Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 3:35:05 GMT
In the concrete case; The court, in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, among the jewelery subject to the case; In the face of the defendant's statements that these ornaments were returned to the plaintiff, it was decided to reject the case in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove within the scope of the file that the jewelry in question was not taken back, and did not offer an oath to the defendant, and therefore the case could not be proven in terms of the jewelry in question. Even if it is given; Since it has been proven by witness statements and expert reports that the jewelry in question was worn during the engagement and the defendant has accepted it, the burden of proof is now on the defendant, who claims that he returned the jewelry in question to the plaintiff after the engagement was broken off.
The court reversed the burden of proof and France Telegram Number Data rejected the decision on the grounds that the case could not be proven in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that she did not buy the jewelry in question, and it was against the procedure and the law and required reversal." ( In the concrete case; The court, in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, among the jewelery subject to the case; In the face of the defendant's statements that these ornaments were returned to the plaintiff, it was decided to reject the case in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove within the scope of the file that the jewelry in question was not taken back, and did not offer an oath to the defendant, and therefore the case could not be proven in terms of the jewelry in question.
Even if it is given; Since it has been proven by witness statements and expert reports that the jewelry in question was worn during the engagement and the defendant has accepted it, the burden of proof is now on the defendant, who claims that he returned the jewelry in question to the plaintiff after the engagement was broken off. "The court reversed the burden of proof and rejected the decision on the grounds that the case could not be proven in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that she did not buy the jewelry in question, and it was against the procedure and the law and required reversal." (
The court reversed the burden of proof and France Telegram Number Data rejected the decision on the grounds that the case could not be proven in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that she did not buy the jewelry in question, and it was against the procedure and the law and required reversal." ( In the concrete case; The court, in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, among the jewelery subject to the case; In the face of the defendant's statements that these ornaments were returned to the plaintiff, it was decided to reject the case in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove within the scope of the file that the jewelry in question was not taken back, and did not offer an oath to the defendant, and therefore the case could not be proven in terms of the jewelry in question.
Even if it is given; Since it has been proven by witness statements and expert reports that the jewelry in question was worn during the engagement and the defendant has accepted it, the burden of proof is now on the defendant, who claims that he returned the jewelry in question to the plaintiff after the engagement was broken off. "The court reversed the burden of proof and rejected the decision on the grounds that the case could not be proven in terms of 2 bracelets and 2 necklace sets, on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove that she did not buy the jewelry in question, and it was against the procedure and the law and required reversal." (