The Processing Plant of Construction Timber of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. the Head Office of Xinjiang Industrial Development Corp. of the Chinese Democratic League –An Appeal Case of Disputes over Lease of Houses@#
(Announcement No.41 [2002] promulgated by the Supreme Court of the PRC)@#
Civil Judgment

@#

(No.115 [2000] of the Supreme Court of the PRC)

@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#

Appellant (defendant in first instance, plaintiff in the counterclaim): The Processing Plant of Construction Timber of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Address: No. 27 Qiantang River Road, Urumchi@#
Legal Representative: Chen Changxing, chairman of the board of directors@#
Agent: Lu Xianghui, an employee of this plant@#
Agent: Guan Yong, a lawyer of Xingjiang Yuanzheng Law Firm@#
Appellee (plaintiff in first instance, defendant in the counterclaim): The Head Office of Xinjiang Industrial Development Corp. of the Chinese Democratic League. Address: No. 1 Nanchang Road, Urumchi City@#
Legal Agent: Wang Hongnian, manager@#
Agent: Wu Renhai, chairman of the board of directors@#
Agent: Wu Ying, a lawyer of Xingjiang Ark Law Firm@#
The appellant, the Processing Plant of Construction Timber of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (hereinafter referred to as the Processing Plant of Timber) appealed to this court because it refused to accept Civil Judgment No. 13 (original)[1999] made by the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on the case of Disputes over lease of houses – The Main Processing Plant of Construction Timber of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region v. the Head Office of Xinjiang Industrial Development Corp. of the Chinese Democratic League (hereinafter referred to as the Industrial Corp.). In accordance with the law, this court organized a collegiate bench and heard this case in the public, Lu Xianghui and Guan Yong (agents of the Processing Plant of Timber), Wang Hongnian (legal representative of the Industrial Corp.), Wu Renhai and Wu Ying (agents of the Industrial Corp.) appeared in the court for litigation. Now the hearing of this case has been ended.@#
Upon examination, it was found that on October 6, 1992 the Processing Plant of Timber and the Modern Cultural Exchange Station of Urumchi of Xinjiang of the Chinese Democratic League (hereinafter referred to as the Exchange Station) signed The Contract for Leasing Office Building, in which they stipulated as below, that:The Exchange Station shall rent the office building of four storeys (including the basement) located at the left side of the office building of the Processing Plant of Timber as office, hotel, dinging room and ballroom etc. for twenty years. The building area is 3054 sq. m. The Exchange Station will invest RMB 1 million yuan as part of the continuous construction cost for the office building. Of this sum, 200,000 yuan shall be paid to the Processing Plant of Timber within 15 days as of the contract takes effect, 400,000 yuan shall be paid by the end of April 1993 and the remained money shall be paid off before the completion of works. The 1 million yuan to be paid by the Exchange Station for the continuous construction shall offset the rent and after it is totally deducted, the Exchange Station shall keep on paying rent in accordance with the stipulations of the contract. The monthly rent shall be the sum of multiplying the building area by 20 yuan / per sq. m, an annual rental shall be paid in four times, 25 % of which shall be paid each time and the time for each payment shall be in the first month of each season. The rate of the rental shall not be changed within 3 years as of the contract goes into effect, after the duration expires, it shall be adjusted according to the average market price. In compliance with relevant regulations, the expenses on water, central heating and electricity shall be paid to the Processing Plant of Timber each quarter. If the Industrial Corp. defaults the rental, it shall pay the Processing Plant of Timber a penalty of 0.5 % of this rental per day. The date, on which the office building is formally delivered to the Industrial Corp., shall be the date of the beginning of the lease. The Processing Plant of Timber shall be responsible for handling the procedures for the lease of the office building. Apart from the 1 million yuan to be invested by the Exchange Station, the other expenses that the continuous construction needs shall be paid by the Processing Plant of Timber. Under the precondition of not affecting the integral structure, the construction can be designed as what the Exchange Station requires. The Processing Plant of Timber shall ensure the normal supply of water, central heating and electricity, and it shall not interfere the Exchange Station's right of use and right of operation to the said building within the contract period. Both parties shall strictly abide by every term of this contract. In case either of the two parties breaks the contract, it shall compensate the other party for a penalty of 25% of the value of the contract and for all related economic losses.@#
．．．．．．

新疆维吾尔自治区建筑木材加工总厂与中国民主同盟新疆实业发展总公司房屋租赁纠纷上诉案@#
法公布(2002)第41号@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
民事判决书法@#
（2000）民终字第115号@#
@#
上诉人（原审被告、反诉原告）：新疆维吾尔自治区建筑木材加工总厂，住所地乌鲁木齐市钱塘江路２７号。@#
法定代表人：陈长星，董事长。@#
委托代主人：吕向辉，该厂职员。@#
委托代理人：关勇，新疆元正律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人（原审原告、反诉被告）：中国民主同盟新疆实业发展总公司，住所地乌鲁木齐市南昌路１号。@#
法定代表人：王鸿年，经理。@#
委托代理人：吴仁海，董事长。@#
委托代主人：吴颖，新程方舟律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人新疆维吾尔自治区建筑木材加工总厂（以下简称木材总厂）与上诉人中国民主同盟新疆实业发展总公司（以下简称实业公司）房屋租赁纠纷一案，不服新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院〔１９９９〕新民初字第１３号民事判决，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭公开开庭审理了本案，木材总厂的委托代理人吕向辉、关勇，实业公司的法定代表人王鸿年、委托代理人吴仁海、吴颖到庭参加诉讼，现已审理终结。@#
经审理查明：１９９２年１０月６日，木材总厂与中国民主同盟新疆乌鲁木齐现代文化交流站（以下简称交流站）签订《营业大楼租赁合同书》，约定：交流站租用木材总厂办公楼左侧式营业大楼共四层（包括地下室），建筑面积３．０５４平方米，作为办公室、宾馆、餐厅、舞厅等，租期为２０年。营业大楼续建的工程费用，交流站投资１００万元，应在合同生效后半个月内支付给木材总厂２０万元，１９９３年３月底前再支付４０万元，其余投资款；在工程竣工前全部交清。交流站支付的续建费用１００万元，抵扣租金，扣完后依合同约定继续向木材总厂支付租金。按建筑面积计算，每平方米每月租金２０元；每年度分四次支付，一次按年租金的２５％付清，每次付款时间为该季度的第一个月。租金价格在合同生效后三年内不变，逾期后在市场平均水平上另行调整。水、暖、电费用按规定分季度向木材总厂交纳。如实业公司拖欠租金，按日千分之五交纳滞纳金。营业大楼正式交付实业公司使用之日为起租日。木材总厂负责办理营业大楼租赁手续。除交流站投资的１００万元，续建大楼所需的其他费用由木材总厂承担。在不影响整体结构前提下，可按交流站需要设计。木材总厂保证承租房内的水、暖、电的正常供应。木材总厂在使用期限内，不干预交流站对承租房的使用权、经营权。双方必须严格遵守合同约定的各项条款，任何一方违约，必须向对方赔偿合同额２５％违约全及一切相关的经济损失。@#
１９９３年７月２６日，交流站向乌鲁木齐市沙依巴克区工商局申请将交流站更名为实业公司，以后工商局给实业公司核发了营业执照，注册资金８０万元。@#
签订合同后，实业公司于１９９２年１１月２日向木材总厂付款２０万元，１９９３年５月１８日付款１０万元，５月２９日付款４０万元，６月２５日付款１５万元，９月３０日付款３０万元，以上共计１１５万元。此后从１９９４年５月至１９９５年１２月实业公司又付给木材总厂款项２７４，８４７元。关于付款问题，一审判决还认定：讼争的营业大楼原由长城建筑公司所属史锡宝工程队施工，后变更为乌鲁木齐市天镁建筑公司（以下简称天镁公司）施工。经实业公司、木材总厂与史锡宝协商，由实业公司支付给史锡宝前期工程费用４万元，史锡宝收款后向实业公司出具了收条并向一审法院出具了证明。１９９４年５月１日营业大楼１－３层由天镁公司施工完毕后交付给实业公司，地下室于１９９５年１月１日交付给实业公司。施工中木材总厂共支付给天镁公司工程款９８４，０８１．１７元，其余款项由实业公司支付。１９９８年７月，实业公司与木材总厂在《建筑与安装工程审核情况说明书》中最后审定的营业大楼工程造价２，２３５，７８９．８１元，实业公司实际直接支付给天镁公司工程款为１，２５１，７０８．６４元。实业公司付给木材总厂、史锡宝、天镁公司款项共计２，７１６，５５５．６４元。实业公司为建设营业大楼实际超付资金１，７１６，５５５．６４元。对一审判决认定的这一事实，双方在二审期间中均未提出异议。一审期间，双方子１９９９年１１月１６日签署了两份付款清单，对帐结论为实业公司支付给木材总厂的款项为１，４２４，８４７元，双方无争议。另付给史锡宝４０，０００元和搬迁费１０，０００元双方有争议，由法庭确认。木材总厂支付９８４，０８１．１７元双方无争议，另有四笔费用计９５，２３０元，双方有争议，由法庭确认。同日，双方还签订了《中国民主同盟新疆实业发展有限公司欠新疆建筑木材加工总厂款项清单》，确认实业公司欠木材总厂６４，００５元。@#
此外，交流站与木材总厂在１９９３年３月签订了《协议书》约定：木材总厂同意为交流站向银行贷款１５０万元提供担保。交流站同意在银行贷款落实到位时，提前将租赁营业大楼合同书中约定应支付的续建工程款８０万元一次付清，并同时付足５０万元，作为信誉保证金。１９９７年４月，乌鲁木齐市沙依巴克区税务局（以下简称沙区税务局）无偿使用承租房二楼约３２５．３２平方米房屋作该局办公室，二上诉人均未与沙区税务局签订允许该局无偿使用部分讼争房向书面协议。一审判决认定，１９９６年１月１日至１９９９年５月１８日，木材总厂反租实业公司两间房，每间每年按１．８万元计算，木材总厂应付实业公司租金１２１，５００元；１９９７年３月１８日至１９９８年２月１６日，木材总厂又租实业公司房屋一间，每间每年１．８万元，应付租金１．６５万元；１９９８年７月１７日至１９９９年５月１８日，木材总厂又租实业公司房屋一问，每间每年仍为１．８万元，应付租金１．５万元。木材总厂反租实业公司四间房屋，共应支付实业公司租金１５．３万元。对上述认定，双方当事人在二审期间均未提出异议。@#
１９９７年６月１０日，木材总厂与实业公司签订《关于收交金三角租金的协议》，约定：根据双方签订营业大楼租赁合同，经双方充分协商，既考虑到原合同生效之日起三年内租金不变，逾期后在市场平均价水平上另行调整的条款，又考虑到实业公司存在困难的实际情况，同意对实业公司按优惠方案计算租金，即１９９６年应收租金３，０５４平方米×５０元×９个月＝１３７．４３万元，１９９７年应收租金３，０５４平方米×５０元×１２个月＝１８２．２４万元，１９９６年的租金于１９９７年７月底前交清，１９９７年的租金于１２月底前分三期付清。不再按期付清，按原合同第７条办理，即违约拖欠租金以日按千分之五计滞纳金。对于这份协议的效力，一审判决认定木材总厂清算小组写给该厂的清算报告中并未出现和涉及该协议，说明在１９９８年８月以前双方未就租金价格调整达成一致意见。清算小组负责人俞新元证实报告真实。木材总厂反租实业公司的四间房自１９９６年至１９９９年租金价格未作调整，也说明双方末就调整租金价格达成一致。实业公司认为，木材总厂是为了应付上级检查才要求与其签订该协议，该协议是虚假的，不是双方当事人的真实立思表示，应无效。木材总厂清算小组负责人俞新元向一审法院提供的书面《补充说明》称：清算报告反映的是个人观点，未经集体讨论，未形成领导班子集体意见，报告文本上未加盖单位公章。该报告不具备法律效力，一审法院以该报告作证据不尊重客观事实。木材总厂参与合同签订的工作人员向一审法院提供书面证言证明该合同真实、合法。@#
另查明，双方在１９９８年６月２８日签订了实业公司欠木材总厂水电费清单。实业公司已支付水电费１６３，７１０．５元，共欠４４１，６３１．５４元，尚欠４４１，６３１．５４元－１６３，７１０．５元＝２７７，９２１．０４元。１９９８年１１月，木材总厂在讼争房一侧临窗采光处不足５公分间距处另建一栋楼，影响营业大楼部分场地采光、通风，影响承租房屋的正常经营使用。１９８２年９月１５日木材总厂取得厂区占地的《国有土地使用证》，土地性质为行政划拨，用途为生产和生活用地。承建讼争房屋先后取得立项批文、建设工程规划许可证、建设工程施工许可证。新疆自治区人民政府办公厅发文同意木材总厂建立属社会服务性大型综合市场商贸城。乌鲁木齐市市场建设领导小组办公室发文同意实业公司开办“金三角大市场”，并到工商、消防、税务等部门办理开办登记证。@#
又查明，１９９７年１月６日实业公司给乌鲁木齐市鑫源商贸有限公司（以下简称鑫源公司，以后更名为乌鲁木齐市海阔商贸有限公司）出具了委托书，记明：鑫源公司代理实业公司在承租楼内收取租金、水、电、暖费、物业管理、还贷。受托方与木材总厂签订租赁合同如与实业公司、木材总厂签订的合同相抵触，以后一个为准。代理期限为１９９７年１月６日至２０００年１月５日。以后代理期限延期至２００５年１月４日。１９９７年１月６日，木材总厂与鑫源公司签订《营业大楼租赁合同书》约定：自签字盖章生效后，租金按建筑面积每月每平方米２０元计，三年内不变，逾期后在市场平均水平上另行调整。同日，双方签订的《补充合同》约定、上述协议如与１９９２年１０月６日木材总厂与交流站签订的《营业大楼租赁合同书》相抵触，则以后一协议为准。实业公司以木材总厂、鑫源公司签订的二份协议作为证据否认实业公司、木材总厂签订的《关于收关金三角租金的协议》中有关提租的内容。@#
．．．．．．