Liu Benyuan v. Pujiang Township Enterprise Bureau of Sichuan Province
(Case of Administrative Dispute over the Infringement upon Property Ownership and Management Autonomy)@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff of the Original Instance): Liu Benyuan, male, 51 years old, director of Pujiang Berberine Factory of Chengdu Municipality, Sichuan Province, Sunrise Printing House of Chengdu Municipality and Heshan Mineral Beverage Factory of Chengdu Municipality.@#
Attorney: Wu Chuanyu, lawyer from Chengdu Dazhong Law Firm.@#
Attorney: Yan Xiaochuan, lawyer from Chengdu Dazhong Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant of the Original Instance): Sichuan Pujiang Township Enterprise Bureau.@#
Legal Representative: Zhou Shangwu, director of the bureau.@#
Attorney: Xu Chengyao, lawyer from Pujiang Law Firm.@#
With regard to the administrative litigation brought against Pujiang Township Enterprise Bureau for the latter's infringement upon his property right and managerial autonomy, Liu Benyuan refused to accept the administrative judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu Municipality, Sichuan Province and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, which verified upon public hearing that:@#
In May 1983, Liu Benyuan contributed 24,000 yuan, Li and An each contributed 8000 yuan, and they jointly opened Pujiang Shou'an Berberine Factory (hereinafter referred to as Berberine Factory). The economic nature of the factory as indicated in the business license issued by Pujiang Administration of Industry and Commerce was “collective (jointly held by specialized households).” At the end of 1983, Li and An withdrew from the partnership, and Liu Benyuan started running the factory solely. On October 8th, 1984, Liu Benyuan concluded a House Property Transfer Agreement with Pujiang Agricultural Machinery Bureau, which stipulated that Pujiang Agricultural Machinery Bureau shall transfer the house property of 2403㎡ at Agricultural Machinery School to Berberine Factory at the price of 29,000 yuan. In April 1991, Liu Benyuan obtained the State-owned Land Use Permit and the License for the Use of Land in Construction of Chengdu Municipality.@#
．．．．．．

刘本元不服蒲江县乡镇企业管理局@#
侵犯财产权、经营自主权处理决定行政纠纷案@#
@#
上诉人（原审原告）：刘本元，男，５１岁，四川省成都蒲江小蘖碱厂及原成都市朝阳印刷厂、成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂厂长。@#
委托代理人：吴川渝，成都市大众律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：阎小川，成都市大众律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人（原审被告）：四川省蒲江县乡镇企业管理局。@#
法定代表人：周尚武，局长。@#
委托代理人：徐成尧，蒲江县律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人刘本元因蒲江县乡镇企业管理局侵犯财产权、经营自主权行政诉讼一案，不服四川省成都市中级人民法院行政判决，向四川省高级人民法院提起上诉。该院经公开审理，查明：@#
１９８３年５月，上诉人刘本元出资２４０００元，黎某和安某各出资８０００元，合伙开办蒲江县寿安小蘖碱厂。蒲江县工商行政管理局颁发的营业执照上记载的经济性质为“集体（专业户联办）”。同年底，黎某、安某退出合伙，该厂便由刘本元独资经营。１９８４年１０月８日，刘本元与蒲江县农机局签订了《转让房产协议书》，蒲江县农机局以２９０００元将其原农机校房产２４０３平方米转让给蒲江县寿安小蘖碱厂。１９９１年４月，刘本元领取了《国有土地使用证》和《成都市建设用地许可证》。@#
１９８４年１２月２２日，上诉人刘本元向蒲江县科学技术委员会申请筹建成都市朝阳印刷厂，该委批复同意并决定该厂归其领导。１９８５年４月１５日，蒲江县工商行政管理局发给成都市朝阳印刷厂营业执照，称该企业经济性质为“集体”。刘本元为解决印刷厂的用水问题，自行投资在厂区内打了两口深约８０米的机井。刘本元在使用中发现其中一口井的水质好，经四川省地质矿产局鉴定为偏硅酸饮用天然矿泉水。１９８６年１２月６日，刘本元经蒲江县科学技术委员会同意，以印刷厂名义与成都饮料厂联办成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂，并领取了营业执照，该营业执照记载，其经济性质为“全民与集体联营”。一年后，双方终止了联营，饮料厂便由刘本元经营。在换发营业执照时，将饮料厂的经济性质变更为“集体”。１９８７年９月２８日，蒲江县乡镇企业管理局发出蒲乡企（１９８７）２３号文，将成都市朝阳印刷厂、成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂归口为该局管理。@#
１９８９年，蒲江县工商行政管理局根据国家工商行政管理局关于对个体、私营企业领有集体营业执照进行清理的通知规定，曾要求上诉人刘本元将其企业的经济性质变更为私营。刘本元于１９９０年６月向该局提出变更企业性质的申请，因蒲江县乡镇企业管理局不同意，致使变更企业性质未果。１９９１年８月，刘本元以成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂的名义，经蒲江县地矿办公室和乡镇企业管理局同意，向四川省地质矿产局申请办理矿泉水开采许可证。同月３０日，蒲江县人民政府去函省地矿局请求暂缓办理采矿许可证。@#
１９９２年１月７日，蒲江县乡镇企业管理局作出了任免决定：任命邓某为成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂和成都市朝阳印刷厂厂长；免去上诉人刘本元成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂和成都市朝阳印刷厂厂长职务。同时该局还查封了成都蒲江小蘖碱厂、成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂、成都市朝阳印刷厂和价值约１０万元的库存物品。新任命的厂长指使有关人员将成都鹤山矿泉饮料厂成都门市部的２个冷藏柜、９个铝合金货架、４部传呼机拿走。上述行为致使刘本元１９９１年１０月与泰国国际开发有限公司总经理、泰国建成企业公司董事长吴某等签订的合资经营项目夭折，并无法履行蒲江县人民法院法经（１９９１）字第３５号、第４０号民事调解书所确认１９９２年归还的借款和利息。为此，刘本元向成都市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
．．．．．．