Article 1:
Case introduction:
Kodak and Nikon are related. Ni obtained the purchase index of affordable housing in 2002. For this reason, Kodak found Ni, hoping that he could lend him the purchase index, and he would pay for a suit-related house in a certain district of Dongcheng District, Beijing. Ni immediately agreed to Kodak's loan request, so the two sides agreed that Kodak would pay the down payment, purchase the house in Ni's name, and mortgage the rest of the house in Ni's name. Through consultation between both parties, Ni Konka signed the Pre-sale Contract of Affordable Housing in Beijing with a real estate development company in February 2002, stipulating that Ni Konka would purchase the house involved, with a total house price of 440,000 yuan, Kodak would pay a down payment of 654.38 million yuan, and Ni Konka took out a mortgage loan in March 5, with a loan term of 20 years. After the house was delivered, Kodak renovated it. After the renovation, I actually lived in a controversial house.
In 2005, Kodak paid the final payment of 50,000 yuan to the real estate development company. On June 20, 2005, 65438+February 20, 2005, the real estate license was issued, and the owner was registered as Ni Konka, so the property was affordable.
From 2005 to 20 14, house prices began to rise. Kodak repeatedly asked Ni Konka to transfer it, but Ni Konka shirked it for various reasons. In August of 20 14, Kodak could not bear to sue Ni Konka to the Dongcheng District People's Court, requesting the People's Court to decide that Ni Konka would transfer the house involved to his own name. After hearing the case, Dongcheng District People's Court held that the house sales contracts under the names of both parties violated the mandatory provisions of relevant laws and regulations, violated national policies and infringed on the interests of the public, so it ruled that the house sales contracts of both parties were invalid and rejected Kodak's claim. It is reported that the judgment of the people's court has come into effect.
2065438+On September 18, 2005, Kodak sued Ni Konka to the Dongcheng District People's Court in Beijing, demanding him to return the purchase price, housing loan and other related funds and compensate the losses caused by the appreciation of the house.
Test results:
After hearing the case, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing decided:
1. Defendant Ni returned the purchase price and other funds of Kodak Company to 45 yuan within 15 days after this judgment came into effect.
2. Defendant Ni Kangjia compensated Kodak Company for its house appreciation loss within 15 days after the judgment 180 yuan.
Three. Reject the plaintiff Kodak's other claims.
Analysis of Jin Shuangquan, a professional lawyer of house purchase disputes under his name;
This case is a typical case of returning the house price and compensating the house appreciation loss after the signing of the house purchase contract on the pretext of invalidity.
Lawyer Jin Shuangquan believes that the main point of the court's judgment in this case is that in 20 14 years, the court ruled that the purchase contract under the names of both parties was invalid because it violated the relevant policies of the state and harmed the interests of the public.
In this case, Kodak sued Ni Konka to the Dongcheng District People's Court on 20 14, requesting the court to decide that Ni Konka would transfer the house involved to his own name. After hearing according to law, the people's court ruled that the purchase contract under the names of both parties was invalid. According to Article 58 of China's Contract Law: "After a contract is invalid or cancelled, the property acquired as a result of the contract shall be returned; If it is impossible or unnecessary to return it, it shall be compensated at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered as a result. Both sides are at fault and should bear their respective responsibilities. " In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant on 20 14 to return the house payment, which is well-founded in law and should be supported.
In this case, the plaintiff has fulfilled the obligation to pay the down payment as agreed in the contract, but the defendant has not fulfilled the obligation of transfer. According to Article 6 of China's Contract Law, "the parties shall follow the principle of good faith when exercising their rights and performing their obligations." The defendant's failure to perform the transfer obligation as agreed has violated the "emperor" clause in the General Principles of Civil Law and other relevant civil laws-the principle of good faith. Judging from the degree of fault in this case, the defendant has a major fault. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant's compensation for the loss of house appreciation was well-founded in law, which reflected the principle of fairness and justice and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the observant party, that is, the plaintiff in this case.
In this regard, lawyer Jin Shuangquan believes that the court's decision is correct.
Article 2:
Case introduction:
Sean and Roth, legal representatives of a decoration in Beijing, are old friends for many years. In 200 1 year, Sean expected to buy a set of affordable housing in Beijing, but the funds were not enough at that time, so he borrowed money from Roth. At that time, Roth was troubled by the problem that some company employees were sent to Beijing without housing, so Sean's proposal just solved his urgent need, so he agreed to Sean's proposal. Out of trust, the two sides did not conclude any contract, but only verbally agreed to use the house use money to offset the purchase money. There is no agreement on when to handle the transfer procedures and other matters.
Sean and Ross, the legal representative of a decoration in Beijing, are friends. On February 1 7, 20065438+7, Sean (the buyer) signed a Commodity House Sales Contract with a real estate developer (the seller) in Beijing, which mainly stipulated that the commodity house purchased by the buyer was No.20 1, located in a neighborhood of a street in Fengtai District, Beijing. The total house price is RMB 670,000.00 Yuan, and the Buyer shall pay RMB 1 60,000.00 Yuan on March 1 day, and RMB 5160,000.00 Yuan before April1day. After the contract was signed, the real estate company issued an entry certificate for Sean on March 1 2006.
After handing over the house, Roth made simple arrangements for the decoration of the house and arranged for the staff to move in.
2011111,Sean obtained the house ownership certificate.
At that time, the house had been actually occupied and used by Roth's company for nearly ten years, and he also rented a house outside for a long time, and the purchase price of that year was almost the same, so he went to Roth and asked to vacate the house and return it to himself. Ross agreed at that time, but he delayed fulfilling his promise. Sean has been consulting Ross about changing rooms since then, but the other party has been slow to honor his promise. Out of years of friendship, I can't say anything myself, so I can only submit to humiliation.
Until April 7, 20 14, Sean found Roth here to discuss the house change, but the attitude of the other party was beyond Sean's imagination, so Sean sued Roth's decoration company in Beijing to the Fengtai District People's Court in Beijing, requesting the court to confirm that the house involved was owned by him according to law.
Beijing Fengtai District People's Court heard the case according to law.
Test results: ：
After hearing the case, the court of first instance ruled that:
The disputed house No.201involved in this case belongs to Sean.
After the judgment of the first instance, Roth refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court. After the Second Intermediate People's Court found the facts through examination, it made a judgment according to the facts:
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Comment on the case of lawyer Jin Shuangquan buying a house under his real name;
Lawyer Jin Shuangquan believes that this case is an atypical case of buying a house in the name of a house. The reason for this is that although the two parties are equal subjects, they have not agreed when to transfer the ownership and have not signed any relevant agreements. Therefore, from the nature of buying and selling, it belongs to buying a house under the name, but it does not actually involve transfer. Judging from the case, it only involves the ownership of the house and the return of the house after the ownership is confirmed.
In this case, Sean signed the Commercial House Sales Contract with the developer, and purchased the affordable housing involved. On 201111,he obtained the house ownership certificate of the house involved and registered the house ownership. According to the certificate of real estate ownership, the court confirmed Sean as the owner of the house involved. According to Article 17 of the Property Law: "The certificate of real estate ownership is the proof that the obligee enjoys the real estate right. The items recorded in the certificate of real estate ownership shall be consistent with the real estate register; If the records are inconsistent, unless there is evidence to prove that there is an error in the real estate register, the real estate register shall prevail. " The rules of the court confirmed that the decision that the house belonged to Sean was legally valid.
For the relationship between the two parties in the name of buying a house, because a decoration company in Beijing has no evidence to prove the relationship between the two parties in the name of buying a house, the court does not support its claim that it is the owner of the house, and this case does not involve the relevant litigation request about capital contribution, so a decoration company in Beijing can sue Sean separately to confirm that the contract concluded by the two parties in the name of buying a house is invalid. Because this house belongs to affordable housing, in our country, the sale of affordable housing needs to meet special conditions, that is, it was purchased before April 1 1, 2008, and the ownership certificate has been obtained for five years. Therefore, combined with this case, Roth can claim that the relationship between the two parties in the name of buying a house is invalid, thus requiring the other party to bear the responsibility of returning the capital contribution.
Jin Shuangquan, a lawyer for commercial housing sales disputes, suggested:
Here, Lawyer Jin Shuangquan reminds all parties that when large amounts of property are involved, such as buying and selling houses, giving houses, changing the ownership of houses and other related real estate transactions, you should think twice before changing the ownership of real estate. It is best to consult a professional and experienced real estate lawyer first, so as to avoid risks in the transaction, unnecessary disputes and unnecessary troubles.