| Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Fourteenth Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第14批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 311 [2016] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2016〕311号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, five cases including Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality v. Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation for dispute over co-ownership (Guiding Cases No. 65-69) are hereby issued as the fourteenth group of guiding cases for reference in the trial of similar cases. | | 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定，现将上海市虹口区久乐大厦小区业主大会诉上海环亚实业总公司业主共有权纠纷案等5件案例（指导案例65-69号），作为第14批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| September 19, 2016 | | 2016年9月19日 |
| Guiding Case No. 65 | | 指导案例65号 |
| Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality v. Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation for Dispute over Co-ownership | | 上海市虹口区久乐大厦小区业主大会诉上海环亚实业总公司业主共有权纠纷案 |
| (Issued on September 19, 2016, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2016年9月19日发布） |
| Keywords: civil; co-ownership; special maintenance fund; statutory obligation; statute of limitation | | 关键词 民事/业主共有权/专项维修资金/法定义务/诉讼时效 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| The special maintenance fund is exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of properties upon expiration of the guarantee period, and is co-owned by all property owners. Contributing to the special maintenance fund is a statutory obligation of property owners for maintaining the long-term safety of buildings. If a property owner refuses to contribute to the special maintenance fund and makes a defense based on the statute of limitation, the people's court should not allow such a defense. | | 专项维修资金是专门用于物业共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造的资金，属于全体业主共有。缴纳专项维修资金是业主为维护建筑物的长期安全使用而应承担的一项法定义务。业主拒绝缴纳专项维修资金，并以诉讼时效提出抗辩的，人民法院不予支持。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国民法通则》第135条 |
Article 79 and paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国物权法》第79条、第83条第2款 |
| Item (4) of Article 7 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 54 of the Regulation on Property Management | | 《物业管理条例》第7条第4项、第54条第1款、第2款 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| In March 2004, defendant Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Huanya Corporation”) obtained the ownership of the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building located in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality, with a gross floor area of 691.36 square meters on the ground floor and a gross floor area of 910.39 square meters on the second floor. Huanya Corporation did not contribute to the special maintenance fund for the aforesaid properties. In September 2010, upon voting by property owners, plaintiff Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community (hereinafter referred to as the “Property Owners' Meeting”) decided to file a lawsuit for recovery of contribution to the maintenance fund on behalf of all property owners. In the lawsuit filed by the Property Owners' Meeting, it required that Huanya Corporation pay 57,566.9 yuan to the plaintiff for its properties on the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building as its contribution to the special maintenance fund. Huanya Corporation was against the plaintiff's claim by contending that during the six years since it obtained the certificate of title to the real estate at issue in 2004, the plaintiff had never claimed the contribution to the maintenance fund and the statute of limitation for the claim of the plaintiff had passed. | | 2004年3月，被告上海环亚实业总公司（以下简称环亚公司）取得上海市虹口区久乐大厦底层、二层房屋的产权，底层建筑面积691.36平方米、二层建筑面积910.39平方米。环亚公司未支付过上述房屋的专项维修资金。2010年9月，原告久乐大厦小区业主大会（以下简称久乐业主大会）经征求业主表决意见，决定由久乐业主大会代表业主提起追讨维修资金的诉讼。久乐业主大会向法院起诉，要求环亚公司就其所有的久乐大厦底层、二层的房屋向原告缴纳专项维修资金57566.9元。被告环亚公司辩称，其于2004年获得房地产权证，至本案诉讼有6年之久，原告从未主张过维修资金，该请求已超过诉讼时效，不同意原告诉请。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On July 21, 2011, the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 833 [2011], First, Civil DivisionIII, Hongkou) that Huanya Corporation should pay 57,566.9 yuan to the Property Owners' Meeting for its properties on the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building as its contribution to the maintenance fund. After the judgment was pronounced, Huanya Corporation appealed to the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. On September 21, 2011, the intermediate court entered a civil judgment (No. 1908 [2011], Final, Civil DivisionII, No. 2 IPC, Shanghai) to dismiss the appeal and sustain the original judgment. | | 上海市虹口区人民法院于2011年7月21日作出（2011）虹民三（民）初字第833号民事判决：被告环亚公司应向原告久乐业主大会缴纳久乐大厦底层、二层房屋的维修资金57566.9元。宣判后，环亚公司向上海市第二中级人民法院提起上诉。上海市第二中级人民法院于2011年9月21日作出（2011）沪二中民二（民）终字第1908号民事判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: Article 79 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Property Law”) provided that: “The fund for the maintenance of a building and its affiliated facilities shall be co-owned by the owners of the building. The fund may be used for the maintenance of common ports such as elevators and water tanks as jointly determined by the owners.” Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Regulation on Property Management provided that: “The special maintenance fund shall belong to the property owners, and be exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of the properties upon expiration of the guarantee period, and may not be used for any other purpose.” Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Measures for the Administration of the Special Maintenance Fund for Housing (Order No. 165 of the Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of Finance) (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”) provided that: “The term ‘special maintenance fund for housing' as mentioned in these Measures refers to a fund exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of housing upon expiration of the guarantee period.” Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions, in nature, a maintenance fund was a special fund used for a specific purpose: the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of the housing upon expiration of the guarantee period. In addition to the property purchase price, taxes, and property management charges, the maintenance fund was separately raised, deposited in a special account, and separately accounted. Determined by its exclusive use, the contribution to the special maintenance fund was not derived from a special transaction or legal relationship, but was for the emergent maintenance, renewal, or reconstruction of the common parts of a building in divided co-ownership. Since the maintenance of the common parts concerned the common interest of all property owners or public interest, the maintenance fund was of a communal and public interest nature. | | 法院生效裁判认为：《中华人民共和国物权法》（以下简称《物权法》）第七十九条规定，“建筑物及其附属设施的维修资金，属于业主共有。经业主共同决定，可以用于电梯、水箱等共有部分的维修。”《物业管理条例》第五十四条第二款规定，“专项维修资金属于业主所有，专项用于物业保修期满后物业共用部位、共用设施设备的维修和更新、改造，不得挪作他用”。《住宅专项维修资金管理办法》（建设部、财政部令第165号）（以下简称《办法》）第二条第二款规定，“本办法所称住宅专项维修资金，是指专项用于住宅共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造的资金。”依据上述规定，维修资金性质上属于专项基金，系为特定目的，即为住宅共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造而专设的资金。它在购房款、税费、物业费之外，单独筹集、专户存储、单独核算。由其专用性所决定，专项维修资金的缴纳并非源于特别的交易或法律关系，而是为了准备应急性地维修、更新或改造区分所有建筑物的共有部分。由于共有部分的维护关乎全体业主的共同或公共利益，所以维修资金具有公共性、公益性。 |
| Item (4) of Article 7 of the Regulation on Property Management provided that: “A property owner shall perform the obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state in the property management activities.” Paragraph 1 of Article 54 thereof provided that: “An owner of a non-residential property ‘within residential properties or a residential area or an owner of a non-residential property connected in structure to a single residential building shall contribute to the special maintenance fund in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state.” Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions, the contribution to the special maintenance fund was a statutory obligation specially established for the public interest in a specific scope, namely, the common interest of all property owners of a building. The generation and existence of this obligation only depended on whether a person was an owner of a residential property or a non-residential property within the scope of a building in divided co-ownership. Therefore, the obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund was a statutory obligation to safeguard common or public interest. There was only a matter of late payment, rather than a right of non-payment as time passed by. | | 《物业管理条例》第七条第四项规定，业主在物业管理活动中，应当履行按照国家有关规定交纳专项维修资金的义务。第五十四条第一款规定：“住宅物业、住宅小区内的非住宅物业或者与单幢住宅楼结构相连的非住宅物业的业主，应当按照国家有关规定交纳专项维修资金。”依据上述规定，缴纳专项维修资金是为特定范围的公共利益，即建筑物的全体业主共同利益而特别确立的一项法定义务，这种义务的产生与存在仅仅取决于义务人是否属于区分所有建筑物范围内的住宅或非住宅所有权人。因此，缴纳专项维修资金的义务是一种旨在维护共同或公共利益的法定义务，其只存在补缴问题，不存在因时间经过而可以不缴的问题。 |
| The right of the Property Owners' Meeting to require late payment to the maintenance fund was the right of management exercised by the Property Owners' Meeting on behalf of all property owners in performing the duty of safeguarding the common or public interest of the community. If owners without contributing to the maintenance fund were allowed to enjoy benefits from the maintenance of the common parts using contributions made to the maintenance fund by other owners, it was likely that other owners paid money exceeding their shares in the maintenance of the common parts, which violated the principle of fairness and would cause damage to the long-term safety of buildings and the common or public interest of all property owners. | | 业主大会要求补缴维修资金的权利，是业主大会代表全体业主行使维护小区共同或公共利益之职责的管理权。如果允许某些业主不缴纳维修资金而可享有以其他业主的维修资金维护共有部分而带来的利益，其他业主就有可能在维护共有部分上支付超出自己份额的金钱，这违背了公平原则，并将对建筑物的长期安全使用，对全体业主的共有或公共利益造成损害。 |
| Based on the nature of the special maintenance fund and the nature of property owners' obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund, Huanya Corporation as an owner of Yongle Building failed to voluntarily contribute to the special maintenance fund according to the law, and its defense that the lawsuit for recovery of its contribution to the special maintenance fund was filed by the Property Owners' Meeting beyond the statute of limitation was unfounded. The amount of contribution that should be made by the defendant to the special maintenance fund as claimed by the plaintiff was reasonable, as calculated according to the area of properties owned by the defendant and the basis for calculating contributions to the special maintenance fund by other property owners over the same period. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant should contribute to the special maintenance fund as claimed by the plaintiff. | | 基于专项维修资金的性质和业主缴纳专项维修资金义务的性质，被告环亚公司作为久乐大厦的业主，不依法自觉缴纳专项维修资金，并以业主大会起诉追讨专项维修资金已超过诉讼时效进行抗辩，该抗辩理由不能成立。原告根据被告所有的物业面积，按照同期其他业主缴纳专项维修资金的计算标准算出的被告应缴纳的数额合理，据此判决被告应当按照原告诉请支付专项维修资金。 |
| (Judges rendering the effective judgment: Lu Weiwei, Chen Wenli, and Cheng Min) | | （生效裁判审判人员：卢薇薇、陈文丽、成皿） |
| Guiding Case No. 66 | | 指导案例66号 |
| Lei v. Song for Dispute over Divorce | | 雷某某诉宋某某离婚纠纷案 |
| (Issued on September 19, 2016, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2016年9月19日发布） |
| Keywords: civil; divorce; at the time of divorce; unauthorized disposition of community property | | 关键词 民事/离婚/离婚时/擅自处分共同财产 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| Where, during, or before the filing of, an action for divorce, one party conceals, transfers, sells, or destroys any community property, or fabricates any debt in an effort to encroach on the property of the other party, in the partition of community property upon divorce, the party may have a smaller or even no share of the community property in accordance with Article 47 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China. | | 一方在离婚诉讼期间或离婚诉讼前，隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产，或伪造债务企图侵占另一方财产的，离婚分割夫妻共同财产时，依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第四十七条的规定可以少分或不分财产。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
Article 47 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第47条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiff Lei (female, given name withheld) and defendant Song (given name withheld) registered their marriage on May 19, 2003. It was a remarriage for both of them, and they had no child after marriage. Trifles during marriage caused tensions between them, and a fight occurring in the first half of 2013 led to their separation in February 2014. In March 2014, Lei once filed a lawsuit to demand divorce with Song. After the lawsuit was rejected by the court, their relationship did not take a turn for the better. In January 2015, Lei sued again for divorce and legal partition of community property. Arguing that there was no rupture of affection between them, Song refused divorce. | | 原告雷某某（女）和被告宋某某于2003年5月19日登记结婚，双方均系再婚，婚后未生育子女。双方婚后因琐事感情失和，于2013年上半年产生矛盾，并于2014年2月分居。雷某某曾于2014年3月起诉要求与宋某某离婚，经法院驳回后，双方感情未见好转。2015年1月，雷某某再次诉至法院要求离婚，并依法分割夫妻共同财产。宋某某认为夫妻感情并未破裂、不同意离婚。 |
| Lei alleged that the deposit of 370,000 yuan in Song's accounts with Postal Savings Bank of China (PSBC) was community property, and submitted deposit and withdrawal vouchers and bank transfer vouchers as evidence. Song contended that the deposit came from house demolition compensation before their marriage and his pension and the balance was then over 200,000 yuan (including pension of 14,322.48 yuan). He also submitted account statements, a judgment, receipt of payment involved in the case, and other evidence. | | 雷某某称宋某某名下在中国邮政储蓄银行的账户内有共同存款37万元，并提交存取款凭单、转账凭单作为证据。宋某某称该37万元，来源于婚前房屋拆迁补偿款及养老金，现尚剩余20万元左右（含养老金14 322.48元），并提交账户记录、判决书、案款收据等证据。 |
| Song claimed that the deposit of 250,000 yuan in Lei's bank account was community property, and demanded legal partition of it. Lei denied it. The transaction details of Lei's account with last digits of 4179 at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) from January 26, 2014, submitted in the original trial showed that the balance of this account was 262.37 yuan on December 21, 2014. In the trial upon appeal, at the request of Song, the court subpoenaed detailed bank statements of the aforesaid ICBC account of Lei since the opening date of the account on November 26, 2012, showing that on April 30, 2013, Lei transferred 195,000 yuan from the account to Lei Qi (middle name withheld, not a party to this case) by wire transfer and ATM withdrawal. Song considered that because the deposit was rental income from his house owned before marriage, it should be community property of them but Lei transferred it before divorce. Lei claimed that the deposit was income from a restaurant run by her. She first stated that the deposit had been used in their common expenses, but later stated that the deposit was used for repaying a loan borrowed from her niece. However, Lei failed to provide evidence for her claims. In court, Lei once agreed that the deposits under their respective names were owned by them respectively and she would additionally pay Song 100,000 yuan, but Lei later regretted and refused to pay. | | 宋某某称雷某某名下有共同存款25万元，要求依法分割。雷某某对此不予认可，一审庭审中其提交在中国工商银行尾号为4179账户自2014年1月26日起的交易明细，显示至2014年12月21日该账户余额为262.37元。二审审理期间，应宋某某的申请，法院调取了雷某某上述中国工商银行账号自2012年11月26日开户后的银行流水明细，显示雷某某于2013年4月30日通过ATM转账及卡取的方式将该账户内的195 000元转至案外人雷某齐名下。宋某某认为该存款是其婚前房屋出租所得，应归双方共同所有，雷某某在离婚之前即将夫妻共同存款转移。雷某某提出该笔存款是其经营饭店所得收益，开始称该笔款已用于夫妻共同开销，后又称用于偿还其外甥女的借款，但雷某某对其主张均未提供相应证据证明。另，雷某某在庭审中曾同意各自名下存款归各自所有，其另行支付宋某某10万元存款，后雷某某反悔，不同意支付。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On April 16, 2015, the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 04854 [2015], First, Civil Division, Chaoyang) that: divorce was granted between Lei and Song; and the deposit in Lei's ICBC account with last digits of 4179 should be owned by Lei, while the deposit in Song's PSBC accounts with last digits of 7101, 9389, and 1156 should be owned by Song. The judgment also dealt with other property and debt issues. After the judgment was pronounced, Song appealed, requesting partition of the deposit in the bank account of Lei as community property, among others. On October 19, 2015, the No. 3 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 08205 [2015], Final, Civil Division, No. 3 IPC, Chaoyang) that: all items of the award part of the original judgment should be affirmed but item (3), which should be revoked; instead, the deposit in Lei's ICBC account with last digits of 4179 should be owned by Lei, the deposit in Song's PSBC accounts with last digits of 7101, 9389, and 1156 should be owned by Song, and Lei should pay Song 120,000 yuan within seven days after the judgment took effect. | | 北京市朝阳区人民法院于2015年4月16日作出（2015）朝民初字第04854号民事判决：准予雷某某与宋某某离婚；雷某某名下中国工商银行尾号为4179账户内的存款归雷某某所有，宋某某名下中国邮政储蓄银行账号尾号为7101、9389及1156账户内的存款归宋某某所有，并对其他财产和债务问题进行了处理。宣判后，宋某某提出上诉，提出对夫妻共同财产雷某某名下存款分割等请求。北京市第三中级人民法院于2015年10月19日作出（2015）三中民终字第08205号民事判决：维持一审判决其他判项，撤销一审判决第三项，改判雷某某名下中国工商银行尾号为4179账户内的存款归雷某某所有，宋某某名下中国邮政储蓄银行尾号为7101账户、9389账户及1156账户内的存款归宋某某所有，雷某某于本判决生效之日起七日内支付宋某某12万元。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: The martial relation was based on husband-wife affection. When living together, tensions between Song and Lei arose from trifles. After the court did not grant divorce between them, the affection between them still failed to improve. After mediation by the court failed, for the actual rupture of their husband-wife relationship, the court should enter a judgment to grant divorce of them. | | 法院生效裁判认为：婚姻关系以夫妻感情为基础。宋某某、雷某某共同生活过程中因琐事产生矛盾，在法院判决不准离婚后，双方感情仍未好转，经法院调解不能和好，双方夫妻感情确已破裂，应当判决准予双方离婚。 |
| In the trial upon appeal, the dispute between both parties focused on whether Lei transferred community property and how to partition the deposits under their respective names. Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China provided that: “Husband and wife shall have equal rights to disposal of community property.” Article 47 thereof provided that: “If, at the time of divorce, one party conceals, transfers, sells, or destroys any community property, or fabricates any debt in an effort to encroach on the property of the other party, the party who conceals, transfers, sells, or destroys the community property or fabricates the debt may, in the partition of community property, have a smaller or even no share of it. If one party discovers any of the aforesaid acts after divorce, he or she may file a lawsuit with the people's court to apply for repartitioning community property.” In other words, where, during, or before the filing of, a divorce action, one party concealed, transferred, sold, or destroyed any community property or fabricated any debt in an effort to encroach on the property of the other party, the party infringed upon the equal rights of husband and wife to disposal of their community property. At the time of partitioning community property upon divorce, the party may have a smaller or even no share of community property in accordance with Article 47 of the Marriage Law of the People's Republic of China. | | 本案二审期间双方争议的焦点在于雷某某是否转移夫妻共同财产和夫妻双方名下的存款应如何分割。《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第十七条第二款规定：“夫妻对共同所有的财产，有平等的处理权。”第四十七条规定：“离婚时，一方隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产，或伪造债务企图侵占另一方财产的，分割夫妻共同财产时，对隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产或伪造债务的一方，可以少分或不分。离婚后，另一方发现有上述行为的，可以向人民法院提起诉讼，请求再次分割夫妻共同财产。” 这就是说，一方在离婚诉讼期间或离婚诉讼前，隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损夫妻共同财产，或伪造债务企图侵占另一方财产的，侵害了夫妻对共同财产的平等处理权，离婚分割夫妻共同财产时，应当依照《中华人民共和国婚姻法》第四十七条的规定少分或不分财产。 |
| With regard to the partition of deposits under their respective names, based on the relevant evidence, Song's deposit derived from house demolition compensation before their marriage should be owned by Song, but his pension obtained after their marriage should be community property. The deposit in Lei's ICBC account with last digits of 4179 was income obtained in the duration of their marital relation, and should be partitioned as community property. On April 30, 2013, by wire transfer and ATM withdrawal, Lei transferred 195,000 yuan from the bank account with last digits of 4179 to a non-party to this case. At first, Lei stated that the deposit was used for domestic expenses but later stated that it was used for repaying a loan. The two statements were obviously contradictory. Lei failed to provide any evidence to support her claims, and could not provide a reasonable explanation of the whereabouts of the deposit. Based on the case facts and relevant evidence, the court determined that Lei transferred and concealed community property. In accordance with the aforesaid legal provisions, Lei may have a smaller share of the deposit in her ICBC account with last digits of 4179. Song's claim for the partition of the deposit in Lei's bank account was well-founded according to the law, and should be upheld. Therefore, the court entered a judgment that Song's pension of 14,322.48 yuan obtained after their marriage should be owned by Song and out of the deposit of 195,000 yuan transferred by Lei, Lei should pay 120,000 yuan to Song. | | 本案中，关于双方名下存款的分割，结合相关证据，宋某某婚前房屋拆迁款转化的存款，应归宋某某个人所有，宋某某婚后所得养老保险金，应属夫妻共同财产。雷某某名下中国工商银行尾号为4179账户内的存款为夫妻关系存续期间的收入，应作为夫妻共同财产予以分割。雷某某于2013年4月30日通过ATM转账及卡取的方式，将尾号为4179账户内的195 000元转至案外人名下。雷某某始称该款用于家庭开销，后又称用于偿还外债，前后陈述明显矛盾，对其主张亦未提供证据证明，对钱款的去向不能作出合理的解释和说明。结合案件事实及相关证据，认定雷某某存在转移、隐藏夫妻共同财产的情节。根据上述法律规定，对雷某某名下中国工商银行尾号4179账户内的存款，雷某某可以少分。宋某某主张对雷某某名下存款进行分割，符合法律规定，予以支持。故判决宋某某婚后养老保险金14 322.48元归宋某某所有，对于雷某某转移的19.5万元存款，由雷某某补偿宋某某12万元。 |
| (Judges rendering the effective judgment: Li Chunxiang, Zhao Xia, and Yan Hui) | | （生效裁判审判人员：李春香、赵霞、闫慧） |
| Guiding Case No. 67 | | 指导案例67号 |
| Tang Changlong v. Zhou Shihai for Dispute over Equity Transfer | | 汤长龙诉周士海股权转让纠纷案 |
| (Issued on September 19, 2016, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2016年9月19日发布） |
| Keywords: civil; equity transfer; payment in installments; rescission of contract | | 关键词 民事/股权转让/分期付款/合同解除 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| Where the transferee delays or refuses the payment of the transfer price in installments for equities in a limited liability company or otherwise defaults, and the transferor requires rescission of the equity transfer contract between them, the provision of Article 167 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China that the seller under a sales contract with payment in installments may rescind the sales contract if the amount of installments past due reaches one fifth of the total price should not apply | | 有限责任公司的股权分期支付转让款中发生股权受让人延迟或者拒付等违约情形，股权转让人要求解除双方签订的股权转让合同的，不适用《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百六十七条关于分期付款买卖中出卖人在买受人未支付到期价款的金额达到合同全部价款的五分之一时即可解除合同的规定。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
Articles 94 and 167 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国合同法》第94条、第167条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| On April 3, 2013, plaintiff Tang Changlong and defendant Zhou Shihai concluded an Agreement on Equity Transfer and an Agreement on Payment in Installments of Equity Transfer Price, under which they agreed that: Zhou Shihai should transfer 6.35% of the equities of Chengdu Shuangxing Electronic Appliance Co., Ltd. of Qingdao Transformer Group held by him to Tang Changlong, for a total price of 7.1 million yuan to be paid in four installments: paying 1.5 million yuan on April 3, 2013, 1.5 million yuan on August 2, 2013, 2 million yuan on December 2, 2013, and 2.1 million yuan on April 2, 2014. The agreements should take effect upon signatures of both parties, and they would never regret. After the conclusion of the agreements, Tang Changlong paid Zhou Shihai the first installment of 1.5 million yuan on April 3, 2013, as agreed on. Since Tang Changlong failed to pay the second installment within the prescribed time limit as agreed on, on October 11 of the same year, Zhou Shihai served a Notice of Rescinding Agreement upon Tang Changlong by notarization to rescind the Agreement on Payment in Installments of Equity Transfer Price on the ground that Tang Changlong committed a fundamental breach of contract. On the following day, Tang Changlong paid Zhou Shihai the second installment of 1.5 million yuan by wire transfer, and performed his obligations of paying the third and fourth installments as scheduled in the agreed amounts. Zhou Shihai refunded the four equity transfer payments made by Tang Changlong on the ground that the Agreement had been rescinded. Tang Changlong filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting the court to confirm that the Notice of Rescinding Agreement issued by Zhou Shihai was invalid and order Zhou Shihai to continue performance of the Agreement. | | 原告汤长龙与被告周士海于2013年4月3日签订《股权转让协议》及《股权转让资金分期付款协议》。双方约定：周士海将其持有的青岛变压器集团成都双星电器有限公司6.35%股权转让给汤长龙。股权合计710万元，分四期付清，即2013年4月3日付150万元；2013年8月2日付150万元；2013年12月2日付200万元；2014年4月2日付210万元。此协议双方签字生效，永不反悔。协议签订后，汤长龙于2013年4月3日依约向周士海支付第一期股权转让款150万元。因汤长龙逾期未支付约定的第二期股权转让款，周士海于同年10月11日，以公证方式向汤长龙送达了《关于解除协议的通知》，以汤长龙根本违约为由，提出解除双方签订的《股权转让资金分期付款协议》。次日，汤长龙即向周士海转账支付了第二期150万元股权转让款，并按照约定的时间和数额履行了后续第三、四期股权转让款的支付义务。周士海以其已经解除合同为由，如数退回汤长龙支付的4笔股权转让款。汤长龙遂向人民法院提起诉讼，要求确认周士海发出的解除协议通知无效，并责令其继续履行合同。 |
| It was also found that on November 7, 2013, in the modification registration (or recordation) of Chengdu Shuangxing Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. of Qingdao Transformer Group, the 6.35% equities formerly held by Zhou Shihai were registered under the name of Tang Changlong. | | 另查明，2013年11月7日，青岛变压器集团成都双星电器有限公司的变更（备案）登记中，周士海所持有的6.35%股权已经变更登记至汤长龙名下。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On April 15, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province entered a civil judgment (No. 1815 [2013], First, Civil Division, IPC, Chengdu) to dismiss the claims of Tang Changlong. Tang Changlong appealed. On December 19, 2014, the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province entered a civil judgment (No. 432 [2014], Final, Civil Division, HPC, Sichuan) that: (1) the original judgment should be revoked; (2) Zhou Shihai's unilateral rescission of the Agreement on Payment in Installments of Equity Transfer Price between both parties should be held invalid; and (3) Tang Changlong should, within ten days after this judgment took effect, pay Zhou Shihai the equity transfer price of 7.1 million yuan. Against the judgment of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, Zhou Shihai filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People's Court on the ground that the application of law by the court of second instance was erroneous. On October 26, 2015, the Supreme People's Court entered a civil ruling (No. 2532 [2015], Civil Retrial Petition, SPC) to dismiss Zhou Shihai's retrial petition. | | 四川省成都市中级人民法院于2014年4月15日作出（2013）成民初字第1815号民事判决：驳回原告汤长龙的诉讼请求。汤长龙不服，提起上诉。四川省高级人民法院于2014年12月19日作出（2014）川民终字第432号民事判决：一、撤销原审判决；二、确认周士海要求解除双方签订的《股权转让资金分期付款协议》行为无效；三、汤长龙于本判决生效后十日内向周士海支付股权转让款710万元。周士海不服四川省高级人民法院的判决，以二审法院适用法律错误为由，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2015年10月26日作出（2015）民申字第2532号民事裁定，驳回周士海的再审申请。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court considered that the dispute in this case focused on whether Zhou Shihai was entitled to rescind a contract under Article 167 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract Law”). | | 法院生效判决认为：本案争议的焦点问题是周士海是否享有《中华人民共和国合同法》（以下简称《合同法》）第一百六十七条规定的合同解除权。 |
1. Paragraph 1 of Article 167 of the Contract Law provided that: “Where, under a sales contract with payment in installments, the buyer fails to make payments due, if the delinquent amount has reached one fifth of the total price, the seller may require the buyer to pay the total price or rescind the contract.” Paragraph 2 thereof provided that: “If the seller rescinds the contract, it may require the buyer to pay a fee for use of the subject matter.” Article 38 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Sales Contract Dispute Cases provided that: “The term ‘payment in installments' as mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 167 of the Contract Law means that the buyer pays the total price to the seller in at least three installments within a certain period. Where any provision of a sales contract with payment in installments violates paragraph 1 of Article 167 of the Contract Law, causing damage to the interests of the buyer, if the buyer claims that the provision of the contract is void, the people's court shall support such a claim.” In accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid law and judicial interpretation, a sale in the manner of payment in installments had the following major characteristics: (1) The buyer paid the total price to the seller in at least three installments, and after the delivery of the subject matter by the seller, the buyer paid the price to the seller in at least two installments. (2) Payment in installments often occurred between merchants and consumers, generally in transactions where the buyers were consumers to meet demands in life consumption. (3) The seller granted a certain credit to the buyer, and thus assumed a certain risk in recovering the price. To guarantee the recovery of the remaining payments, under certain conditions, the seller may exercise a right to rescind the contract.
．．．．．． | | 一、《合同法》第一百六十七条第一款规定，“分期付款的买受人未支付到期价款的金额达到全部价款的五分之一的，出卖人可以要求买受人支付全部价款或解除合同”。第二款规定，“出卖人解除合同的，可以向买受人要求支付该标的物的使用费。”最高人民法院《关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》第三十八条规定，“合同法第一百六十七条第一款规定的‘分期付款'，系指买受人将应付的总价款在一定期间内至少分三次向出卖人支付。分期付款买卖合同的约定违反合同法第一百六十七条第一款的规定，损害买受人利益，买受人主张该约定无效的，人民法院应予支持”。依据上述法律和司法解释的规定，分期付款买卖的主要特征为：一是买受人向出卖人支付总价款分三次以上，出卖人交付标的物之后买受人分两次以上向出卖人支付价款；二是多发、常见在经营者和消费者之间，一般是买受人作为消费者为满足生活消费而发生的交易；三是出卖人向买受人授予了一定信用，而作为授信人的出卖人在价款回收上存在一定风险，为保障出卖人剩余价款的回收，出卖人在一定条件下可以行使解除合同的权利。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥2000.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |