In September 20 13, gas stations were included in the scope of collection due to the construction of expressways. Subsequently, the street office signed a demolition compensation agreement with the gas station, stipulating that the gas station would deliver it to the street office for demolition; The subdistrict office paid 3.3 million yuan for the relocation compensation of the gas station and agreed to the site selection and reconstruction of the gas station; Since the new address has not been requisitioned, the street office will coordinate the lease of 4 mu of land, and the expenses will be paid by the gas station; After land requisition, it will be sold according to the policy of commercial service land in the district, and the transfer fee will be paid by the gas station (the implementation standard of commercial service land for investment promotion in the district in 20 13 years is 250,000 yuan/mu).
Subsequently, the two sides fulfilled the agreement. Then the subdistrict office and the village group signed the Agreement on Temporary Land Use as the land for the gas station reconstruction project, and all departments also plan to agree to build gas stations. However, in June 20 10,10, the land involved was auctioned as state-owned construction land, with a total auction price of 70 million yuan. Chen Mou felt that the price was too high, refused to pay the auction price, and sold it according to the standard of 250,000 yuan/mu of commercial service land. Subsequently, the relevant departments cancelled Chen Mou's qualification as an auction bidder.
Later, due to the adjustment of land planning, the problem of land transformation for gas stations was put on hold. Chen Mou negotiated with the sub-district office for many times, hoping to solve the problem. Finally, the two sides agreed to settle the dispute by means of one-time monetary compensation. On June 20 18, the asset value of the gas station was appraised as 33 million by a third-party asset appraisal company. Under the mediation of the law firm, Chen Mou and the sub-district office also reached a mediation agreement, which stipulated that the paid 3.3 million yuan would be deducted, and the sub-district office would pay another 30 million yuan to the gas station.
After the signing of the agreement, the sub-district office failed to perform according to the agreement, and Chen Mou sued the sub-district office to the court.
Court hearing
According to the Provisions on the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases, agreements with rights and obligations in administrative law concluded by administrative organs through consultation with citizens, legal persons or other organizations for the purpose of administrative management or public service belong to administrative agreements.
In this case, the street office reached a demolition compensation agreement with the gas station for the construction of the highway, and the demolition and resettlement agreed by both parties in the demolition compensation agreement could not be realized. In this case, the mediation agreement reached between the subdistrict office and Chen Mou is an administrative agreement.
Administrative agreements are both administrative and contractual, and need to meet the double standards of legal and effective administrative actions and legal and effective contracts.
According to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law and its judicial interpretation, an administrative act is invalid in any of the following major and obvious illegal situations:
(1) The implementing entity does not have the qualification of administrative entity;
(2) There is no legal basis for reducing rights or increasing obligations;
(3) The mediation agreement cannot be fulfilled objectively in this case. The evidence presented by the original defendant and the defendant does not have "significant and obvious" illegal circumstances, and it is legal and valid.
Legal basis:
The Civil Code of People's Republic of China (PRC) (202 1 1 0 came into effect) stipulates that the contract is invalid under any of the following circumstances:
(1) One party enters into a contract by means of fraud or coercion, which harms the interests of the state;
(2) Malicious collusion that harms the interests of the state, the collective or a third party;
(3) Covering up illegal purposes in a legal form;
(4) damaging the public interest;
(5) Violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.
One party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or terminate the following contracts:
(1) Due to a major misunderstanding;
(2) obviously unfair at the time of conclusion of the contract.
If one party leads the other party to conclude a contract against its true meaning by fraud, coercion or taking advantage of others' danger, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or cancel it. The people's court or arbitration institution shall not revoke the request of the parties.