I. Introduction to the case:
Zhang Jiaren and Ge Xiaoren were originally husband and wife. They got married on September 1986, and Hiuke's daughter, Ge Chuan, divorced on April 22/20 1988.
The house to be demolished in this case is the public house rented by Ge Xiaoren before marriage, and Zhang Jiaren and Ge Xiaoren have been living in this house since their marriage. After the house demolition, the demolition population was determined to be Zhang Jiaren, Ge Xiaoren and Ge Chuan. Ge Xiaoren signed an Agreement on Renovation and Resettlement of Dangerous Old Houses with a real estate company in Beijing, stipulating that the demolished houses 1 non-complete houses within Ge Xiaoren's occupancy range, the usable area 13.8 square meters and the building area 19 square meters. Ge Xiaoren gave up a two-bedroom apartment and got a compensation of 76,000 yuan. Ge Xiaoren moved out of the house during the announcement period and received a moving reward of 5,000 yuan. Ge Xiaoren was arranged in a house with a building area of 76 square meters.
On 200 14 1.9, Ge Xiaoren signed the Repurchase and Pre-sale Contract for Dangerous Old Houses in a real estate company in Beijing. The contract stipulated that Ge Xiaoren had three official accounts and three resettlement personnel in the original house. The repurchased house purchased by Ge Xiaoren is House No.401in Fengtai District, which is the disputed house. Ge Xiaoren paid off the purchase price of RMB 6,543,800+RMB 6,000 in one lump sum.
The house is registered under the name of Ge Xiaoren, who lives there.
After Zhang Jiaren and Ge Xiaoren divorced, there was a dispute over the division of the disputed house, so they sued the court and asked the court to divide the house according to law.
Second, the trial process:
In the trial, the court found that the original self-built house in the demolished place was built by Ge Hui, and the self-built house should be compensated for 49,000 yuan during the demolition; Ge Xiaoren actually paid the difference of 37,000 yuan for the purchase of the disputed house.
In the trial of the original trial, Zhang Jiaren and Ge Chuan denied that Ge Xiaoren's father Ge Hui had lived with both parties. Ge Hui's household registration was not in the demolished house when it was demolished, and Ge Hui was not the demolished person. Do not recognize giving up a two-bedroom apartment in exchange for 76,000 yuan of housing compensation, but sell the original rented house to the developer for the above compensation; It is not recognized that the compensation of 49,000 yuan obtained by Ge Hui's self-built house is included in the house purchase price. Although he only paid the difference of 37,000 yuan when buying a house, Zhang Jiaren later paid Ge Hui 49,000 yuan with his operating income, so he actually paid 37,000 yuan more. In addition, Ge Chuan said that he started a paid internship in 2003 when he was 16 years old, and all the internship salary was given to his mother Zhang Jiaren, which also contributed to the purchase of disputed houses.
Ge Xiaoren said that according to the provisions of the "Implementation Measures for the Renovation of Dangerous Old Houses in Beijing", his father Ge Hui meets the conditions for resettlement, and the two rooms he gave up may have Ge Hui; Ge Xiaoren recognized Ge Chuan as the resettlement person who sued the house, but refused to recognize other situations stated by Zhang Jiaren and Ge Chuan.
After the court's explanation, both parties clearly recognized that the market value of the disputed house was 1, 654,380+0,000 yuan, and did not apply for market price evaluation.
After investigating the demolition unit, the court of first instance failed to find the file materials of the relocation and resettlement of the disputed house.
Third, the trial results:
After hearing the case, the court of first instance ruled that:
1. The disputed house is owned by Ge Xiaoren.
2. Ge Xiaoren shall pay Zhang Jiaren the house price of 544,500 yuan within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment.
3. Ge Xiaoren shall pay Gechuan the house price 1900 yuan within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment.
After the judgment of the first instance, Zhang Jiaren, Ge Chuan and Ge Xiaoren refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the court of second instance, which decided after trial:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Four. Comments on the case of Jin Shuangquan, the chief lawyer of Yisheng Housing Loan Network;
Jin Shuangquan, the chief lawyer of Yisheng Lending House Network, believes that Article 2 of the Buyback House Pre-sale Contract of Nanyuan Dangerous Old House Reconstruction Project provided by Ge Xiaoren in this case states in the basic information of the buyer's demolition that "the buyer's original house address is No.25, Central Sixth Lane, and there are three official accounts in the dangerous old house reconstruction area, and three people need to be resettled", but the specific resettlement person is not specified. In view of the fact that both parties recognized the resettlement population as Ge Xiaoren, Zhang Jiaren and Ge Chuan during the trial, the court recognized this.
The disputed house in this case is the income from the original house demolition and resettlement. Combined with the relevant evidence in this case, both parties indicated that although Ge Xiaoren and Zhang Jiaren have been living and using the original demolished house since their marriage, the house belongs to the public house rented by Ge Xiaoren before marriage, and this factor should be considered when dividing the disputed house.
During the trial, Ge Chuan argued that his paid internship contributed to the purchase of the disputed house, but because he failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove it, the court rejected his claim.
In view of the fact that Ge Xiaoren and Zhang Jiaren bought the disputed house with the monetary compensation obtained after the demolition of the house where they lived together during their marriage, Ge Chuan, as the resettlement person, also enjoyed the corresponding encouragement to move and added the purchase price, so Zhang Jiaren and Zhang Jiaren contributed to the purchase of the disputed house and supported it. The specific amount shall be confirmed by the court according to the contribution of the parties to the house.
To sum up, the court's decision is correct.