>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited v. Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company and Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited (Dispute over Contract on Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land)
大连远东房屋开发有限公司与辽宁金利房屋实业公司、辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司国有土地使用权转让合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited v. Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company and Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited (Dispute over Contract on Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land)
(Dispute over Contract on Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land)
大连远东房屋开发有限公司与辽宁金利房屋实业公司、辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司国有土地使用权转让合同纠纷案

Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited v. Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company and Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited
(Dispute over Contract on Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land)

 

大连远东房屋开发有限公司与辽宁金利房屋实业公司、辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司国有土地使用权转让合同纠纷案

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court 【裁判摘要】
No. 95 [2005] 一、根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第七十九条、第八十条的规定,债权人可以将合同权利全部或者部分转让给第三人,转让只需通知到债务人即可而无需征得债务人的同意。因此,转让行为一经完成,原债权人即不再是合同权利主体,亦即丧失以自己名义作为债权人向债务人主张合同权利的资格。
 二、当事人的起诉被人民法院裁定驳回,该裁定已经发生法律效力的,如果当事人对该裁定不服,除依法通过启动审判监督程序对案件重新审理外,不得在以后的诉讼中主张与该生效裁定相反的内容,亦不能就同一诉讼标的重复起诉。
 最高人民法院
 民事裁定书
 (2005)民一终字第95号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Defendant in the first instance): Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited, located at No. 2, Minquan North 2nd Street, Shahekou District, Dalian, Liaoning. 上诉人(原审被告):大连远东房屋开发有限公司,住所地辽宁省大连市沙河口区民权北二街2号。
Legal Representative: Liu Binqiang, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:刘秉强,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Yu Yun, deputy general manager of Liaoning Dalian Daxian Group Company Limited. 委托代理人:于沄,辽宁大连大显集团有限公司副总经理。
Authorized Agent: Xu Zhenguo, lawyer of Hainan Jinyu Law Firm. 委托代理人:许振国,海南金裕律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company, located at No. 58, Shisanwei Road, Shenhe District, Shengyang, Liaoning. 被上诉人(原审原告):辽宁金利房屋实业公司,住所地辽宁省沈阳市沈河区十三纬路58号。
Legal Representative: Bai Baoshan, manager of the Company. 法定代表人:白宝山,该公司经理。
Authorized Agent: Ge Changsheng, lawyer of Liaoning Shengjing Law Firm. 委托代理人:葛长胜,辽宁盛京律师事务所律师。
Authorized Agent: Zhang Jianhua, lawyer of Liaoning People's Law Firm. 委托代理人:张建华,辽宁人民律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited, located at No. 58, Shisanwei Road, Shenhe District, Shengyang, Liaoning. 被上诉人(原审原告):辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司,住所地辽宁省沈阳市沈河区十三纬路58号。
Legal Representative: Wan Jiting, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:宛吉廷,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Hua Zegeng, employee of the Company. 委托代理人:华泽耕,该公司职员。
Authorized Agent: Zhang Jianhua, lawyer of Liaoning People's Law Firm. 委托代理人:张建华,辽宁人民律师事务所律师。
With regard to the dispute between Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as Far East Company), Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company (the appellee, hereinafter referred to as Jinli Company) and Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Ao Jinli Company) over the contract on assignment of the right to use state-owned land, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province (hereinafter referred to as Liaoning Higher Court) made No. 9 (2004) civil judgment on August 15, 2005. Far East Company was dissatisfied with the judgment, and appealed to the present Court. The present Court formed a collegial panel according to law, and heard the case publicly on November 29, 2005. Xu Zhenguo and Yu Yun (Far East Company's authorized agents), Bai Baoshan (Jinli Company's legal representative, called Bai hereafter), Ge changsheng (Jinli Company's authorized agent), Hua Zegeng (Ao Jinli Company's authorized agent), and Zhang Jianhua (authorized agent of both Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company), appeared in the court and took part in the proceedings. The present case has now been finalized. 上诉人大连远东房屋开发有限公司 (以下简称远东公司)与被上诉人辽宁金利房屋实业公司(以下简称金利公司)、辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司(以下简称澳金利公司)国有土地使用权转让合同纠纷一案,辽宁省高级人民法院于2005年8月 15日作出(2004)辽民一房初字第9号民事判决,远东公司不服该判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,于2005年11月29日公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人远东公司的委托代理人许振国、于沄,被上诉人金利公司的法定代表人白宝山及其委托代理人葛长胜、澳金利公司的委托代理人华泽耕以及金利公司和澳金利公司的委托代理人张建华,到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
It was verified by Liaoning Higher Court after trial: On December 20, 1991, Far East Company and China International Yacht Club (a party not involved in the present case, hereinafter referred to as Yacht Club) concluded the “Contract on Joint Development of Golden Pebble Beach” (hereinafter referred to as “Development Contract”), setting forth that Yacht Club shall assign the right to use 100,000 square meters of land within the area it developed to Far East Company at the price of 80 Yuan per square meter for a term of 49 years at the total assignment price of 8 million Yuan. The contract only sets forth that the land plots are the No.1, No. 2 and No. 3 groups to the west of the public area and on the southern coast, but does not specify the boundaries of the assigned area. It also sets froth that the accurate location is indicated on the planning map. On October 8, 1992, Yacht Club and Dalian Municipal Land Administration concluded the “Contract on the Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land”, setting forth that Dalian Municipal Land Administration shall assign the 460,000 square meters of land within Golden Pebble Beach Resort to Yacht Club for a term of 49 years at the assignment price of 20 Yuan per square meter. The “Contract on the Assignment of the Right to Use State-owned Land” does not specify the boundaries of the assigned land plot, but only states “see attachment for the land plot location map”. However, the enclosed green-line area on the location map and the land plot assigned by Yacht Club to Far East Company are not on the same location. On January 29, 1993, Far East Company and Jinli Company Concluded the “Agreement on Joint Development and Paid Use of Land” (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement on Joint Development”), setting forth that Far East Company has assigned the right to use 86,000 square meters of land of Golden Pebble Beach Yacht Club Members' Villas Area to Jinli Company on a fee basis for term of 48 years and at the unit assignment price of 320 Yuan per square meter, so the total assignment price was 27.52 million Yuan (the accurate area of the assigned land shall be the area within the red line in the planning, which is finally measured by both parties). Far East Company shall provide Jinli Company with the land use certificate on the assigned land plot, the attached map, and the revised and finalized detailed planning map and planning requirements. Jinli Company must, within 5 days after conclusion of the agreement, pay 2 million Yuan of deposit to Far East Company, pay no less than 18 million Yuan by the end of March 1993, and pay off all the assignment fees by the end of April. If Jinli Company fails to make the payment on time, it shall, in addition to compensate for Far East Company's economic losses, return the right to use the part of the land unpaid for to Far East Company. The auxiliary supporting fees to the assignment of land plot within the red line shall be borne by Jinli Company, while the auxiliary supporting fee to the part beyond the red line shall be provided by Jinli Company to Far East Company in advance as required by Yacht Club, and Far East Company shall then pay the fees to Yacht Club. 一审法院经审理查明:1991年12月 20日,远东公司与案外人中国国际游艇俱乐部(以下简称游艇俱乐部)签订《共同开发金石滩合同书》(以下简称《开发合同书》),约定游艇俱乐部将其开发区域内的 10万平方米的土地使用权以每平方米80元的价格转让给远东公司,转让年限49年,转让总价款800万元。该合同仅载明地块为公建区西侧南海边1、2、3组团,未标明转让面积的四至,并约定具体位置以规划图为准。1992年10月8日,游艇俱乐部与大连市土地管理局签订《国有土地使用权出让合同》,约定大连市土地管理局将位于金石滩国家旅游度假区内的46万平方米土地出让给游艇俱乐部,出让年限为49年,出让金每平方米20元。该《国有土地使用权出让合同》未标明出让地块的四至,仅载明详见附件地块地理位置图,而地理位置图中圈定的绿线面积位置与游艇俱乐部转让给远东公司的地块并不在同一位置。 1993年1月29日,远东公司与金利公司签订《联合开发土地有偿使用协议书》(以下简称《联合开发协议》),约定远东公司将已购得使用权的金石滩游艇俱乐部会员别墅区8.6万平方米的土地使用权有偿转让给金利公司,使用期限48年,转让价格每平方米320元,转让总价款2752万元(转让土地面积以双方认定最后测量的规划红线内面积为准)。远东公司应向金利公司提供转让地块的土地使用证明,附图及经过修订并定稿的详细规划图和规划要求。协议签订后5日内,金利公司须向远东公司交纳定金200万元,1993年3月末前不少于1800万元,同年4月末前付清全部转让费用。如不能按期交付应付款项,金利公司除承担远东公司经济损失外,远东公司可将未交付部分的土地使用权收回。转让地块红线内的配套费由金利公司负责,红线外的配套费由金利公司按游艇俱乐部的要求提前交给远东公司,远东公司统一交给游艇俱乐部。
On January 31, 1993, Far East Company privately made a “Land Use Certificate” for Jinli Company. The “Land Use Certificate” states that, Jinli Company developed Yacht Club Members' Villas Area jointly with Far East Company within the planned land of Golden Pebble Beach Yacht Club, with the area of land used being 86,000 square meters, for a term of 49 years. 1993年1月31日,远东公司为金利公司自行印制《土地使用证》一份,该《土地使用证》载明,金利公司在金石滩游艇俱乐部规划用地范围内共同开发游艇俱乐部会员别墅区项目,使用土地面积8.6万平方米,使用年限49年。
In order to perform the above said agreement, Jinli Company paid 2 million Yuan of deposit to Far East Company, and successively paid 11.5 million Yuan of assignment fee, totaling 13.5 million Yuan, of which the 10 million Yuan paid on April 30, 1993 was borrowed by Jinli Company from China Non-ferrous Metals Import & Export Company, Liaoning Branch (a party not involved in the present case, hereinafter referred to as Metal Company), and Metal Company directly remitted the money to Far East Company. Far East Company issued a receipt to Jinli Company on July 31, 1994. 为履行上述协议,金利公司向远东公司支付了200万元定金,并陆续支付转让费用1150万元,合计付款1350万元。其中,1993年4月30日支付的1000万元为金利公司向案外人中国有色金属进出口公司辽宁分公司(以下简称金属公司)拆借而来,由金属公司直接汇给远东公司,远东公司于1994年7月31日为金利公司出具收款凭证。
On February 27, 1995, Far East Company sent a “Notification Urging the Payment of Auxiliary Land Supporting Fee” to Ao Jinli Company (former Liaoning Jinli Company) in writing, with the main contents as: Your Company has paid 13.5 million Yuan for 42,187.5 square meters of land; the auxiliary supporting fee is 220 Yuan per square meter, so the payable amount should 9,281,250 Yuan, which shall be paid off by the end of March 1995 as required by Yacht Club. If you are willing to reserve the 42,187.5 square meters of land, you should pay off the auxiliary supporting fee on time, otherwise the land cannot be reserved. If you pay the land assignment fee and the auxiliary supporting fee (540 Yuan per square meter) with the already paid 13.5 million Yuan, you are entitled to 25,000 square meters of land. If you choose the first solution, please pay off all the auxiliary supporting fee on time, otherwise we will allot 25,000 square meters of land to you according to the second solution, and obtain the land certificate for you. 1995年2月27日,远东公司以书面形式向澳金利公司发出《关于催缴土地配套费的通知》,“该通知载明的通知对象为澳金利公司(原辽宁金利公司)”,主要内容为:你方已交土地款1350万元,折合土地 42187.5平方米,用地范围外配套费每平方米220元,应交9281 250元,按游艇俱乐部要求,配套费应在1995年3月底前全部付清。如你方愿意保留土地42 187.5平方米,就应按规定时间付清配套费,否则土地无法保留。如用已交款1350万元支付土地款和配套费(每平方米540元),你方应得土地2.5万平方米。如选择第一方案,请按时付清全部配套费,否则按第二方案划给你方土地2.5万平方米,并为你方办理2.5万平方米的土地证。
On March 5, 1995, Ao Jinli Company replied Far East Company by letter (neither party was able to provide Ao Jinli Company's reply letter). On March 10, 1995, Far East Company replied again to Ao Jinli Company, saying: Your reply letter has been received on March 5, 1995. In view of the current situation and your opinions in the reply letter, we provide two solutions for your choice: Your have paid 13.5 million Yuan, and ought to be allotted 25,000 square meters of land; due to adjustment of the planning, the location is changed a little, and we may totally allot a piece of land with an area of 27,800 square meters to you and obtain the land certificate for you; the fee for the excessive 2,800 square meters may be settled in future; in this way, your Company may carry out operations either independently or jointly with us. The other solution is for your Company to deliver the land to us for consolidated operations, and we will refund 13.5 million Yuan of principal to your Company, and may, if making profits, pay partial or all interest to your Company, or pay no interest if we do not make any profits. On November 17, 1995, Far East Company issued a letter to Ao Jinli Company, saying: Far East Company borrowed 13.5 million Yuan of money from Ao Jinli Company in 1992, but is currently unable to repay it; through negotiation between both parties, Far East Company agrees to repay the money by four installments in 1996: to repay 4 million Yuan in January, 5 million Yuan in March, 3 million Yuan in June, and 1.5 million Yuan in September. On November 18, 1995, Bai (the then accounting director of Metal Company, who provided assistance in managing Ao Jinli Company's accounting affairs) issued a written “Statement of Funds” to Far East Company, saying: I hereby in the identity as of the person-in-charge of one party that the Statement is for internal use for the sake of both parties' interests. In the court hearing of the No. 310 (2003) case on the dispute between Ao Jinli Company and Far East Company over the assignment of the right to use land, which was finalized by Liaoning Higher Court on March 12, 2004, Bai testified the authenticity of the Statement, and said the document was the letter of repayment by installments which was issued by Far East Company to Ao Jinli Company on November 17, 1995. On August 30, 1996, Far East Company issued an “Agreement” and sent a letter to Ao Jinli Company, saying: Far East Company received 13.5 million Yuan of money from Ao Jinli Company by installments since 1992, and if the economic situation turns for the better, all the money may be repaid by three installments by July 1999; if, however, the economic situation does not turn for the better, the repayment plan shall be renewed by the year. 1995年3月5日,澳金利公司给远东公司回函(双方均未能提供澳金利公司的回函)。1995年3月10日,远东公司给澳金利公司复函称:1995年3月5日回函收悉,鉴于当前情况及贵公司回函意见,提出两个办法请贵公司选择后告知我方:贵公司已交款1350万元,应划给土地2.5万平方米,因规划调整,位置稍有变动,有一块土地面积为27 800平方米可全部划给你方并将土地证办给贵公司,多出2800平方米的经济问题以后再说。这样,贵公司可独立或者双方联合运作;另一种办法是土地交给我方统一运作好后,退还给贵公司本金1350万元,如运作获利,考虑付给贵公司部分或者全部利息,如运作不好,只付本金不付利息。1995年11月17日,远东公司给澳金利公司出具的函中称:远东公司于1992年分期借澳金利公司资金1350万元,目前暂时偿还不了,经双方协商,同意此借款于1996年分四期偿还:1月还400万元,3月还500万元,6月还300万元,9月还150万元。1995年11月18日,白宝山(当时为金属公司的财务主任,并协助管理澳金利公司的财务工作)为远东公司出具书面《资金占用说明》称:此件为双方利益需要,作为内部使用,我作为一方经办人员特此说明。白宝山在一审法院于2004年 3月12日审结的(2003)辽民一房终字第 310号澳金利公司诉远东公司土地使用权转让纠纷案件开庭审理时,当庭认证了该说明的真实性,并指出“此件”指的是1995年11月17日远东公司为澳金利公司出具的分期还款函件。1996年8月30日,远东公司出具《协议书》致函澳金利公司称:远东公司于1992年开始分期收到澳金利公司资金1350万元,如经济形式出现转机,分三期于1999年7月返还完毕,如经济形式未出现转机,返还计划按年度顺延。
On April 22, 1997, Yacht Club submitted a “Report on Land Adjustment” to the Administrative Committee of Dalian Golden Pebble Beach Resort (hereinafter referred to as the Resort Administrative Committee), saying: Among Yacht Club's 1,141,197 square meters of approved land in the planning and for construction use, the Resort Administrative Committee occupies 338,361 square meters of land, and other three cooperative developers who have made payments are involved, and the cooperative developers have frequently requested allotment of the land for starting construction; we hope that the Resort Administrative Committee could return the occupied land for our coordination with the cooperative developers, or otherwise we suggest the land plot around our area be allotted to us through adjustment, so as to keep the integrity of our project. On September 24, 1997, Far East Company and Yacht Club concluded a “Contract on Cooperative Development of the Land of Dalian Golden Pebble Beach”, which manifests that the contract is one of the assignment contracts for the assignable 460,000 square meters of land as determined in Article 5 of the “Contract on Assignment of State-owned Land” concluded between Yacht Club and Dalian Municipal Land Administration in October 1992. The contract also sets forth that Yacht Club shall assign 70,000 square meters among its 1 million square meters of land within the overall planning area to Far East Company for a term of 49 years at the unit assignment price of 80 Yuan per square meters, thus the auxiliary supporting fee shall be 220 Yuan per square meter, and the total assignment price shall be 300 Yuan per square meter, with the total assignment price being 21 million Yuan. 1997年4月22日,游艇俱乐部向大连金石滩国家旅游度假区管理委员会(以下简称度假区管委会)递交《关于土地调整的报告》称:游艇俱乐部获批的1 141 197平方米建设规划用地被度假区管委会占用 338 361平方米,被占用的土地中涉及另外三家已付价款的合作开发单位,现合作开发单位多次要求拨付土地进行开工建设。望度假区管委会归还占用土地以利我们与合作开发单位协调运作,如不能归还,建议将我部区域边缘的地块调整给我们,以保持我部项目的完整性。1997年9月24日,远东公司与游艇俱乐部签订《合作开发大连金石滩土地合同书》,表明该合同为 1992年10月游艇俱乐部与大连市土地局签署《国有土地出让合同》第五条所确定可转让46万平方米范围内的转让合同之一。并约定游艇俱乐部将其拥有的100万平方米总体规划区内的7万平方米转让给远东公司,转让年限49年,土地转让金每平方米80元,配套费每平方米220元,合计每平方米转让价款为300元,转让总价款为 2100万元。
On March 24, 1999, Yacht Club and the Resort Administrative Committee concluded an “Agreement on Exchange of the Land for Construction Use”, setting forth: The total area of the land for construction use which the Resort Administrative Committee possessed and ought to deliver to Yacht Club is 317,844 square meters, and the Resort Administrative Committee shall exchange 235,217.74 square meters of adjacent land for construction use to Yacht Club. Since the Resort Administrative Committee changed the purpose of use of Yacht Club's land, Far East Company was unable to deliver the coastal land plot to Jinli Company pursuant to the contract. 1999年3月24日,游艇俱乐部与度假区管委会签订《调换建设用地协议书》约定:度假区管委会占用和应补给游艇俱乐部建设用地总面积为317 844平方米,度假区管委会以游艇俱乐部建设用地相邻地调换给游艇俱乐部235 217.74平方米。因度假区管委会调整了游艇俱乐部的建设用地,造成远东公司不能向金利公司依约交付靠海边的地块。
In July 1999, Far East Company obtained the No. 00006 (1999) “State-owned Land Use Certificate” and the No. 00007 one, and the area of the right to use land totaled 70,000 square meters (The land under the two land use certificates is not the land plot set forth in the agreement between Far East Company and Jinli Company). 1999年7月,远东公司取得大金度国用(1999)字第00006号和第00007号《国有土地使用证》,土地使用权面积合计7万平方米(该两份土地使用证项下的土地不是远东公司与金利公司在协议中约定的地块)。
On July 2, 1999, Metal Company brought a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Shenyang Municipality, Liaoning Province (hereinafter referred to as Shenyang Intermediate Court) against Ao Jinli Company and Far East Company, alleging that Ao Jinli Company borrowed 10 million Yuan of funds from Metal Company and then paid the money to Far East Company, which have not yet been repaid. Metal Company pleaded the court to order Ao Jinli Company and Far East Company to repay the principal and pay the interest as soon as possible. Ao Jinli Company acknowledged that it borrowed money from Metal Company. Far East Company did not think it had any legal relationship with Metal Company, and should not bear the liability for repayment. Shenyang Intermediate Court made No. 440 (1999) civil judgment, affirming that there was no legal relationship of borrowing between Metal Company and Far East Company, and decided that Ao Jinli Company should repay the principal. The judgment has become legally effective. 1999年7月2日,案外人金属公司以澳金利公司和远东公司为被告向辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院提起诉讼称,澳金利公司向金属公司拆借1000万元资金支付给远东公司并拖欠不还,要求判令澳金利公司和远东公司尽快还本付息。澳金利公司认可自己拆借了金属公司的资金。远东公司认为其与金属公司没有法律关系,不应承担还款责任。辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院作出(1999)沈经初字第440号民事判决,认定金属公司与远东公司之间不存在借款法律关系,判决澳金利公司偿还本金。该判决已经发生法律效力。
Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian Municipality, Liaoning Province (hereinafter referred to as Dalian Intermediate Court) against Far East Company regarding the dispute over joint land development in 2000, and later applied for withdrawal of the lawsuit on April 4, 2000 on the ground that it sued a wrong party. On April 10, 2000, Dalian Intermediate Court made No. 29 (2000) civil ruling to permit Ao Jinli Company's withdrawal of the lawsuit. 澳金利公司曾于2000年以远东公司为被告向辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提起联建土地开发纠纷之诉,后又于2000年4月4日,以诉讼主体有误为由申请撤诉, 2000年4月10日,辽宁省大连市中级人民法院作出(2000)大民房初字第29号民事裁定,准许其撤诉。
On March 12, 2002, Ao Jinli Company served Far East Company the “Notification for Urging Repayment” affixed with the seals of Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company, whose contents are as follows: It is formally notified to Dalian Daxian Group Company Limited and Far East Company that the creditor is Ao Jinli Company, and the 13.5 million Yuan of assignment fee paid to Far East Company for the right to use land was totally provided by Ao Jinli Company. The notification could be used for assignment of rights, and Ao Jinli Company demanded Far East Company to repay the principal and pay the interest as soon as possible. 2002年3月12日,澳金利公司向远东公司公证送达由金利公司和澳金利公司共同加盖印章的《催收欠款通知书》,内容为:债权主体是澳金利公司,并正式通知大连大显集团有限公司和远东公司,已经向远东公司支付的1350万元土地使用权转让价款都是澳金利公司提供的,此通知可作为权利转让之用,澳金利公司要求远东公司尽早还本付息。
On September 23, 2002, Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Dalian Intermediate Court again, pleading the court to confirm the “Agreement on Joint Development” between Far East Company and Jinli Company as void, to order Far East Company to refund 13.5 million Yuan of investment and bear the interest thereof. Dalian Intermediate Court made No. 109 (2002) civil judgment on October 16, 2003, holding that although Far East Company was not entitled to use the land when concluding the contract, it was entitled to use it before bringing the lawsuit, hence the contract should be affirmed as effective; Far East Company's three repayment agreements were not an expression of its true will. Dalian Intermediate Court decided to reject Ao Jinli Company's litigation claims. Both Ao Jinli Company and Far East Company were dissatisfied, and appealed to Liaoning Higher Court. Ao Jinli Company's appellate ground was that it was wrong for the judgment of the first instance to say that the three repayment agreements were not an expression of Far East Company's true will. Ao Jinli Company pleaded Liaoning Higher Court to reverse the judgment of the first instance and to support its litigation claims. Far East Company's appellate ground was that the application of laws in the judgment of the first instance was wrong, and Ao Jinli Company's lawsuit should be rejected by ruling. Liaoning Higher Court made No. 310 (2003) civil ruling on March 12, 2004, and affirmed that legal relationship was created between Far East Company and Jinli Company or Ao Jinli Company on the assignment of contractual rights and obligations. The subject of the “Agreement on Joint Development” was Jinli Company. Since no one who is not a party to the contract may request affirmation of the contract between others as ineffective, Liaoning Higher Court ruled to reject Ao Jinli Company's lawsuit. 2002年9月23日,澳金利公司再次向辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提起诉讼,请求确认远东公司与金利公司签订的《联合开发协议》无效,要求远东公司返还投资款1350万元,并承担占用该款期间的利息。辽宁省大连市中级人民法院于2003年 10月16日作出(2002)大民房初字第109号民事判决,认为远东公司在签订合同时虽未取得土地使用权,但在起诉前已经取得土地使用权,因此认定合同有效。远东公司的三份还款协议不是真实意思表示,判决驳回澳金利公司的诉讼请求。澳金利公司及远东公司均不服,向辽宁省高级人民法院提起上诉。澳金利公司的上诉理由是一审判决认定远东公司的三份还款协议不是真实意思表示错误,请求撤销一审判决,支持澳金利公司的诉讼请求。远东公司的上诉理由是一审判决适用法律错误,应当裁定驳回澳金利公司的起诉。辽宁省高级人民法院于2004年3月12日作出(2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定,认定在远东公司与金利公司及澳金利公司之间没有形成合同权利和合同义务一并转让的法律关系,《联合开发协议》的主体是金利公司,合同以外的当事人无权请求认定他人之间的合同无效,故裁定驳回澳金利公司起诉。
It was further verified by Liaoning Higher Court: Ao Jinli Company is a joint venture established by Jinli Company, Metal Company and China Australia Sourcing Pty Ltd. On September 14, 1992, China Non-ferrous Metals Industry (Shenyang) Company (Metal Company's superior company in charge) distributed Document No. 348 (1992), and decided to establish Ao Jinli Company, a Chinese-foreign joint venture. Liaoning Provincial Commission of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation approved on December 14, 1992 by Document No. 654 (1992) the establishment of Ao Jinli Company by Jinli Company, Metal Company, Liaoning Yida International Investment Service Company (hereinafter referred to as Yida Company) and Australia Asia Pacific Resource Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Asia Pacific Company), with a registered capital of 10 million Yuan. Among the 10 million Yuan of total investments, Jinli Company contributed 3.5 million Yuan, Metal Company, 3 million Yuan, Yida Company, 1 million Yuan, and Asia Pacific Company invested in USD converted into 2.5 million Yuan. Ao Jinli Company was approved and registered by Liaoning Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce on June 17, 1993. 一审法院另查明:澳金利公司是由金利公司、金属公司和澳大利亚中澳资源有限公司合资成立的公司。1992年9月14日,金属公司的主管公司中国有色金属工业沈阳公司下发了中色沈办字(1992)348号文件,决定成立中外合资企业澳金利公司。辽宁省对外经济贸易委员会于1992年 12月14日以辽外经贸资字(1992)654号文件,批复同意由金利公司、金属公司、辽宁意达国际投资服务公司(以下简称意达公司)与澳大利亚亚太资源有限公司(以下简称亚太公司)合资成立澳金利公司,注册资本为1000万元人民币。该1000万元总投资额中,金利公司投资350万元,金属公司投资300万元,意达公司投资100万元,亚太公司以美元现汇出资折合人民币250万元。澳金利公司于1993年6月17日经辽宁省工商行政管理局批准并登记注册。
Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Liaoning Higher Court on April 6, 2004, alleging that Jinli Company was Ao Jinli Company's major shareholder, that Jinli Company successively remitted 13.5 million Yuan of land assignment fee to Far East Company after representing Ao Jinli Company in concluding the “Agreement on Joint Development” with Far East Company on January 29, 1993, that Far East Company privately made a “Land Use Certificate” by itself and issued 4 IOU receipts to Ao Jinli Company, and that Ao Jinli Company counted the 13.5 million Yuan of investment into its investment costs of the project under construction, with the 4 IOU receipts attached to the corresponding investment project. Since Far East Company did not obtain the contractual right to use land, it promised to Ao Jinli Company in writing for three times on repaying 13.5 million Yuan of investments, but did not actually repay the money. Far East Company possessed the money for a long time, causing a total of 17 million Yuan of interest loss and other losses to Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company. Far East Company should be responsible for the fault of improper transaction. Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company pleaded the court to order Far East Company to refund the principal of the investment and the interest thereof, totaling 30.5 million Yuan, and bear all litigation costs for the case. 金利公司与澳金利公司于2004年4月6日向一审法院起诉称,金利公司是澳金利公司的大股东,金利公司于1993年1月29日代理澳金利公司与远东公司签订《联合开发协议》后,金利公司陆续向远东公司汇入土地转让款1350万元,远东公司自制一份《土地使用证》,开具了4张白条收据交给澳金利公司,澳金利公司将1350万元投资款计入本公司在建工程投资成本项目,4张白条收据一并挂在对应的投资项目下。由于远东公司没有获得合同约定的土地使用权,曾三次以书面材料向澳金利公司承诺偿还1350万元投资款,但并未实际还款。远东公司长期占用该款,给金利公司及澳金利公司造成利息及其他损失合计1700万元。远东公司应当承担交易不当的过错责任,请求判令远东公司返还投资款本息合计3050万元并承担案件全部诉讼费用。
During the court proceedings of the first instance, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company added litigation claims when Liaoning Higher Court held the second court session, pleading the court to affirm the “Agreement on Joint Development” concluded between both parties on January 29, 1993 as void. 一审诉讼期间,金利公司及澳金利公司在一审法院第二次开庭时增加诉讼请求,要求认定双方于1993年1月29日签订的《联合开发协议》无效。
Far East Company argued that, Jinli Company alleged in the bill of complaint that it was Ao Jinli Company's agent, but Far East Company did not think that an agent had the right to assert substantive rights or had the status as a litigant, and Jinli Company's lawsuit shall be rejected. Ao Jinli Company alleged in the bill of complaint that it was a party to the contract, an actual investor and payer, but No. 310 (2003) civil ruling of Liaoning Higher Court said it had no right to claim against Far East Company, and rejected its lawsuit. Hence, Ao Jinli Company's lawsuit should also be rejected. 远东公司答辩称,金利公司在起诉书中主张其是澳金利公司的代理人,远东公司认为代理人无权主张实体权利,不具备诉讼主体资格,应驳回金利公司的起诉。澳金利公司在起诉书中主张其是合同的主体,是实际投资者和付款人,而辽宁省高级人民法院(2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定书,认定其无权向远东公司主张权利并驳回澳金利公司的起诉,故本案亦应驳回澳金利公司的起诉。
Far East Company made a supplemental argument after Liaoning Higher Court's hearing that Jinli Company's claim had exceeded the limitation of action and the contract between both parties was lawful and effective. It requested Jinli Company to continue performing the contract or to bear the liabilities for breach of contract. 远东公司在一审法院开庭审理后补充答辩称,金利公司作为实体权利人主张权利已过诉讼时效,双方签订的合同合法有效,要求金利公司继续履行合同或者承担违约责任。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Liaoning Higher Court held that, the “Agreement on Joint Development” concluded between both parties is a contract on the assignment of the right to use state-owned land. Article 7 of the “Answers of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Cases on the Development and Management of Urban Real Estate Prior to the Entry into Force of the Law on Urban Real Estate Administration” prescribes: “The assignor to an assignment contract shall be a land user having lawfully fulfilled the registration or modification registration of the right to use land and having obtained the land use certificate. The contract concluded between a land user without a land use certificate and any other assignee shall generally be affirmed as void. If, however, the assignor has invested to develop and has made use of the land pursuant to the assignment contract, and has, upon approval of the relevant competent department, made up the registration or modification registration of the right to use land during the court proceedings of the first instance, the contract may be affirmed as effective.” Since Far East Company did not obtain the right to use the 86,000 square meters of land of Yacht Club Members' Villas Area at Golden Pebble Beach when concluding the “Agreement on Joint Development” with Jinli Company, nor did it obtain the right to the land under the “State-owned Land Use Certificate” obtained by Far East Company on July 19, 1997 and located at the assigned land plot, so Far East Company actually did not obtain the right to use the land plot assigned under the agreement between both parties, and the “Agreement on Joint Development” between both parties shall be affirmed as void. As the assignor to the contract on assignment of state-owned land, Far East Company should bear the principal liabilities for voidness of the contract. Jinli Company concluded a contract with Far East Company before knowing whether Far East Company obtained the right to use the land, and thus should also bear certain liabilities for the void contract. Jinli Company asserted that the contract was void, and demanded Far East Company to refund the paid 13.5 million Yuan of land assignment fee. Such assertion should be supported, but its claim against Far East Company for payment of all the interest should not be upheld. Since Jinli Company failed to correctly exercise its right to bring the lawsuit, the lawsuit was delayed for 12 years, and the interest loss was increased. Jinli Company should bear the principal liability for the interest loss. However, when both parties performed the agreement, Far East Company issued repayment plans to Ao Jinli Company for several times, which was also the cause for Ao Jinli Company to bring the lawsuit in its own name, thus Far East Company should also bear certain liabilities for the incorrect exercise of the litigation rights by Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company. Taking the faults and liabilities of both parties into consideration, Far East Company shall bear principal liability for compensating 60% of the interest loss, and Jinli Company should bear subsidiary liability for compensating 40% of the interest loss. 一审法院认为,双方签订《联合开发协议》的性质为国有土地使用权转让合同。最高人民法院《关于审理房地产管理法施行前房地产开发经营案件若干问题的解答》第7条规定:“转让合同的转让方,应当是依法办理了土地使用权登记或变更登记手续,取得土地使用证的土地使用者。未取得土地使用证的土地使用者为转让方与他人签订的合同,一般应当认定无效,但转让方已按出让合同约定的期限和条件投资开发利用了土地,在一审诉讼期间,经有关主管部门批准,补办了土地使用权登记或变更登记手续的,可认定合同有效。”因为远东公司与金利公司签订《联合开发协议》时未能取得金石滩游艇俱乐部会员别墅区8.6万平方米的土地使用权,远东公司1997年 7月19日取得《国有土地使用证》项下的土地亦不是约定转让地块的位置,所以,远东公司并未取得双方协议约定转让地块的土地使用权,双方所签《联合开发协议》应认定无效。远东公司作为国有土地转让合同的转让方,应承担合同无效的主要责任。金利公司在不清楚远东公司是否取得了土地使用权的情况下,就与其签订合同,对合同无效也应承担一定责任。金利公司主张合同无效,要求远东公司返还已支付的土地转让费1350万元,应予支持,但金利公司要求远东公司支付全部利息的主张,不能支持。因金利公司未能正确行使诉权,造成拖延诉讼长达12年之久,增加了利息损失,对增加的利息损失,金利公司应承担主要责任,但因双方在协议履行期间,远东公司曾多次给澳金利公司出具还款计划,也是造成澳金利公司以自己的名义提起诉讼的原因,因此远东公司对金利公司及澳金利公司不能正确行使诉讼权利也应承担一定的责任。综合双方当事人的过错及责任,远东公司负主要责任,承担利息损失的 60%,金利公司负次要责任,承担利息损失的40%。
On the issue of Jinli Company's assertion that it concluded the “Agreement on Joint Development” on behalf of Ao Jinli Company. The agreement was concluded between Jinli Company and Far East Company on January 29, 1993. Although Liaoning Provincial Commission of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation approved Jinli Company, Metal Company, Yida Company and Asia Pacific Company on December 14, 1992 to establish Ao Jinli Company in the form of joint venture, Ao Jinli Company was registered by the administration for industry and commerce on June 17, 1993. Ao Jinli Company's status as a subject should commence on the date of its registration. When Jinli Company and Far East Company concluded the agreement, Ao Jinli Company was not a legal person, and Jinli Company should not have concluded the agreement on behalf of Ao Jinli. Hence, Jinli Company's assertion that it concluded the agreement on behalf of Ao Jinli should not be supported. 关于金利公司主张其代理澳金利公司签订《联合开发协议》的问题。该协议是由金利公司与远东公司于1993年1月29日签订的,虽然辽宁省经济贸易委员会于 1992年12月14日批复同意由金利公司、金属公司、意达公司与亚太公司合资成立澳金利公司,但澳金利公司在工商行政管理部门登记注册的时间为1993年6月17日,澳金利公司的主体资格应起始于其登记注册的时间。金利公司与远东公司签订协议时,澳金利公司不具有法人的主体资格,金利公司不能代替没有主体资格的澳金利公司签订协议,故对金利公司提出其代澳金利公司签订协议的主张,不予支持。
On the issue of whether Ao Jinli Company was entitled to claim against Far East Company. Ao Jinli Company was not a party to the contract. Ao Jinli Company's claim against Far East Company in another case had already rejected by the court by ruling, thus its lawsuit brought with the same court for the same cause should not be supported. 关于澳金利公司是否有权向远东公司主张权利的问题。澳金利公司不是合同的主体,澳金利公司在另案中向远东公司主张权利,已经被法院裁定驳回起诉,故澳金利公司就同一案由再次向法院提起诉讼,不予支持。
On the issue of whether Jinli Company claimed its own rights. Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company brought the lawsuit as a co-plaintiff, and Jinli Company said in both its statement at the court session and its written opinions that it claimed the rights jointly with Ao Jinli Company. Although Jinli Company asserted in the bill of complaint that it concluded the contract on behalf of Ao Jinli Company, it never said it would give up its rights. When Jinli Company was told that its assertion on concluding the contract with Far East Company on behalf of Ao Jinli Company was not tenable, it should clearly assert its own rights if the court affirmed that the contract was concluded between Jinli Company and Far East Company. Therefore, it should be affirmed that Jinli Company had asserted its rights in the present case, while Far East Company's ground that Jinli Company did not actually asserted its own rights was not tenable and should not be supported. 关于金利公司是否主张了自己权利的问题。金利公司与澳金利公司作为共同原告提起诉讼,金利公司在庭审陈述及书面代理意见中均表示与澳金利公司共同主张权利。虽然在起诉状中金利公司主张是代澳金利公司签订合同,但从未表示放弃自己权利。当被告知金利公司代澳金利公司与远东公司签订合同的主张不成立时,金利公司表示,如果法院认定合同是金利公司与远东公司签订的,金利公司就明确主张自己的权利,因此,应认定金利公司在本案中已经主张了自己的权利,远东公司提出的金利公司未实际主张自己权利的理由不成立,不予支持。
On the issue of whether Jinli Company's claims exceeded the limitation of action. After issuing the receipt voucher to Jinli Company on July 31, 1994, Far East Company sent notifications in writing to Ao Jinli Company for 4 times between February 27, 1995 and August 30, 1996, negotiating with it or promising to repay the 13.5 million Yuan. The addressee appearing in the first notification is Ao Jinli Company (former Jinli Company), while the time for repayment as stated in the last commitment letter was July 1999. It also said that the repayment plan should be renewed year by year if the economic situation could not turn for the better. In April 2000, Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Dalian Intermediate Court, but later withdrew it. On March 12, 2002, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company jointly sent a “Notification for Urging Repayment” to Far East Company. On September 23, 2002, Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit again, and Liaoning Higher Court made the final ruling on March 12, 2004. On April 6, 2004, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company jointly brought a lawsuit with Liaoning Higher Court against Far East Company. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, Jinli Company's claims in the present case did not exceed the limitation of action. 关于金利公司主张权利是否超过诉讼时效的问题。远东公司于1994年7月31日为金利公司出具收款凭证后,自1995年 2月27日至1996年8月30日4次以书面形式向澳金利公司发出通知,协商或承诺偿还1350万元,其中第一次通知载明的对象为澳金利公司(原金利公司),最后一次还款承诺书,承诺还款时间为1999年7月,并表示如经济形式未出现转机,返还计划按年度顺延。2000年4月,澳金利公司向辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提起诉讼,后撤诉。2002年3月12日,金利公司及澳金利公司共同向远东公司发出《催收欠款通知书》。2002年9月23日,澳金利公司再次提起诉讼,辽宁省高级人民法院于 2004年3月12日作出终审裁定。2004年4月6日,金利公司与澳金利公司共同以远东公司为被告向一审法院提起诉讼。根据上述事实,金利公司于本案中主张权利并未超过诉讼时效。
To sum up, Liaoning Higher Court decided as follows in accordance with Articles 58 and 61 of the “General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China” as well as Article 7 of the “Answers of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Cases on the Development and Management of Urban Real Estate Prior to the Entry into Force of the Law on Urban Real Estate Administration我不休息我还能学”: (1) The “Agreement on Joint Development” concluded between Far East Company and Jinli Company on January 29, 1993 shall be void; (2) Far East Company shall, within 15 days after the judgment becomes effective, refund 13.5 million Yuan of land assignment fee to Jinli Company, and pay 60% of the interest to Jinli Company at the loan interest rate of China Construction Bank for the corresponding period (the schedule of the interest payment shall be: 2 million Yuan to be paid from January 31, 1993 to the date of payment, 10 million Yuan to be paid from April 30, 1993 to the date of payment, 1 million Yuan to be paid from October 30, 1993 to the date of payment, and 500,000 Yuan to be paid from January 11, 1994 to the date of payment); (3) Jinli Company's other litigation claims shall be rejected; (4) Ao Jinli Company's litigation claims shall be rejected. For the 162,510 Yuan of case acceptance fee, and 68,020 Yuan of litigation preservation fee, totaling 230,530 Yuan, Far East Company shall bear 180,000 Yuan, and Jinli Company shall bear 50,530 Yuan. The 5,000 Yuan of other travel expenses shall be borne by Far East Company. 综上,依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第五十八条、第六十一条及最高人民法院《关于审理房地产管理法施行前房地产开发经营案件若干问题解答》第7条之规定,判决:(一)远东公司与金利公司于1993年1月29日签订的《联合开发协议》无效; (二)远东公司于判决生效后十五日内向金利公司返还1350万元土地转让费,并按中国建设银行同期贷款利率向金利公司支付该款利息的60%(支付利息的起始时间为: 200万元自1993年1月31日起至该款给付之日止,1000万元自1993年4月30日起至该款给付之日止,100万元自1993年 10月30日起至该款给付之日止,50万元自1994年1月11日起至该款给付之日止);(三)驳回金利公司的其他诉讼请求; (四)驳回澳金利公司的诉讼请求。案件受理费162 510元,诉讼保全费68020元,合计230 530元,由远东公司负担 180000元,由金利公司负担50 530元,其他差旅费用5000元,由远东公司负担。
Far East Company was dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, and appealed to the present Court, alleging that the procedures for Liaoning Higher Court to try the present case were illegal, the facts were wrongly found, and the laws were improperly applied. Far East Company pleaded the present Court to: 1. revoke the judgment of the first instance; 2. reject Jinli Company's litigation claims; and 3. order Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company to bear the litigation costs. Its main grounds were as follows: (1) Liaoning Higher Court's trial procedures were illegal. Firstly, Liaoning Higher Court violated the basic principle of civil litigation of no repeated trial of the same matter when accepting the present case. On September 23, 2002, Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Dalian Intermediate Court against Far East Company, pleading the court to confirm the “Agreement on Joint Development” as void and to order Far East Company to refund 13.5 million Yuan of investment funds and 6 million Yuan of the interest thereof. Dalian Intermediate Court made No. 109 (2002) civil judgment, rejecting Ao Jinli Company's litigation claims. Ao Jinli Company was dissatisfied with the judgment, and appealed to Liaoning Higher Court. Liaoning Higher Court rejected Ao Jinli Company's appeal by No. 310 (2003) civil ruling, which had already become legally effective. If Ao Jinli Company was dissatisfied with the effective ruling, it should seek settlement through the procedures for trial supervision. After that, Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Liaoning Higher Court in the identity of Ao Jinli Company's agent and jointly with Ao Jinli Company. The plaintiffs, the defendant, the litigation claims and the grounds were identical with those in the lawsuit rejected by No. 310 (2003) civil ruling. Therefore, Liaoning Higher Court should, in accordance with Item (5) of Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”, refuse to accept the present case or reject the lawsuit. Secondly, Jinli Company was not a qualified subject in the present case. From submitting the bill of complaint to the end of the court hearing of the first instance, Jinli Company always alleged that it was Ao Jinli Company's agent, and never claimed any right in its own name. (2) Jinli Company's claim had exceeded the limitation of action. From 1993 to the end of the court hearing of the first instance, Jinli Company did not claim against Far East Company in its own name. The 3 repayment letters issued by Far East Company to Ao Jinli Company were false materials made upon Ao Jinli Company's requirement to cope with the accounting inspections and Metal Company's claims. The “Statement of Funds” which Bai issued to Far East Company stated clearly that the letter of repayment should not be deemed as the legal basis for final settlement. The “Notification for Urging Repayment” served by Ao Jinli Company and Jinli Company to Far East Company in 2002 stated clearly that the creditor was not Jinli Company but Ao Jinli Company. That is to say, Jinli Company had waived its own rights. (3) It was wrong for Liaoning Higher Court to affirm the “Agreement on Joint Development” as void. Liaoning Higher Court did not think the land under the “State-owned Land Use Certificate” obtained by Far East Company on July 19, 1999 was the land plot assigned by Far East Company to Jinli Company, and said that Far East Company did not obtain the land use certificate for the plot agreed upon between both parties. Such affirmation was not true to the facts. Actually, Far East Company obtained the “State-owned Land Use Certificate” on July 19, 1999, and the land under the certificate was exactly the land agreed upon between both parties. When Far East Company and Yacht Club concluded the “Development Contract”, the Government of Dalian Municipality, Liaoning Province was making new planning on the Golden Pebble Beach area, and the accurate location of the land plot obtained by Far East Company could not be determined at that time, so both parties specially agreed that the specific location was to be indicated on the final planning map. The “Agreement on Joint Development” between Far East Company and Jinli Company only sets forth “the land of China International Yacht Club Members' Villas Area at Golden Pebble Beach”, and that the specific location should be determined after the planning map was made by the Government of Dalian Municipality, Liaoning Province. Meanwhile, Far East Company delivered a photocopy of the “Development Contract” concluded with Yacht Club to Jinli Company, so that Jinli Company could accurately know about the specific information on assignment of the land plot. On March 10, 1995, Far East Company sent a letter to Jinli Company, saying that, due to adjustment of the government planning, the originally determined location of the land plot needed to be changed a little. Jinli Company did not raise any objection in this regard. On November 18, 1995, Bai explicitly expressed in the “Statement of Funds” that it would continue performing the early-stage unperformed contractual project. This is sufficient to prove that Jinli Company recognized the adjustment of the location of the land plot. Before bringing the lawsuit in the first instance, Far East Company obtained the “State-owned Land Use Certificate” for the land plot adjusted in the planning, which was recognized by Jinli Company. In accordance with Article 6 of the “Answers of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Cases on the Development and Management of Urban Real Estate Prior to the Entry into Force of the Law on Urban Real Estate Administration”, the “Agreement on Joint Development” concluded between Far East Company and Jinli Company should be affirmed as effective. 远东公司不服一审判决,向本院提出上诉称,一审法院审理本案程序违法、认定事实错误、适用法律不当,请求:1.撤销一审判决;2.驳回金利公司的诉讼请求;3.诉讼费用由金利公司和澳金利公司负担。其主要理由:(一)一审法院程序违法。首先,一审法院受理本案违反一事不再理的民事诉讼基本原则。2002年9月23日,澳金利公司以远东公司为被告,向辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提起诉讼,请求确认《联合开发协议》无效并判令远东公司返还投资款1350万元及占用该款期间利息600万元。辽宁省大连市中级人民法院作出 (2002)大民房初字第109号民事判决,驳回澳金利公司的诉讼请求。澳金利公司不服该判决,向辽宁省高级人民法院提出上诉。辽宁省高级人民法院以(2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定驳回了澳金利公司的起诉,该裁定已发生法律效力。澳金利公司如不服该生效裁定,应当通过审判监督程序解决。此后,金利公司以澳金利公司代理人身份与澳金利公司作为共同原告,又向辽宁省高级人民法院提起本案诉讼,其原被告主体、诉讼请求及理由等均与被 (2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定驳回起诉案件中的相关事实完全相同。据此,一审法院应当依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百一十一条第一款第(五)项之规定,对本案不予受理或者驳回起诉。其次,金利公司不是本案的适格主体。金利公司递交起诉状至一审庭审结束,始终称自己为澳金利公司代理人,从未以自己的名义主张过权利。(二)金利公司主张权利已过诉讼时效。金利公司从1993年至一审庭审结束前并未以自己名义向远东公司主张过权利。远东公司为澳金利公司出具的3份还款函,是应对方要求所为的虚假材料,目的是澳金利公司用于应付财务检查及对付金属公司索要欠款。白宝山给远东公司出具《资金占用说明》,已经明确表示该还款函不能作为最后处理问题的法律依据。 2002年,澳金利公司和金利公司向远东公司送达的《催收欠款通知书》,已经明确表示债权主体不是金利公司而是澳金利公司,说明金利公司已放弃了自己的权利。 (三)一审判决错误地将《联合开发协议》认定为无效。一审法院认为远东公司1999年 7月19日取得的《国有土地使用证》项下土地并非远东公司与金利公司约定转让的地块,据此认定远东公司并未取得双方约定地块的土地使用证,与事实不符。实际上,远东公司1999年7月19日取得的《国有土地使用证》,其项下土地就是双方约定的土地。远东公司与游艇俱乐部签订《开发合同书》时,因辽宁省大连市政府正对金石滩地区进行重新规划,远东公司取得地块的准确位置当时无法确定,故双方特别约定具体位置以最终的规划图为准。远东公司与金利公司签订《联合开发协议》中只约定为“金石滩中国国际游艇俱乐部会员别墅区的土地”,具体位置待辽宁省大连市政府规划图出来后再定。同时,远东公司还将与游艇俱乐部签订的《开发合同书》复印件交给金利公司,以便让其准确了解有关转让地块的具体情况。1995年3月10日,远东公司发函给金利公司,通报因政府规划调整的需要,原约定地块位置稍有变动,金利公司对此未提异议。1995年11月18日,白宝山在出具的《资金占用说明》中明确表示:“对前期合同未履行项目今后将继续履行”,足以说明金利公司对地块位置调整是认可的。远东公司于一审起诉前取得了对方认可的规划调整后的地块的《国有土地使用证》,依据最高人民法院《关于审理房地产管理法施行前房地产开发经营案件若干问题的解答》第6条规定,远东公司与金利公司所签《联合开发协议》应认定有效。
Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company argued that, in the judgment of the first instance, the facts were clearly found, and the laws were correctly applied, hence it should be sustained. They pleaded the present Court to lawfully reject Far East Company's appeal. Their main grounds were as follows: (1) Liaoning Higher Court's acceptance of Jinli Company's lawsuit conformed to Article 142 of the “Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”, i.e., “If, for a case which is ruled not to be accepted or ruled to be rejected, the plaintiff brings the lawsuit again and meets the conditions for filing the lawsuit, the people's court shall accept the case”. Both Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company were co-plaintiffs of the first instance, and both were entitled to bring the lawsuit. The No. 310 (2003) civil ruling of Liaoning Higher Court did not involve Jinli Company, and meanwhile the ruling did not dispose of Ao Jinli Company's substantive rights. The litigation claims at issue were different from those mentioned by Ao Jinli Company in No. 310 (2003) case. In earlier litigation claims, the interest asserted on the 13.5 million Yuan of principal was 6 million Yuan, while the interest asserted by Jinli Company in the present case on the 13.5 million Yuan of principal was 17 million Yuan. Therefore, Liaoning Higher Court's acceptance of the present case conformed to the statutory provisions, and it was not a repeated trial of a same matter. (2) As a party to the contract, Jinli Company should of course have the right to bring a lawsuit. Liaoning Higher Court verified that the parties to the “Agreement on Joint Development” were Far East Company and Jinli Company who did not have to, as what Far East Company said, enjoy the litigation rights upon application. (3) The present case did not exceed the limitation of action. In a case involving a contract on the assignment of the right to use land, once the assignor does not receive the assignment fee, or the assignee does not get the land, the limitation of action may be discontinued. In fact, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company never gave up their rights to demand Far East Company to refund the principal and interest under the contract. (4) In the judgment of the first instance, the affirmation of the effectiveness of the “Agreement on Joint Development” was correct. The land under the “State-owned Land Use Certificate” obtained by Far East Company in July 1999 was not the land agreed upon between Far East Company and Jinli Company, nor did Far East Company go through lawful procedures for the land agreed upon between both parties. It was correct for the judgment of the first instance to affirm that the contract between both parties as ineffective. 金利公司和澳金利公司答辩称,一审判决认定事实清楚、适用法律正确,应予维持;请求二审法院依法驳回远东公司的上诉。其主要理由:(一)一审法院受理金利公司的起诉符合最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第142条菊花碎了一地“裁定不予受理、驳回起诉的案件,原告再次起诉的,如果符合起诉条件,人民法院应予受理”之规定。金利公司与澳金利公司是一审的共同原告,在本案中都有诉权。辽宁省高级人民法院(2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定并不涉及金利公司,同时该裁定书并未对澳金利公司的实体权利作出处分。本案其诉讼请求与(2003)辽民一房终字第310号案件中澳金利公司所提诉讼请求不同,此前所提诉讼请求中就本金1350万元所主张的利息为600万元,本案中金利公司就本金1350万元所主张的利息为1700万元。因此,一审法院受理本案符合法律规定,并非一事再理。(二)金利公司作为签订合同的一方当事人,理应依法享有诉权。一审法院已查明签订《联合开发协议》主体为远东公司与金利公司,并非如远东公司所言需要申请才能享有诉讼权利。(三)本案并未超过诉讼时效。土地使用权转让合同案件中,只要出让土地一方没有获得转让金,或受让一方没有获得土地,其诉讼时效就存在中断的理由,金利公司与澳金利公司从未放弃过对远东公司要求返还合同款本息的权利。(四)一审判决对《联合开发协议》效力的认定是正确的。远东公司1999年7月取得的《国有土地使用证》,其项下土地并非远东公司与金利公司约定的土地,且远东公司也未就双方约定的土地取得合法手续。一审判决认定双方所签合同无效,是正确的。
The facts verified by the present Court are basically consistent with those verified by Liaoning Higher Court. 本院查明的事实与一审法院查明的事实基本一致。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The present Court holds that, to settle the dispute in question, it shall, above all else, be correctly affirmed who between Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company may be lawfully entitled to claim against Far East Company for refunding the 13.5 million Yuan of principal and the interest thereof. 本院认为,解决本案纠纷,首先应正确认定金利公司和澳金利公司何者依法享有向远东公司主张返还1350万元本金及利息的权利。
(I) On the issue of whether Jinli Company's lawsuit shall be supported. (一)关于金利公司提起本案诉讼应否支持的问题。
Although the “Agreement on Joint Development” was concluded between Jinli Company and Far East Company, the subsequent series of civil acts, such as the letters surrounding the joint development, the payment, etc., were conducted between Ao Jinli Company and Far East Company. 《联合开发协议》虽系金利公司与远东公司所签,但后来围绕联合开发所发生的往来函件、付款等一系列民事行为,主要是澳金利公司以其名义与远东公司之间展开。
In view of the actual situation of performance of the “Agreement on Joint Development” by each party, the location of the land plot under the agreement was adjusted due to amendment of the government planning, and after Far East Company informed Jinli Company of the change, neither party raised any objection. It means that both Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company knew and accepted the adjustment of the land plot provided by Far East Company. Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company persisted in claiming the principal and interest, and had it notarized. Far East Company made written repayment commitments for several times regarding the claim, which proves that neither of them was willing to continue performing the “Agreement on Joint Development”, and both parties reached a consensus on Far East Company's repayment of 13.5 million Yuan principal and the interest to Ao Jinli Company. Therefore, Far East Company's contractual obligation was changed from delivering the land to Jinli Company into repaying the principal and paying interest thereto. 从各方履行《联合开发协议》的实际情况看,该协议中约定的地块位置因政府规划变更而有所调整,远东公司将此事告知对方后,对方并未提出异议,表明对远东公司提供地块有所变动之事,金利公司和澳金利公司是知道并认可的。金利公司和澳金利公司不断地催要本金及利息并为此事专门进行公证,远东公司多次就对方催款事宜作出愿意归还的书面承诺,证明各方均已无意继续履行《联合开发协议》,并且对远东公司向澳金利公司偿还1350万元本金及利息形成一致的意思表示。因此,远东公司的合同义务已由向对方交付土地转变为向对方归还本息。
On the basis of the facts found out, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company served the “Notification for Urging Repayment” to Far East Company in 2002, explicitly expressing that only Ao Jinli Company was the creditor, and the notification could be used for the assignment of rights. This means Jinli Company had transferred its right of claiming against Far East Company for repayment of principal and payment of interest under the “Agreement on Joint Development” to Ao Jinli Company. In accordance with Articles 79 我我我什么都没做and 80 of the “Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, the creditor may assign its contractual rights wholly or partially to a third person, the assignment only needs to be notified to the debtor, and no consent of the debtor needs to be solicited. In light of the actual situation on the performance of the “Agreement on Joint Development” by both parties as mentioned above, Jinli Company lawfully enjoyed the right to claim against Far East Company for the repayment of principal and the payment of interest, and did not have to perform other obligations, thus it was entitled to assign the said right without damaging Far East Company's lawful rights and interests. In the present case, Jinli Company and Ao Jinli Company had the contents of the “Notification for Urging Repayment” and the service process notarized, which sufficiently proves that assignment was an expression of their true will, did not violate legal provisions, and should be adopted. Far East Company did not raise any objection after receipt of the “Notification for Urging Repayment”, so it should be deemed that the parties reached a consensus on the modification of the obligee under the “Agreement on Joint Development”. After the notary office issued the formal “Notarial Deed” with strong effectiveness of publicity, the assignment of rights had been completed, and the obligee had been modified from Jinli Company into Ao Jinli Company. Then, Jinli Company lost the status as a subject to claim in its own name against Far East Company for repayment of principal and payment of interest. On April 6, 2004, Jinli Company claimed against Far East Company in its own name for the assigned rights. Far East Company's ground for demurral was tenable and shall be supported. 依据已查明的案件事实,2002年,金利公司和澳金利公司向远东公司送达《催收欠款通知书》,明确表示债权主体只有澳金利公司且此通知可作为权利转让之用,说明金利公司已经将其基于《联合开发协议》享有的要求远东公司还本付息的权利转移给了澳金利公司。按照《中华人民共和国合同法》第七十九条、第八十条之规定,债权人可以将合同权利全部或者部分转让给第三人,转让只需通知到债务人即可而无需征得债务人的同意。根据前面所述双方履行《联合开发协议》的实际情况,金利公司依法享有向远东公司要求还本付息的权利且无需再履行其他义务,故其有权将该权利在不损害远东公司合法权益的前提下予以转让。本案中金利公司和澳金利公司就《催收欠款通知书》的内容及送达过程专门进行了公证,足以证明该转让行为系出于其真实意思表示,该转让内容不违反法律规定,应予认可。远东公司收到《催收欠款通知书》后未持异议,应视为当事人对《联合开发协议》中的权利主体变更已经达成共识。公证机关为此出具了正式的具有较强公示效力的《公证书》,此权利转让已经完成,权利主体已由金利公司变更为澳金利公司。金利公司此后已经丧失了以自己名义作为债权人向远东公司主张还本付息的主体资格。2004年4月6日,金利公司以自己名义向远东公司主张其已经转让了的权利,远东公司对此提出抗辩的理由成立,应予支持。
Therefore, Jinli Company was not qualified as a subject, was not entitled to bring a lawsuit on the dispute involved, and its lawsuit should be rejected. 有鉴于此,金利公司主体不适格,不享有提起本纠纷之诉权,对其起诉应予驳回。
(II) On the issue of whether Ao Jinli Company's lawsuit shall be supported. (二)关于澳金利公司提起本案诉讼应否支持的问题。
As showed in the findings of fact, before Liaoning Higher Court accepted the present case, Ao Jinli Company brought a lawsuit with Dalian Intermediate Court on September 23, 2002, pleading the court to confirm the “Agreement on Joint Development” between Far East Company and Jinli Company as void, and requesting Far East Company to refund the 13.5 million Yuan of investment funds and the corresponding interest. Liaoning Higher Court rejected Ao Jinli Company's lawsuit by No. 310 (2003) civil ruling. 根据查明的事实,在一审法院受理本案之前,澳金利公司于2002年9月23日向辽宁省大连市中级人民法院提起诉讼,请求确认远东公司与金利公司签订的《联合开发协议》无效并要求远东公司返还投资款1350万元及相应利息。该案由辽宁省高级人民法院以(2003)辽民一房终字第 310号民事裁定,驳回了澳金利公司的起诉。
On April 6, 2004, Ao Jinli Company brought the lawsuit at issue and still requested confirmation of the “Agreement on Joint Development” as void and Far East Company's refunding the 13.5 million Yuan of investment and corresponding interest. Except for the increment of the interest, the claims and grounds were all the same as those in the lawsuit rejected by No. 310 (2003) civil ruling. The interest increased as time went by, and the circumstance prescribed in Article 142 of the “Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”, under which the lawsuit should be accepted, did not occur. Therefore, Ao Jinli Company's repeated lawsuit brought regarding the same litigation object shall be rejected. 2004年4月6日,澳金利公司作为原告提起本案诉讼,仍然要求确认《联合开发协议》无效并由远东公司返还投资款1350万元及相应利息,除了利息数额有所增加以外,与(2003)辽民一房终字第310号民事裁定驳回起诉案件的诉请和理由均相同。利息数额因时间推移而增加,并不属于最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第142条规定中具备符合起诉应予受理的情形,故对澳金利公司就同一诉讼标的重复提起的本案诉讼,应当驳回其起诉。
If a party concerned is dissatisfied with a legally effective judgment, it shall not assert in the coming lawsuit any content contrary to the effective judgment or bring a repeated lawsuit regarding the same litigation object but to initiate the procedures for trial supervision according to law for retrial. Therefore, if Ao Jinli Company thinks it has the right to claim against Far East Company, it shall seek a separate legal avenue. 当事人对已经发生法律效力的判决不服,除依法通过启动审判监督程序对案件重新审理外,不得在以后的诉讼中主张与已生效判决相反的内容,亦不能就同一诉讼标的重复起诉。因此,澳金利公司如认为其有权向远东公司主张权利,应当另循法律途径解决。
JUDGMENT 
To sum up, the present Court ruled as follows in accordance with Article 108, Item (5) of Article 111, and item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 140 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”: 综上,依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条、第一百一十一条第(五)项、第一百四十条第一款第(三)项之规定,裁定如下:
1. The No. 9 (2004) civil judgment shall be reversed; 一、撤销(2004)辽民一房初字第9号民事判决;
2. The lawsuit brought by Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company against Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited on April 6, 2004 shall be rejected; and 二、驳回辽宁金利房屋实业公司2004年4月6日对大连远东房屋开发有限公司提出的起诉;
3. The lawsuit brought by Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited against Dalian Far East House Development Company Limited on April 6, 2004 shall be rejected. 三、驳回辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司2004年4月6日对大连远东房屋开发有限公司提出的起诉。
As for the 50 Yuan of case acceptance fee in the first instance and the same in the second instance, totaling 100 Yuan, Liaoning Jinli House Industrial Company and Liaoning Ao Jinli Real Estate Development Company Limited shall bear 50 Yuan respectively. 一审案件受理费50元、二审案件受理费50元共计100元,由辽宁金利房屋实业公司和辽宁澳金利房地产开发有限公司各负担50元。
The present ruling shall be final. 本裁定为终审裁定。
Presiding Judge Zhang Yafen 审 判 长  张雅芬
Acting Judge Liu Yinchun 代理审判员  刘银春
Acting Judge Chen Chaolun 代理审判员  陈朝仑
May 29, 2006 二00六年五月二十九日
Court Clerk Wei Da

 书 记 员  韦 大
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese