News from our correspondent: When a relative has a traffic accident and is suspected of committing a criminal offence, the person concerned heard that someone else has a relationship and could spend money to solve it, he believed that spending money could settle everything. As a result, the matter was not done, but the money was lost, and he could not repent. Recently, the People's Court of Xiayi County, Henan Province, tried this contract dispute involving the commission of illegal matters.
In January 2023, a relative of An was suspected of committing a criminal offence due to a traffic accident. An met Liu through a friend's introduction. Liu said he could help coordinate the handling of his relatives' traffic accident cases. On January 11, 2023, Mr. An paid Mr. Liu 30000 yuan as coordination fee. After Liu received the 30000 yuan, he failed to properly solve the traffic accident case, so An asked Liu to return the 30000 yuan. At the urging of An, Liu returned 20000 yuan and promised to return 10000 yuan of arrears. As Liu has not returned 10000 yuan of arrears, An filed a lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court held that an agency appointment contract is a contract whereby the principal and the agent agree that the agent shall handle the affairs of the principal. At the same time, the law stipulates that civil legal acts that violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations are invalid. Civil juristic acts violating public order and good customs are invalid. In this case, An entrusted the defendant Liu to coordinate the handling of the traffic accident case of his relatives. The entrusted matter violated the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and violated public order and good customs. Therefore, the civil legal act was invalid and should be an invalid contract. According to Article 157 of the Civil Code, after a civil juristic act is invalid, revoked or determined not to be effective, the property acquired by the actor as a result of the act shall be returned; The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses incurred therefrom; If all parties are at fault, they shall bear their respective responsibilities. In this case, because the civil legal act entrusted by An to Liu to coordinate the handling of the traffic accident case is invalid, the property obtained by Liu due to this act should be returned. After being urged by the plaintiff, Liu has returned 20000 yuan to An, but still owes 10000 yuan. Now An requires Liu to return 10000 yuan, which is supported by the court. An's entrustment violated the legal provisions and public order and good customs, and he should also bear some responsibility for the loss. Now An requires Liu to bear the legal service fee of 1300 yuan, which is not supported by the court.
In the end, the court ruled that Liu returned 10000 yuan to An and rejected his other claims.
(Xu Xiang)
■ Judge's statement
In this case, the entrustment contract between Mr. An and Mr. Liu, the essence of the entrustment is that Mr. An entrusts Mr. Liu to coordinate the handling of the traffic accident case of Mr. An's relatives. Mr. An's relatives are suspected of criminal offences, which not only violates the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, but also deviates from social public order and good customs, Therefore, the entrustment contract between An and Liu should be deemed invalid. According to the law, after the contract is invalid, the property acquired as a result of the contract shall be returned; If all parties are at fault, they shall bear their respective responsibilities. In this case, the entrustment contract was invalid due to the illegal entrustment, so An requested Liu to return the remaining fund of 10000 yuan, which was supported by the court. An's entrustment violated legal provisions and public order and good customs, and he should also bear some responsibility for the loss. Therefore, An requested Liu to bear legal service fees of 1300 yuan, which was not supported by the court.
The attribution of payment arising from the request has not been agreed in the judicial judgment. According to the sorting out of the cases of requesting judgment, the proportion of the return of all returned, discretionary returned and non returned property is about 1:1:1. It does not conform to the principle of fairness or the guidance of socialist core values to refuse to return or return all the losses suffered by the other party due to the reason that the entrusted matter is illegal and does not belong to the scope of legal protection. In this case, the property return is shared according to the fault degree of both parties, which is a negative evaluation of the behavior of both parties, and provides a way to solve the "trust to intercede" phenomenon.
In this case, both parties entered into an entrustment contract even though they knew that the entrustment was in violation of laws and regulations and public order and good customs. This is a case where both parties were at fault when the contract was found to be invalid. Liu, who violates the law and public order and good customs to seek improper purposes for others, has a greater degree of fault and should be denied by the law. From the point of view that both parties at fault should bear their respective responsibilities, Mr. An's loss is the legal service fee he paid for the lawsuit in this case and the interest on the funds occupied in the case.
(Editor in charge: Ma Chang, Liang Qiuping)
Share to let more people see
