Plaintiff: Zhu Maolin, male, born on September 25, 1982, Han nationality, civil servant.
Plaintiff: Hu Jianfen, female, born on July 3, 1956, Han nationality, retired civil servant.
Defendant: Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd.
Legal representative: Huang Yijun, executive director of the company.
Entrusted agent: Xu Jian, lawyer of Anhui Xujian Law Firm.
The plaintiff Zhu Maolin and Hu Jianfen sued the defendant Jingde County Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. for the dispute over the sales contract of commercial housing. After the case was filed and accepted on June 24, 2013, the Court formed a collegial panel according to law and held a public hearing on August 5 and November 29, 2013. Zhu Maolin, Hu Jianfen, the plaintiff, and Xu Jian, the entrusted agent of Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., the defendant, attended the lawsuit in court. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
The plaintiffs Zhu Maolin and Hu Jianfen claimed that on October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant signed the Commercial Housing Sales Contract and the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract, and the Plaintiff purchased Room 504, No. 2B Commercial and Residential Building located in Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town (now Room 508, No. 76 Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town) developed by the Defendant, which was notarized at the Jingde County Notary Office on October 31, 2005. Later, the plaintiff paid the house purchase price in time and handled the land use certificate and house property certificate according to the contract. Article 8 of the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract stipulates that the house shall be equipped with a storage room or garage, and the expenses shall be borne by the buyer. After the contract was signed, the defendant's staff orally informed the plaintiff that a storage room and garage would be built about 5 meters south of the 2B building for the plaintiff to choose to buy. Since 2006, the defendant has not fulfilled the contract to build storerooms and garages. The plaintiff will negotiate with the defendant many times every year, and the defendant delays and prevaricates with various reasons. Because the defendant did not perform the contract, it brought a lot of inconvenience and mental burden to the plaintiff's life: there was no place to stack sundries, no place to park vehicles, all items in the home had to be carried to the fifth floor, and the vehicles placed downstairs were worried about being stolen all day long. It is required to order the defendant to perform the house purchase and sale contract signed with the plaintiff, build a storage room or garage for the plaintiff to use, and the house purchase cost shall refer to the market price in 2005.
On August 5, 2013, the plaintiff increased the claim and ordered the defendant to bear the liability for breach of contract of late delivery of the house, and pay the plaintiff two ten thousandths of the house price paid per day from September 1, 2006 to the date when the defendant built a garage or storage room and delivered it to the plaintiff.
On October 31, 2013, the plaintiff submitted the Application for Change of Litigation Request to the Court, requesting a decree: 1. rescind Article 8 of the supplementary agreement in the house purchase contract; 2. The defendant shall bear the liability for breach of contract for late delivery of the house, and pay the plaintiff two ten thousandths of the house price paid on a daily basis from September 1, 2006 to the effective date of the termination of the provisions for the construction of the storage room or garage; 3. The defendant shall bear the loss caused to the plaintiff due to the cancellation of Article 8 of the Supplementary Agreement of the House Purchase Contract due to its failure to perform in a lump sum: 3000 yuan per year, from the effective date of the cancellation of the provision for building the storeroom or garage to September 1, 2076.
On December 6, 2013, an application was submitted to the Court to waive the claim for rescission of Article 8 of the supplementary agreement in the house purchase contract.
The defendant argued that: 1. The commercial housing transaction stated by the plaintiff in the complaint and the signing of the Commercial Housing Sales Contract and the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract by both parties were true. 2. The oral information given by the staff when signing the contract is not true. Building 2 is divided into two floors, A and B. There are storage rooms and garages in building A. At that time, building B did not plan to build storage rooms and garages, so the staff could not have informed. 3. The owner of Building 2B and the defendant negotiated about the construction of the storeroom or garage. Due to the construction planning, the defendant could only request the planning department. The planning department once intended to approve the construction of the storeroom and garage here, but because the owner of Building 2B and the neighbors of Building 2B had disputes over the adjacent relationship, the planning failed. 4. In this case, the defendant did not breach the contract or fail to perform, and did not bear the liability for breach of contract. The plaintiff's claim should be based on planning. Without planning, the defendant could not build a storage room and garage. In all transactions of Building 2B, the plaintiff did not agree on the garage in the contract. 5. The plaintiff misinterpreted the Commercial Housing Sales Contract. According to the Commercial Housing Sales Contract, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Respondent was specific and clear. What the Respondent sold and delivered did not include the so-called garage or storage room. The Respondent did not breach any contract in the process of performing the Commercial Housing Sales Contract. The reference in Article 8 of the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract to "the house has a storeroom or garage at the buyer's expense" is the respondent's explanation of the storeroom or garage for the development and construction of Building 2, not just that the plaintiff's house contains a storeroom or garage, nor that Building 2B has a garage behind a storeroom, but that Building 2 has a storeroom or garage. There is a storeroom or garage in Building 2, and both parties need to negotiate separately. The plaintiff used Article 8 of the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract to misinterpret the Commodity House Purchase and Sale Contract by taking the storeroom or garage as the property he naturally enjoys under the contract. 6. Article 8 of the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract is a description of the storage room or garage of Building 2, not a right and obligation clause, and there is no cancellation. However, the plaintiff and the respondent have not reached a sales agreement for the storage room or garage. Therefore, the respondent has no obligation to deliver the storage room or garage to the plaintiff. The respondent did not collect the price of the plaintiff's storeroom or garage, and there is no liability for breach of contract. The expected benefit is the foreseeable loss when the contract is concluded. Even if the plaintiff and the respondent have signed a sales agreement for storerooms or garages without delivery, there is no loss claimed by the plaintiff.
In order to prove the evidence that the plaintiff claims to provide to the court, the defendant's cross examination opinions and the court's authentication opinions:
1. A notarial certificate certifying that the plaintiff and the defendant signed the Commercial Housing Sales Contract and the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract, which stipulated that the house should have a storeroom or garage, and the expenses should be borne by the plaintiff. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity, legality and relevance of the evidence, and has objection to the purpose of proof. The Court affirmed the evidence.
2. One house property certificate and one land certificate respectively, proving that the plaintiff actively performed the contract and obtained the ownership of the commercial house. The defendant has no objection. The court confirmed the evidence after examination.
3. The minutes of the owners' meeting of Building 2B and the Report on the Request of Zhongyi Company to Build the Access Road, Garage and Sundry Room of Building 2B prove that the plaintiff has negotiated with the defendant every year to require it to build a storage room or garage.
The defendant has no objection to the fact that the plaintiff continuously requires the defendant to build a garage or storage room; Objection to the relevance, authenticity and legality of the evidence, thinking that it is unclear whether an owner committee has been established in Building 2B and whether a report has been submitted to the Housing and Urban Rural Development Committee; In addition, the defendant has been communicating with the Housing and Urban Rural Development Commission about the construction of the storeroom or garage. Because the owner of Building 2B had a dispute with Xu Wei'an over the right of neighbor, the planning department finally disagreed with the planning of the construction of the storeroom or garage.
In combination with the defendant's cross examination opinions, the Court affirmed the fact that the plaintiff has always required the defendant to build a garage or storage room.
The defendant did not submit evidence to the court.
The Institute sent a letter to the Planning Bureau of Jingde County Housing and Urban Rural Development Commission on September 26, 2013, and the Jingde County Housing and Urban Rural Development Commission replied to the Institute on October 23, 2013, with the reply: 1. When Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. was developing the commercial housing at No. 76 Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town, Jingde County, the south storage room had handled the Construction Project Planning Permit on March 26, 2010 (Certificate No. 341825201000032); 2. According to Article 33 of the Regulations of Anhui Province on Urban and Rural Planning, the Construction Project Planning Permit has expired; 3. In consideration of the boundary concession, sunshine spacing and other issues, the Construction Project Planning Permit will not be handled again. The plaintiff has no objection to the evidence. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence and believes that whether room 76 is related to the case needs to be verified.
Through the authentication of the above evidence and combined with the statements of the parties, the Court finds that the legal facts of the case are:
On October 25, 2005, the plaintiff signed the Commercial Housing Sales Contract with Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., which agreed that: 1. The plaintiff purchased Room 504, a commercial residential building located at 2B Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town, Jingde County, Anhui Province (now Room 508, 76 Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town, Jingde County) developed by Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd; 2. Delivery deadline: before August 31, 2006; 3. If the Seller is overdue for more than 90 days, the Buyer has the right to terminate the contract. If the Buyer terminates the contract, the Seller shall return all the payments made within 30 days from the date when the Buyer's notice of termination of the contract arrives, and pay 3% of the Buyer's accumulated payments to the Buyer as liquidated damages. If the Buyer requests to continue to perform the contract, the contract will continue to be performed. From the second day of the deadline for delivery specified in Article 8 of this contract to the date of actual delivery, the Seller will pay the Buyer liquidated damages of 2/10000 of the house price paid on a daily basis. On the same day, both parties signed a Supplementary Agreement to the Contract, in which Article 8 stipulated that "the house shall be equipped with a storage room or garage, and the buyer shall bear the expenses". On October 31, 2005, both parties notarized the Commercial Housing Sales Contract and the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract at the Jingde County Notary Office. Later, the plaintiff paid the purchase price in time according to the contract, and Zhu Maolin, the plaintiff, obtained the Real Estate Ownership Certificate on June 28, 2007. Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., when developing the commercial housing at No. 76 Jiefang North Road, Jingyang Town, Jingde County, required to build a storeroom in the south, and has handled the Construction Project Planning Permit (Certificate No. 341825201000032) on March 26, 2010, which is overdue. Jingde County Housing and Urban Rural Development Committee will not re apply for the Construction Project Planning Permit due to border concessions, sunshine spacing and other issues. It was also found that Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. was a branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., which hosted the real estate development business of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. in Jingde. Later, Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. was cancelled and Jingde County Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. was established on June 25, 2010, Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. has inherited all the rights and obligations of Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. During the trial, the defendant Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. expressed that it was willing to enjoy and undertake the corresponding litigation rights and obligations of the original Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. Jingde Branch. The plaintiff then requested the defendant Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. to undertake corresponding obligations.
The Court believes that legally established contracts are protected by law. The Commercial Housing Purchase and Sale Contract and the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract signed by the plaintiff and Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. are the true intentions of both parties, do not violate the law, are legal and valid, and both parties shall perform their obligations in accordance with the contract. The defendant, as the successor unit of Jingde Branch of Huangshan Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd., failed to build a storeroom or garage in accordance with the provisions of the Supplementary Agreement to the Contract, which was in apparent breach of contract. The Plaintiff's claims 2 and 3 were not supported by the Court because both parties did not specifically agree on how the defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract, and the Plaintiff did not have corresponding evidence to prove that the defendant should bear the obligation. In view of the defendant's breach of contract, resulting in no garage or storage room for the plaintiff to use after purchase, which directly affected the plaintiff's quality of life, the defendant can be determined to bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Looking at the case, 40000 yuan is appropriate. In accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 60 and Article 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1、 The defendant Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff Zhu Maolin and Hu Jianfen for the loss of 40000 yuan in a lump sum within 30 days after this judgment comes into force;
2、 Reject other claims of the plaintiffs Zhu Maolin and Hu Jianfen.
If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt during the delayed period shall be doubled in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
The case acceptance fee is 4960 yuan, the plaintiff Zhu Maolin and Hu Jianfen bear 3530 yuan, and the defendant Jingde Zhongyi Real Estate Co., Ltd. bear 1430 yuan.
If you do not accept this judgment, you can submit a petition of appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other party, and appeal to the Xuancheng Intermediate People's Court of Anhui Province.
Chief Judge Zhou Jiaqing
Acting Judge Zhu Liangchao
People's juror Hou Yingying
Secretary Si Yu
Corresponding legal provisions attached
Contract of the People's Republic of China
Article 60 The parties to the first paragraph shall fully perform their obligations in accordance with the contract.
Article 107 Liability for Breach Where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations or rendered non-conforming performance, it shall be liable for breach of contract by continuing to perform, taking remedial measures or compensating for losses.
Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 64 The parties to the first paragraph of this Article shall have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.
