Authorized Agent: Wang Haofeng, lawyer of Jiangsu Shanshui Law Firm.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qidong Land Reserve Center, with its domicile in Qidong.
Legal Representative: Xu Yonghua, director of the center.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Qidong House Expropriation Management Office.
Legal Representative: Chen Zhong, deputy director.
The appellant refused to accept the civil judgment of Qidong People's Court (20 17) No.06814266 at the beginning of the Republic of China due to a dispute with the appellee Qidong Land Reserve Center (hereinafter referred to as the Land Reserve Center) and Qidong House Expropriation Management Office (hereinafter referred to as the House Expropriation Office).
After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed according to law to hear the case, and the trial has now ended.
Appellant Li Cuiping's appeal: the judgment of first instance was revoked, and the judgment was changed to support all the appellant's claims of first instance.
Facts and reasons: First, there are obvious errors and deviations in the fact finding in the original trial.
The original trial only confirmed the legal fact that the sale of the house involved between Li Cuiping and the outsider Mao Danhua was invalid according to the effective civil judgment, that is, Li Cuiping was not the legal owner of the house involved, and the compensation agreement for the demolition and resettlement involved was obviously wrong.
The effective judgment of the court has never made a substantive judgment on the compensated person under the compensation agreement for demolition and resettlement involved.
The original trial did not clearly determine that the land reserve center and the house expropriation office constituted a breach of contract.
Second, the original trial also made mistakes in the application of the law.
First of all, there are obvious mistakes in understanding the relevant provisions of the compensation agreement for demolition and resettlement involved; Secondly, the original trial confused the contract debt of house demolition compensation with the tort debt between the appellant and Pu caused by the invalid house sale between the appellant and Mao Danhua.