Feng Haojiang et. al v. Dongguan Urban Planning Bureau of Guangdong Province
(Case of Dispute over the Administrative Ruling of House Dismantlement)@#
[Judgment Abstract]@#
Where an administrative ruling by an administrative organ is based upon an evaluation report, the evaluator of which does not possess the statutory qualification for the evaluation or seriously violates statutory procedure in failing to follow laws and regulations in taking evidence, the administrative ruling shall be revoked according to laws and regulations due to lack of sufficient major evidence.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Feng Haojiang and other 16 persons (the name list is omitted), all of them are the owners of the shops at No. 18, Dongzong Avenue, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Representative of action: Li Yifan.@#
Defendant: Dongguan Urban Planning Bureau of Guangdong Province, situated at Dongcheng Zhong Road, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Legal representative: Zhu Chuan, director of this Bureau.@#
Third person: Dongguan Urban Realty Development Company of Guangdong, situated at Dongcheng Xi Road, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province.@#
Legal representative: Yuan Kong, general manager of this company.@#
Third person: Feng Yanfen, Zhou Bingkun, Zhang Ganlin and Liu Fazhi, all of whom are the owners of the shops at No. 18, Dongzong Avenue, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province.@#
On August 30, 2002, Dongguan Urban Planning Bureau of Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Bureau) delivered an Administrative Ruling of House Dismantlement (Administrative Ruling No. 1 [2002] of Dongguan Urban Planning Bureau of Guangdong Province) for the dismantlement and relocation of 24 private shops at No. 18 of Dongzong Avenue upon the strength of the application filed by Dongguan Urban Realty Development Company of Guangdong (hereinafter referred to as the Realty Company). The above-mentioned Administrative Ruling mainly includes that: (1) the compensation and relocation for the dismantlement of 24 private shops at No. 18 of Dongzong Avenue shall be conducted as follows: if a person against whom the application is filed chooses monetary compensation, the applicant shall pay, once and for all, the amount of appraised price in the dismantlement appraisal report provided thereby to each person against whom the application is filed; if a person against whom the application is filed chooses the exchange of property right at the ratio of 1: 0.6 between the area of demolished houses and the area of newly built shops, no price difference needs to be compensated; if a person against whom the application is filed chooses the exchange of property right at the ratio of 1: 1, the amount of compensation for the dismantled houses and the house exchange price shall be calculated, and the price difference between the exchanged property rights shall be settled. (2) The applicant shall pay the business losses of shops to the persons against whom the application is filed once and for all at the specific rate of 80% of average monthly after-tax profits as verified by the taxation authority within 6 months before the announcement of house dismantlement for a term of half a year. (3) The applicant shall pay 1,000 yuan of house transferring allowances to the persons against whom the application is filed once and for all. (4) The economic compensation for the interior decoration of buildings shall be determined according to the relevant provisions of the city. (5) The persons against whom the application is filed shall move out of their shops at No. 18 of Dongzong Avenue within 15 days after the effect of this Ruling, and the shops shall be dismantled by the applicant. Feng, et. al, were not satisfied with the administrative ruling and brought an administrative lawsuit with the Dongguan Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.@#
．．．．．．

丰浩江等人诉广东省东莞市规划局房屋拆迁行政裁决纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
行政机关作出行政裁决时依据的评估报告，如果存在评估人不具备法定评估资格，或评估人未依法取证等程序上严重违法的问题，应认定行政机关的裁决主要证据不足，依法予以撤销。@#
@#
原告：丰浩江等17人(名单略)，均为广东省东莞市东纵大道18号商铺的业主。@#
诉讼代表人：李伊凡。@#
被告：广东省东莞市城建规划局。住所地：广东省东莞市东城中路。@#
法定代表人：朱川，该局局长。@#
第三人：广东省东莞市城区房地产开发公司。住所地：广东省东莞市东城西路。@#
法定代表人：袁孔，该公司总经理。@#
第三人：丰燕芬、周炳坤、张淦林、刘发枝，均为广东省东莞市东纵大道18号商铺的业主。@#
2002年8月30日，广东省东莞市城建规划局(以下简称东莞市规划局)根据东莞市城区房地产开发公司(以下简称开发公司)的申请，对位于东纵大道18号24个商铺私有房产的拆迁安置事宜作出东规行裁(2002)1号《房屋拆迁行政裁决书》(以下简称拆迁裁定)。主要内容包括：(1)东纵大道18号24个铺位的拆迁按如下方式进行补偿安置，若被申请人选择货币补偿的，则由申请人按照申请人提供的拆迁评估报告的评估金额一次性支付给各被申请人；若被申请人选择产权调换的，如按拆迁房屋面积与该地新建商铺以1：0．6的标准进行产权调换，双方不需补偿差价；若按拆迁房屋面积与该地新建商铺以1：1的标准进行产权调换，则双方应计算被拆迁房屋的补偿金额和调换房屋的价格，结清产权调换的差价。(2)申请人一次性支付商铺营业损失费给被申请人，具体标准按房屋拆迁公布前6个月由税务部门核发的税后平均利润按月以80％计算补偿，期限为半年。(3)申请人一次性支付搬家费1000元／铺给被申请人。(4)建筑物内部装修补偿按市有关标准给予经济补偿。(5)本裁决生效之日起十五天内被申请人必须迁出东纵大道18号24个铺位，这些房屋应由申请人拆除。丰浩江等17位业主不服拆迁裁决，向广东省东莞市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称：被告上述裁决所依据的《评估报告》在委托主体、使用条件和范围、适用程序等方面适用法律错误，且《评估报告》的相关内容和鉴定人身份等没有经过原告质证，其裁决结果损害了原告的合法权益，请求撤销被告的房屋拆迁行政裁决。@#
原告提供的主要证据有：@#
1．东莞市规划局作出的拆迁裁决及广东省东莞市华联会计师事务所有限公司(以下简称华联公司)作出的华联评字(2002)25号《评估报告》(以下简称《评估报告》)，用以证明被诉具体行政行为的存在。@#
2．雍华庭第二期、第三期商铺价格表，用以证明东莞市规划局采纳的《评估报告》中的评估价格远远低于邻近的雍华庭商铺价格。@#
3．丰浩江等人的《房屋所有权证》，用以证明被拆迁房屋的面积、位置以及房屋的“商铺”性质等事项。@#
被告辩称：裁决所依据的评估报告是由华联公司作出，该公司是经工商行政部门核准登记成立的独立企业法人，且拥有国家财政部批准颁发的资产评估资格，其评估资产范围包括房地产、机器设备等各类资产。而且，评估报告书及其评估机构的资质均在举行听证时经各原告质证。因此，该评估报告具有公信力且合法，我局的行政裁决程序合法，适用法律正确，原告的诉讼理由不成立。@#
被告提供的主要证据有：@#
1．《建设用地规划许可证》、《国有土地使用证》、《房屋拆迁许可证》，用以证明开发公司申请行政裁决前，已获得涉案房屋所在地的用地规划许可、用地证明以及拆迁许可。@#
2．华联公司作出的华联评字(2002)25号《评估报告》，用以证明作出行政裁决的主要根据。@#
3．东莞市规划局制作的《行政裁决审理笔录》，用以证明在作出行政裁决前，曾组织原告与第三人进行了公开听证。@#
第三人开发公司述称：原告主张拆迁人从未与被拆迁人就拆迁补偿安置问题协商过显然与事实不符，我司与韩柳琼、苏伟文、张淦林、刘发枝、周炳坤等业主已经达成了房屋拆迁补偿协议，与丰浩江等人就拆迁补偿安置问题也进行过多次协商。原告认为《评估报告》作出的价格评估显失公正的主张并无证据支持，我公司只要证明作出《评估报告》的华联公司是依法成立的合法机构，具有评估资质就可以了，评估报告是否公平，应以法律规定为准。故被告作出的行政裁决认定事实清楚，适用法律准确，裁决适当，请予维持。@#
第三人开发公司提供的证据有：@#
1．开发公司所属的开发办公室与丰浩江等人就拆迁补偿安置问题的协商笔录，用以证明开发公司在申请裁决前与丰浩江等人进行过协商。@#
2．开发公司所属的开发办公室分别与韩柳琼等人达成的《房屋拆迁补偿协议书》，用以证明房地产开发公司在申请裁决前也与丰浩江等人进行过协商，并以此证明《评估报告》中的补偿标准已为韩柳琼等被拆迁户所接受。@#
．．．．．．