| | |
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Fifth Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第五批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 241 [2013] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2013〕241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, the case of Zhang Li v. Beijing Heli Huatong Auto Service Co., Ltd. for sales contract dispute and other five cases (Guiding Case No. 17–22) are hereby issued as the fifth 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，现将张莉诉北京合力华通汽车服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案等六个案例（指导案例17-22号），作为第五批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| November 8, 2013 | | 2013年11月8日 |
| Guiding Case No. 17 | | 指导案例17号 |
| Zhang Li v. Beijing Heli Huatong Auto Service Co., Ltd.(Sales contract dispute) | | 张莉诉北京合力华通汽车服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案 |
| (Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布） |
| Keywords: | | 关键词 |
| Civil; sales contract; fraud; household automobile | | 民事 买卖合同 欺诈 家用汽车 |
| Judgment's Key Points | | 裁判要点 |
| 1. A fraud dispute arising from the purchase of an automobile in household consumption may be settled in accordance with the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers. | | 1.为家庭生活消费需要购买汽车，发生欺诈纠纷的，可以按照《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》处理。 |
| 2. Where an automobile seller promises the sale of a new automobile that has never been used or repaired to a consumer, and the consumer finds after the purchase that the automobile is a used or a repaired one, if the seller cannot prove that it has fulfilled the obligation of notifying the consumer of the fact and the consumer has recognized the fact, the seller commits a sales fraud. If the consumer claims damages against the seller in accordance with the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, the people's court should support such a claim. | | 2.汽车销售者承诺向消费者出售没有使用或维修过的新车，消费者购买后发现系使用或维修过的汽车，销售者不能证明已履行告知义务且得到消费者认可的，构成销售欺诈，消费者要求销售者按照消费者权益保护法赔偿损失的，人民法院应予支持。 |
| Relevant Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 2 and paragraph 1 of Article 55 (Article 49 before amendment on October 25, 2013) of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers. | | 《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二条、第五十五条第一款（该款系2013年10月25日修改，修改前为第四十九条） |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| On February 28, 2007, plaintiff Zhang Li purchased a Chevrolet Epica car from defendant Beijing Heli Huatong Auto Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Heli Huatong”) at the price of 138,000 yuan. They entered into an Automobile Sales Contract, Article 7 of which provided that: “the Seller undertakes that the car to be purchased by the Buyer is new, all necessary inspection and cleaning have been completed before delivery, the mileage indicated on the vehicle's odometer is 18 km, and the car complies with all specifications and indicators as listed in the accompanying documents delivered with the car by the Seller to the Buyer …” On the signing date of this Contract, Zhang Li paid Heli Huatong the purchase price of 138,000 yuan for the automobile, as well as the vehicle purchase tax of 12,400 yuan, one-stop service fee of 500 yuan, and insurance premium of 6,060 yuan. On the same day, Heli Huatong delivered one Chevrolet Epica car to Zhang Li, and Zhang Li underwent the motor vehicle registration formalities for the car. When this car was at Heli Huatong for maintenance on May 13, 2007, Zhang Li discovered that this car was once repaired on January 17, 2007. | | 2007年2月28日，原告张莉从被告北京合力华通汽车服务有限公司（简称合力华通公司）购买上海通用雪佛兰景程轿车一辆，价格138000元，双方签有《汽车销售合同》。该合同第七条约定：“……卖方保证买方所购车辆为新车，在交付之前已作了必要的检验和清洁，车辆路程表的公里数为18公里且符合卖方提供给买方的随车交付文件中所列的各项规格和指标……”合同签订当日，张莉向合力华通公司交付了购车款138000元，同时支付了车辆购置税12400元、一条龙服务费500元、保险费6060元。同日，合力华通公司将雪佛兰景程轿车一辆交付张莉，张莉为该车办理了机动车登记手续。2007年5月13日，张莉在将车辆送合力华通公司保养时，发现该车曾于2007年1月17日进行过维修。 |
| At trial, Heli Huatong admitted that the car purchased by Zhang Li once sustained scratches during transportation and was repaired on January 17, 2007, and the repair items included the right front fender paint spraying, right front door paint spraying, and right rear fender paint spraying, and the metal plates of the right front door, right rear fender, and right front fender. The bottom edge buckle, fuel tank flap, and front fender lamp assembly were replaced in the repair. The person who sent the vehicle for repair was a salesman of this company. Heli Huatong argued that it clearly informed Zhang Li of the previous repair of the vehicle at the time of purchase and offered her a substantial discount because of it. The sales price of this car should be 151,900 yuan, but upon negotiation, the actual sales price was 138,000 yuan, with some free decorations. To support these facts, Heli Huatong provided the vehicle repair record and a copy of the vehicle delivery inspection certificate with the signature of Zhang Li dated February 28, 2007. In the remarks column of the certificate, it was noted that “Filled with 1/4 tank of gasoline, plate spraying repair on the right side, and sold at an agreed price.” Heli Huatong indicated that the inspection certificate was retained by this company and Zhang Li did not have a copy of it. As for the above two pieces of evidence provided by Heli Huatong, Zhang Li raised no objection to the vehicle repair record, and confirmed her signature in the vehicle delivery inspection certificate, but insisted that Heli Huatong never informed her in the sale of the car of the previous repair and there were no such words, “plate spraying repair on the right side, and sold at an agreed price,” in the remarks column when she signed the certificate. | | 审理中，合力华通公司表示张莉所购车辆确曾在运输途中造成划伤，于2007年1月17日进行过维修，维修项目包括右前叶子板喷漆、右前门喷漆、右后叶子板喷漆、右前门钣金、右后叶子板钣金、右前叶子板钣金，维修中更换底大边卡扣、油箱门及前叶子板灯总成。送修人系该公司业务员。合力华通公司称，对于车辆曾进行维修之事已在销售时明确告知张莉，并据此予以较大幅度优惠，该车销售定价应为151900元，经协商后该车实际销售价格为138000元，还赠送了部分装饰。为证明上述事实，合力华通公司提供了车辆维修记录及有张莉签字的日期为2007年2月28日的车辆交接验收单一份，在车辆交接验收单备注一栏中注有“加1/4油，此车右侧有钣喷修复，按约定价格销售”。合力华通公司表示该验收单系该公司保存，张莉手中并无此单。对于合力华通公司提供的上述两份证据，张莉表示对于车辆维修记录没有异议，车辆交接验收单中的签字确系其所签，但合力华通公司在销售时并未告知车辆曾有维修，其在签字时备注一栏中没有“此车右侧有钣喷修复，按约定价格销售”字样。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| In October 2007, the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality issued a civil judgment (No. 18230 [2007], First, Civil Division, Chaoyang): (1) The Automobile Sales Contract signed by and between Zhang Li and Heli Huatong on February 28, 2007, should be revoked. (2) Zhang Li should return the Chevrolet Epica car purchased to Heli Huatong within seven days from the effective date of this judgment. (3) Heli Huatong should refund the vehicle purchase price of 124,200 yuan to Zhang Li within seven days from the effective date of this judgment. (4) Heli Huatong should compensate Zhang Li for the purchase tax of 12,400 yuan, service fee of 500 yuan, and insurance premium of 6,060 yuan within seven days from the effective date of this judgment. (5) Heli Huatong should additionally compensate Zhang Li in an amount equal to the vehicle purchase price of 138,000 yuan within seven days from the effective date of this judgment. (6) The other claims of Zhang Li should be dismissed. After the pronouncement of this judgment, Heli Huatong filed an appeal. On March 13, 2008, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality issued a civil judgment (No. 00453 [2008], Final, Civil Division, No. 2 Intermediate, Beijing) to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. | | 北京市朝阳区人民法院于2007年10月作出（2007）朝民初字第18230号民事判决：一、撤销张莉与合力华通公司于2007年2月28日签订的《汽车销售合同》；二、张莉于判决生效后七日内将其所购的雪佛兰景程轿车退还合力华通公司；三、合力华通公司于判决生效后七日内退还张莉购车款十二万四千二百元；四、合力华通公司于判决生效后七日内赔偿张莉购置税一万二千四百元、服务费五百元、保险费六千零六十元；五、合力华通公司于判决生效后七日内加倍赔偿张莉购车款十三万八千元；六、驳回张莉其他诉讼请求。宣判后，合力华通公司提出上诉。北京市第二中级人民法院于2008年3月13日作出（2008）二中民终字第00453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: Plaintiff Zhang Li purchased an automobile for her own use in everyday life, and defendant Heli Huatong had no evidence that her purchase of the automobile was for business or any other non-household consumption. Therefore, Zhang Li's purchase of the automobile was household consumption, to which the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers should apply. | | 法院生效裁判认为：原告张莉购买汽车系因生活需要自用，被告合力华通公司没有证据证明张莉购买该车用于经营或其他非生活消费，故张莉购买汽车的行为属于生活消费需要，应当适用《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》。 |
| In accordance with the Automobile Sales Contract signed by both parties, the vehicle delivered by Heli Huatong to Zhang Li should be a new car without any repair record. The vehicle sold in the case was once repaired before delivery, as a fact recognized by both parties. The focal dispute in this case was whether Heli Huatong had fulfilled its obligation of prior notification. | | 根据双方签订的《汽车销售合同》约定，合力华通公司交付张莉的车辆应为无维修记录的新车，现所售车辆在交付前实际上经过维修，这是双方共同认可的事实，故本案争议的焦点为合力华通公司是否事先履行了告知义务。 |
| The reduced or discounted sales price of the vehicle and the free decorations were common sales strategies adopted by car dealers and were also the results of negotiation between both parties. It could not be inferred therefrom that Heli Huatong had offered a reduced or discounted price to Zhang Li on the basis of informing her of the defects in the car. The vehicle delivery inspection certificate with the signature of Zhang Li submitted by Heli Huatong was retained by Heli Huatong only, and the words in the remarks column were handwritten by different persons of the company. This inspection certificate was not recognized by Zhang Li. It was insufficient to prove that Zhang Li was informed of the previous repair of the car. Heli Huatong's defense that it had fulfilled its obligation of informing Zhang Li of the defects in the car should not be supported. It should be determined that Heli Huatong committed a fraud by concealing the defects in the car when selling it and should refund the vehicle purchase price and compensate Zhang Li in an additional amount. | | 车辆销售价格的降低或优惠以及赠送车饰是销售商常用的销售策略，也是双方当事人协商的结果，不能由此推断出合力华通公司在告知张莉汽车存在瑕疵的基础上对其进行了降价和优惠。合力华通公司提交的有张莉签名的车辆交接验收单，因系合力华通公司单方保存，且备注一栏内容由该公司不同人员书写，加之张莉对此不予认可，该验收单不足以证明张莉对车辆以前维修过有所了解。故对合力华通公司抗辩称其向张莉履行了瑕疵告知义务，不予采信，应认定合力华通公司在售车时隐瞒了车辆存在的瑕疵，有欺诈行为，应退车还款并增加赔偿张莉的损失。 |
| Guiding Case No. 18 | | 指导案例18号 |
| ZTE (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. Wang Peng(Employment contract dispute) | | 中兴通讯（杭州）有限责任公司诉王鹏劳动合同纠纷案 |
| (Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布） |
| Keywords: | | 关键词 |
| Civil; employment contract; unilateral rescission | | 民事 劳动合同 单方解除 |
| Judgment's Key Points | | 裁判要点 |
| An employee with the lowest rating after performance evaluation by the employer is not necessarily an “incompetent” employee. The lowest rating of an employee is not a statutory circumstance for the unilateral rescission of an employment contract. The employer should not unilaterally rescind an employment contract on this account. | | 劳动者在用人单位等级考核中居于末位等次，不等同于“不能胜任工作”，不符合单方解除劳动合同的法定条件，用人单位不能据此单方解除劳动合同。 |
| Relevant Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Articles 39 and 40 of the Employment Contract Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》第三十九条、第四十条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| In July 2005, defendant Wang Peng was employed by plaintiff ZTE (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ZTE”). According to the employment contract, Wang Peng served as a salesman, with a basic monthly salary of 3,840 yuan. The Employee Performance Management Measures of ZTE provided that the semi-annual and annual employee performance evaluations were classified into four grades: S, A, C1, and C2, respectively standing for excellence, good, inconformity with company values, and performance expected to improve; the percentages of Grades S, A, and C (C1 and C2) were 20%, 70%, and 10% respectively; in principle, Grade C2 should be assigned to incompetent employees. Wang Peng originally worked as a salesman in the Distribution Division, and was transferred to the Eastern Region still as a salesman after January 2009 due to the removal of the Distribution Division and other reasons. In the performance evaluations for the second half of 2008, the first half of 2009, and the second half of 2010, the evaluation results of Wang Peng were all C2. ZTE considered that Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post, and rescinded the employment contract with him after paying a certain amount of economic indemnity to Wang Peng. | | 2005年7月，被告王鹏进入原告中兴通讯（杭州）有限责任公司（以下简称中兴通讯）工作，劳动合同约定王鹏从事销售工作，基本工资每月3840元。该公司的《员工绩效管理办法》规定：员工半年、年度绩效考核分别为S、A、C1、C2四个等级，分别代表优秀、良好、价值观不符、业绩待改进；S、A、C（C1、C2）等级的比例分别为20%、70%、10%；不胜任工作原则上考核为C2。王鹏原在该公司分销科从事销售工作，2009年1月后因分销科解散等原因，转岗至华东区从事销售工作。2008年下半年、2009年上半年及2010年下半年，王鹏的考核结果均为C2。中兴通讯认为，王鹏不能胜任工作，经转岗后，仍不能胜任工作，故在支付了部分经济补偿金的情况下解除了劳动合同。 |
| On July 27, 2011, Wang Peng applied for labor arbitration. On October 8 of the same year, the arbitration commission rendered an award that ZTE should pay Wang Peng the remaining amount of compensation of 36,596.28 yuan for its illegal rescission of the employment contract. Claiming that it had not illegally rescinded the employment contract, on November 1 of the same year, ZTE brought an action in the court, requesting the court to order that the alleged remaining amount of compensation for its rescission of the employment contract should not be paid. | | 2011年7月27日，王鹏提起劳动仲裁。同年10月8日，仲裁委作出裁决：中兴通讯支付王鹏违法解除劳动合同的赔偿金余额36596.28元。中兴通讯认为其不存在违法解除劳动合同的行为，故于同年11月1日诉至法院，请求判令不予支付解除劳动合同赔偿金余额。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On December 6, 2011, the People's Court of Binjiang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province issued a civil judgment (No. 885 [2011], First, Civil Division, Binjiang): Plaintiff ZTE should pay defendant Wang Peng the remaining amount of compensation of 36,596.28 yuan for its illegal rescission of the employment contract in a lump sum within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment. After the pronouncement of this judgment, neither of the parties appealed, and this judgment came into force. | | 浙江省杭州市滨江区人民法院于2011年12月6日作出（2011）杭滨民初字第885号民事判决：原告中兴通讯（杭州）有限责任公司于本判决生效之日起十五日内一次性支付被告王鹏违法解除劳动合同的赔偿金余额36596.28元。宣判后，双方均未上诉，判决已发生法律效力。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: To protect the lawful rights and interests of workers and build and develop harmonious and stable labor relationships, the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China and the Employment Contract Law of the People's Republic of China specified the conditions for an employer to unilaterally rescind an employment contract. Plaintiff ZTE rescinded the employment contract on the ground that defendant Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post. ZTE should assume the burden of proof in this regard. The Employee Performance Management Measures provided that: “the percentage of Grade C (C1 and C2) is 10%.” Although Wang Peng had an evaluation result of C2, Grade C2 was not equal to “incompetent.” ZTE could not prove the incompetence of an employee only based on an evaluation result subject to a specified percentage, and the statutory conditions for its unilateral rescission of an employment contract were not satisfied. Although Wang Peng was transferred to another post from the Distribution Division in January 2009, he was a salesman both before and after the transfer, and the primary cause of his transfer was the removal of the Distribution Division. Therefore, it could not be proved that Wang Peng was transferred to another post because he was incompetent. Therefore, ZTE's allegation that Wang Peng was incompetent before and even after transfer to another post lacked any basis. For its illegal rescission of the employment contract, ZTE should compensate Wang Peng in twice the amount of the economic compensation standard. | | 法院生效裁判认为：为了保护劳动者的合法权益，构建和发展和谐稳定的劳动关系，《中华人民共和国劳动法》《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》对用人单位单方解除劳动合同的条件进行了明确限定。原告中兴通讯以被告王鹏不胜任工作，经转岗后仍不胜任工作为由，解除劳动合同，对此应负举证责任。根据《员工绩效管理办法》的规定，“C（C1、C2）考核等级的比例为10%”，虽然王鹏曾经考核结果为C2，但是C2等级并不完全等同于“不能胜任工作”，中兴通讯仅凭该限定考核等级比例的考核结果，不能证明劳动者不能胜任工作，不符合据此单方解除劳动合同的法定条件。虽然2009年1月王鹏从分销科转岗，但是转岗前后均从事销售工作，并存在分销科解散导致王鹏转岗这一根本原因，故不能证明王鹏系因不能胜任工作而转岗。因此，中兴通讯主张王鹏不胜任工作，经转岗后仍然不胜任工作的依据不足，存在违法解除劳动合同的情形，应当依法向王鹏支付经济补偿标准二倍的赔偿金。 |
| Guiding Case No. 19 | | 指导案例19号 |
| Zhao Chunming Et al. v. Yantai City Fushan District Automobile Transportation Company Et al.(Traffic accident liability dispute) | | 赵春明等诉烟台市福山区汽车运输公司卫德平等机动车交通事故责任纠纷案 |
| (Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布） |
| Keywords: | | 关键词 |
| Civil; motor vehicle traffic accident; liability; fake plate; joint and several liability | | 民事 机动车交通事故 责任 套牌 连带责任 |
| Judgment's Key Points | | 裁判要点 |
| Where the owner or custodian of a motor vehicle lends the plate of the motor vehicle to any other person for concurrent use, or fails to prevent any other person from using a fake plate though knowing that the other person is using its plate number, if the motor vehicle with the fake plate is caught in a traffic accident, causing damage to others, the owner or custodian of the motor vehicle should assume joint and several liability together with the owner or custodian of the motor vehicle with the fake plate. | | 机动车所有人或者管理人将机动车号牌出借他人套牌使用，或者明知他人套牌使用其机动车号牌不予制止，套牌机动车发生交通事故造成他人损害的，机动车所有人或者管理人应当与套牌机动车所有人或者管理人承担连带责任。 |
| Relevant Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 8 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第八条 |
| Article 16 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第十六条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Around 5:30 on November 25, 2008, a truck with a fake plate of Lu F41703 driven by defendant Lin Zedong on a section of Tongjiang-Sanya Expressway collided with a coach driven by defendant Zhou Yaping in the same direction. Both vehicles dashed off the roadbed, and the coach rolled over, causing the instant death of Feng Yongju, a passenger in the coach. It was determined by the traffic police division that the truck driver, Lin Zedong, should assume the primary liability, the coach driver, Zhou Yaping, should assume the secondary liability, and Feng Yongju should assume no liability for the accident. Plaintiffs Zhao Chunming, Zhao (first name withheld), Feng (first name withheld), and Hou (first name withheld) were respectively the husband, son, father, and mother of the deceased, Feng Yongju. | | 2008年11月25日5时30分许，被告林则东驾驶套牌的鲁F41703货车在同三高速公路某段行驶时，与同向行驶的被告周亚平驾驶的客车相撞，两车冲下路基，客车翻滚致车内乘客冯永菊当场死亡。经交警部门认定，货车司机林则东负主要责任，客车司机周亚平负次要责任，冯永菊不负事故责任。原告赵春明、赵某某、冯某某、侯某某分别系死者冯永菊的丈夫、儿子、父亲和母亲。 |
The truck with the plate number of Lu F41703 as registered with the vehicle administrative department was not the truck in the accident. The owner of the truck with the registered plate was defendant Yantai City Fushan District Automobile Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as “Fushan Company”), and the actual owner was defendant Wei Deping. This truck was covered by the mandatory motor vehicle third-party liability insurance underwritten by defendant Yantai Central Branch of Yongan Property Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Yongan Insurance Company”).
．．．．．． | | 鲁F41703号牌在车辆管理部门登记的货车并非肇事货车，该号牌登记货车的所有人系被告烟台市福山区汽车运输公司（以下简称福山公司），实际所有人系被告卫德平，该货车在被告永安财产保险股份有限公司烟台中心支公司（以下简称永安保险公司）投保机动车第三者责任强制保险。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1100.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |