(In order to protect the privacy of the parties, all parties in this article use pseudonyms. )
First, the original defendant's appeal
Ke Dashang, the plaintiff, claimed that on May 2, 20 12, Li Dapu, the buyer, and Ke Dashang signed the Purchase and Sales Contract of Beijing Stocking House through Beijing Neighborhood Real Estate Company. The house is located at No.666, a residential area in Beijing, and the transaction price is1590,000 yuan. Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company wanted to avoid taxes for the buyer, and signed a Yin-Yang contract. The online signing price was 850,000 yuan. In order to avoid transaction risks and disputes, Kedashang requires online signing at the transaction price. Before signing the house sales contract, the buyer's father, Li Tianqi, gave Ke Dashang a deposit of 5,000 yuan in the business premises of the real estate company next door to Beijing. After the buyer decided not to buy it, Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company asked Ke Dashang to return the deposit to the buyer's father Li Tianqi. At this point, the sales contract between the two parties was terminated. After the termination of the sales contract, Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company should take the initiative to cancel Ke Dashang's house verification on the website of the Construction Committee in time, but Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company not only did not cancel it, but also posted Ke Dashang's house on the website of the Construction Committee for two years without Ke Dashang's consent. In April of 20 14, when Ke Dashang made another house transaction, he found that Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company was still in the state of house verification, which made it impossible for Ke Dashang to conduct house transaction. Ke Dashang looked for Beijing Lins Real Estate Company, which said that the house inspection would not be cancelled unless it paid 14,000 yuan. Ke Dashang called the Beijing Construction Committee and asked if the house inspection could be cancelled without the Beijing Lins Real Estate Company. The customer service staff said that they could go to the transfer hall of a certain district with their household registration book and ID card to cancel the house verification, but the service window of the transfer hall of a certain district said that the house verification must be cancelled through Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company, and the answer was that Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company did not cancel the house verification and could only solve it through court prosecution. Due to the urgency of the matter, Ke Dashang had no choice but to pay Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Company 14000 yuan, and Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Company cancelled the house inspection for Ke Dashang on April 18, 2065438. Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company charged Ke Dashang to cancel the house inspection fee, which violated the relevant regulations of the Construction Committee. Later, Ke Dashang went to the Beijing Municipal Construction Committee for letters and visits, and the housing management department of a certain district sought mediation from Beijing Linshi Real Estate Company. Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company only agreed to return Ke Dashang 7000 yuan, and Ke Dashang still suffers a loss of 7000 yuan. Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company's illegal release of housing information violated the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Administration of Real Estate Brokers and caused certain economic losses to Ke Dashang, so it appealed to the court and demanded that Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company pay Ke Dashang 7000 yuan.
Defendant Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company argued that the facts stated in the plaintiff's indictment existed, but there were some objections. It is not that the buyer does not buy the plaintiff's house, but that the plaintiff does not want to sell it. It's not because there is no yin-yang contract after signing the yin-yang contract. The plaintiff petitioned the Construction Committee, not because the regulatory authorities forced us to refund. We negotiate a refund and have an agreement to submit it. The plaintiff entrusted us to handle the house appraisal. So far, we haven't received the notice of the plaintiff's termination of the contract. If the buyer does not buy it, the plaintiff will not refund the deposit. Everything we do is authorized by the plaintiff, and we disagree with the plaintiff's claim.
Second, the trial found that
Ke Dashang and Li Dapu signed a contract for the sale of Beijing stock houses and an intermediary agreement. According to the sales contract, Ke Dashang sold the house located at No.666 in a residential area in Beijing to Li Dapu at a price of/kloc-0.59 million yuan, and Li Dapu paid a deposit of 5,000 yuan to Ke Dashang. According to the intermediary agreement, Li Dapu plans to purchase the house at No.666, Kedashang. Through the intermediary of Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Company, Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Company is responsible for providing intermediary services for Li Dapu and Ke Dashang and facilitating business transactions. The remuneration for intermediary service is 25,000 yuan, which shall be borne by Li Dapu. Party A Li Dapu's Intermediary Agreement is undated; The date filled in by the seal office of Party B's Beijing Neighborhood Real Estate Company is May 2, 20 12; The date filled in by the Commercial Office of the University of Science and Technology of Party C is May 6, 20 12. On May 7th, 20 12, Ke Dashang entrusted Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company to handle the house property verification of No.666. The contents of the House Property Verification Power of Attorney signed by Ke Dashang include: before the house property verification is cancelled, the trustee has the right to release the client's house property information and carry out intermediary brokerage activities; The owner of the house can unilaterally cancel the verification of the house with the original house ownership certificate and identity certificate to the house administrative department where the house is located. On May 7, 20 12, Ke Dashang returned the deposit of 5,000 yuan to the payer. On April 8, 20 14, Beijing's neighboring real estate company received a payment of 14000 yuan from Ke Dashang. On the same day, Ke Dashang filled out the Power of Attorney for Stock House Verification and entrusted Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company to handle the relevant procedures for stock house verification and cancellation. The reason for the cancellation is that the house is no longer for sale.
According to the mediation record submitted by Beijing Neighbour Real Estate Company, the mediation time was 2065438+May 14, and the mediation took place in a district housing management bureau. On May 9, 20 14, petitioners Ke Dashang and Beijing Linjia Real Estate Company went to the Housing Authority for mediation. The two sides negotiated the contract dispute and reached an agreement through mediation. Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Company returned the appellant Ke Dashang RMB 7,000 only. After mediation, the two sides reached an agreement not to hold each other accountable. On May, 2065 438+04 10, Ke Dashang received 7,000 yuan from the real estate company next door to Beijing.
3. The verdict is as follows:
Dismissed Ke Dashang's claim.
Four. Comment on Senior Real Estate Lawyer Jin Shuangquan
Jin Shuangquan, a senior real estate lawyer, believes that the existing evidence can prove that there is an intermediary contract relationship between Kedashang and the real estate company next door to Beijing. Beijing Neighbourhood Real Estate Co., Ltd. handled and cancelled the house inspection based on the authorization of Ke Dashang, which is not a breach of contract. And in the power of attorney that Ke Dashang entrusted Beijing Linshi Real Estate Company to handle the house verification, it has been stated that the owner of the house can cancel the house verification on his own. Therefore, for Ke Dashang's claim that Beijing Linshi Real Estate Company did not cancel the house inspection and caused property losses, Beijing Linshi Real Estate Company was not at fault. Ke Dashang and Beijing Linjia Real Estate Co., Ltd. have reached an agreement on the contract dispute and promised not to pursue any responsibility for each other, which is binding on both parties and should be observed. To sum up, Ke Dashang's claim for compensation from Beijing's neighboring real estate company based on the intermediary contract relationship with Beijing's neighboring real estate company is unfounded in law.