that Company A would pay the service fees to M Company according to the content of the previous meeting on May 31, 2013, between M Company and Company A, specifically: “Following the confirmation by our Chairman, we hereby affirm that Company A will pay the service fees to M Company. That payment will be made immediately after the costs incurred for both parties are finalized and agreed upon.”

[5] Thus, the parties had an agreement to terminate the performance of the contract and Company A determined the obligation to pay the money according to the commercial invoices of 26,343,433 Japanese Yen and the late payment interest, meaning the parties no longer disputed the contract; therefore, M Company’s lawsuit requesting the Court to compel Company A to pay the aforementioned amount must be identified as a civil dispute regarding reclaiming property. The first-instance Court and the appellate Court identifying the legal relationship as a business and commercial dispute over a “Service contract dispute” is incorrect.

[6] According to the provisions in Clause 2, Article 155 of the Civil Code 2015, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit does not apply in this case. The first-instance Court and the appellate Court did not fully and accurately evaluate the aforementioned circumstances of the case and thus accepted Company A’s request to apply the statute of limitations as prescribed in Clause 2, Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, thereby applying Point e, Clause 1, Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code to decide to terminate the resolution of the case, which is not in accordance with the law.

For the above reasons,

DECISION:

Pursuant to Point a, Clause 2, Article 337, Clause 3, Article 343, and Article 345 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015;

Accept the Cassation Protest Decision No. 24/2021/KN-KDTM dated December 23, 2021, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Annul the Decision on resolving the appeal against the Decision to terminate the resolution of the case No. 37/2020/QĐ-PT dated May 06, 2020, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi and annul the Decision to terminate the resolution of the business and commercial case No. 01/2019/QĐST-KDTM dated November 30, 2019, of the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province regarding the business and commercial case “Service contract dispute” between the plaintiff, M Company, and the defendant, A Joint Stock Company; transfer the case file to the People’s Court of Tuyen Quang Province for re-resolution according to first-instance procedures in accordance with the law.

The cassation decision takes legal effect from the date of issuance.

CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT

“[5]… the parties had an agreement to terminate the performance of the contract and Company A determined the obligation to pay the money according to the commercial invoices of 26,343,433 Japanese Yen and the late payment interest, meaning the parties no longer disputed the contract; therefore, M Company’s lawsuit requesting the Court to compel Company A to pay the aforementioned amount must be identified as a civil dispute regarding reclaiming property. The first-instance Court and the appellate Court identifying the legal relationship as a business and commercial dispute over a “Service contract dispute” is incorrect.

[6] According to the provisions in Clause 2, Article 155 of the Civil Code 2015, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit does not apply in this case. The first-instance Court and the appellate Court did not fully and accurately evaluate the aforementioned circumstances of the case and thus accepted Company A’s request to apply the statute of limitations as prescribed in Clause 2, Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, thereby applying Point e, Clause 1, Article 217 of the Civil Procedure Code to decide to terminate the resolution of the case, which is not in accordance with the law.”.