On August 1, the people's Procuratorate of Guyang County, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region held a public hearing on a civil effective judgment supervision case. In 2015, Qi, a timber merchant, supplied goods for the rural housing reconstruction and construction project contracted by Luo. After receiving the goods, Luo and Kang jointly issued an IOU for Qi, specifying the amount of the unpaid goods and signing on the voucher. On October 7, 2017, Qi died of a car accident, but at this time, the payment in arrears has not been recovered. On September 3, 2019, Yue, the successor of Qi, and other three people sued Luo and Kang to the court, requesting that Luo and Kang jointly pay the overdue payment and interest. The court held in the first instance that although Qi, Luo and Kang had not signed a sales contract, the receipt certificate provided by Yue and other three persons could confirm the objective existence of the purchase and sale of materials between the two parties. Therefore, Luo and Kang should pay the goods according to the amount signed and confirmed on the IOU. The court therefore decided that Luo and Kang should jointly repay the loan and interest of more than 126000 yuan. Kang refused to accept the judgment of the first trial and applied to Baotou intermediate court for retrial, claiming that he should not bear the liability for paying off the debts owed by Luo, because he and Luo were neither a joint contractor nor a partner, but a keeper employed by Luo, who worked for him for three months. It was during this period that I received the goods sent by Qi and signed my name on the IOU. Therefore, I requested that the judgment of the court of first instance be revoked and that he should not bear the liability for repayment. On December 25, 2020, the court ruled that Kang's retrial application was rejected, so Kang applied to the Guyang County procuratorate for supervision. After investigation and verification, the Guyang County procuratorate learned that the court served the legal documents that should have been served on Kang to Kang Jia, the son of Kang who was neither an adult family member living with Kang nor his litigation agent, in violation of the law, deprived the parties of their right to debate. However, the signature on the IOU involved in the case was actually written by Kang. Luo, the contractor of the project, owes a huge debt and his whereabouts are unknown. It is impossible to verify the details from him. The existing evidence is insufficient to prove Kang's claim. Therefore, the court held that although there were procedural flaws in this case, Kang could not provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim, and the necessity of protest was insufficient; For the joint and several repayment liabilities that the court decided to bear in excess of his own liability share, Kang may file a separate lawsuit to claim rights. In order to respect and protect the parties' right to know and the right to participate in the proceedings, and promote justice through openness, the Guyang County procuratorate decided to hold a public hearing on this case. The hearing mainly focused on the dispute focus of "whether the applicant is a project contractor or an employee of the project, and whether it should bear the repayment responsibility". The case handling prosecutor introduced the facts of the case and the investigation and verification, and the applicant and other parties stated their opinions around the hearing topic. After full discussion, the hearers thought that Kang could not provide more powerful evidence to overturn the IOU signed by him in the process of litigation, and even if he went through the judicial procedure again, he would face the possibility of losing the lawsuit. Therefore, they unanimously agreed that the court made the decision of "not supporting the applicant's supervision request, and supervising the court's procedural violations in a separate case" and publicly fed back to the applicant. After the hearing, the prosecutor took the initiative to visit the house,