>>>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
 
Guiding Case No. 65:Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality v. Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation for Dispute over Co-ownership (case of dispute over co-ownership)
指导案例65号:上海市虹口区久乐大厦小区业主大会诉上海环亚实业总公司业主共有权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 09-21-2011
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance

Guiding Case No. 65:Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality v. Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation for Dispute over Co-ownership 

指导案例65号:上海市虹口区久乐大厦小区业主大会诉上海环亚实业总公司业主共有权纠纷案

(Issued on September 19, 2016, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2016年9月19日发布)

Keywords: civil; co-ownership; special maintenance fund; statutory obligation; statute of limitation 关键词 民事 业主共有权 专项维修资金 法定义务 诉讼时效
Key Points of Judgment 【裁判要点】
The special maintenance fund is exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of properties upon expiration of the guarantee period, and is co-owned by all property owners. Contributing to the special maintenance fund is a statutory obligation of property owners for maintaining the long-term safety of buildings. If a property owner refuses to contribute to the special maintenance fund and makes a defense based on the statute of limitation, the people's court should not allow such a defense. 专项维修资金是专门用于物业共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造的资金,属于全体业主共有。缴纳专项维修资金是业主为维护建筑物的长期安全使用而应承担的一项法定义务。业主拒绝缴纳专项维修资金,并以诉讼时效提出抗辩的,人民法院不予支持。
Legal Provisions 【相关法条】
Article 135 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国民法通则》第135条
Article 79 and paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国物权法》第79条、第83条第2款
Item (4) of Article 7 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 54 of the Regulation on Property Management 物业管理条例》第7条第4项、第54条第1款、第2款
Basic Facts 【基本案情】
In March 2004, defendant Shanghai Huanya Industry Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Huanya Corporation") obtained the ownership of the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building located in Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality, with a gross floor area of 691.36 square meters on the ground floor and a gross floor area of 910.39 square meters on the second floor. Huanya Corporation did not contribute to the special maintenance fund for the aforesaid properties. In September 2010, upon voting by property owners, plaintiff Property Owners' Meeting of Yongle Building Community (hereinafter referred to as the "Property Owners' Meeting") decided to file a lawsuit for recovery of contribution to the maintenance fund on behalf of all property owners. In the lawsuit filed by the Property Owners' Meeting, it required that Huanya Corporation pay 57,566.9 yuan to the plaintiff for its properties on the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building as its contribution to the special maintenance fund. Huanya Corporation was against the plaintiff's claim by contending that during the six years since it obtained the certificate of title to the real estate at issue in 2004, the plaintiff had never claimed the contribution to the maintenance fund and the statute of limitation for the claim of the plaintiff had passed. 2004年3月,被告上海环亚实业总公司(以下简称环亚公司)取得上海市虹口区久乐大厦底层、二层房屋的产权,底层建筑面积691.36平方米、二层建筑面积910.39平方米。环亚公司未支付过上述房屋的专项维修资金。2010年9月,原告久乐大厦小区业主大会(以下简称久乐业主大会)经征求业主表决意见,决定由久乐业主大会代表业主提起追讨维修资金的诉讼。久乐业主大会向法院起诉,要求环亚公司就其所有的久乐大厦底层、二层的房屋向原告缴纳专项维修资金57566.9元。被告环亚公司辩称,其于2004年获得房地产权证,至本案诉讼有6年之久,原告从未主张过维修资金,该请求已超过诉讼时效,不同意原告诉请。
Judgment 【裁判结果】
On July 21, 2011, the People's Court of Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 833 [2011], First, Civil DivisionIII, Hongkou) that Huanya Corporation should pay 57,566.9 yuan to the Property Owners' Meeting for its properties on the ground floor and second floor of Yongle Building as its contribution to the maintenance fund. After the judgment was pronounced, Huanya Corporation appealed to the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. On September 21, 2011, the intermediate court entered a civil judgment (No. 1908 [2011], Final, Civil DivisionII, No. 2 IPC, Shanghai) to dismiss the appeal and sustain the original judgment. 上海市虹口区人民法院于2011年7月21日作出(2011)虹民三(民)初字第833号民事判决:被告环亚公司应向原告久乐业主大会缴纳久乐大厦底层、二层房屋的维修资金57566.9元。宣判后,环亚公司向上海市第二中级人民法院提起上诉。上海市第二中级人民法院于2011年9月21日作出(2011)沪二中民二(民)终字第1908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: Article 79 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Property Law”) provided that: “The fund for the maintenance of a building and its affiliated facilities shall be co-owned by the owners of the building. The fund may be used for the maintenance of common ports such as elevators and water tanks as jointly determined by the owners.” Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Regulation on Property Management provided that: “The special maintenance fund shall belong to the property owners, and be exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of the properties upon expiration of the guarantee period, and may not be used for any other purpose.” Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Measures for the Administration of the Special Maintenance Fund for Housing (Order No. 165 of the Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of Finance) (hereinafter referred to as the “Measures”) provided that: “The term ‘special maintenance fund for housing' as mentioned in these Measures refers to a fund exclusively used for the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of housing upon expiration of the guarantee period.” Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions, in nature, a maintenance fund was a special fund used for a specific purpose: the maintenance, renewal, and reconstruction of the common parts and common facilities of the housing upon expiration of the guarantee period. In addition to the property purchase price, taxes, and property management charges, the maintenance fund was separately raised, deposited in a special account, and separately accounted. Determined by its exclusive use, the contribution to the special maintenance fund was not derived from a special transaction or legal relationship, but was for the emergent maintenance, renewal, or reconstruction of the common parts of a building in divided co-ownership. Since the maintenance of the common parts concerned the common interest of all property owners or public interest, the maintenance fund was of a communal and public interest nature. 法院生效裁判认为:《中华人民共和国物权法》(以下简称《物权法》)第七十九条规定,“建筑物及其附属设施的维修资金,属于业主共有。经业主共同决定,可以用于电梯、水箱等共有部分的维修。”《物业管理条例》第五十四条第二款规定,“专项维修资金属于业主所有,专项用于物业保修期满后物业共用部位、共用设施设备的维修和更新、改造,不得挪作他用”。《住宅专项维修资金管理办法》(建设部、财政部令第165号)(以下简称《办法》)第二条第二款规定,“本办法所称住宅专项维修资金,是指专项用于住宅共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造的资金。”依据上述规定,维修资金性质上属于专项基金,系为特定目的,即为住宅共用部位、共用设施设备保修期满后的维修和更新、改造而专设的资金。它在购房款、税费、物业费之外,单独筹集、专户存储、单独核算。由其专用性所决定,专项维修资金的缴纳并非源于特别的交易或法律关系,而是为了准备应急性地维修、更新或改造区分所有建筑物的共有部分。由于共有部分的维护关乎全体业主的共同或公共利益,所以维修资金具有公共性、公益性。
Item (4) of Article 7 of the Regulation on Property Management provided that: “A property owner shall perform the obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state in the property management activities.” Paragraph 1 of Article 54 thereof provided that: “An owner of a non-residential property ‘within residential properties or a residential area or an owner of a non-residential property connected in structure to a single residential building shall contribute to the special maintenance fund in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state.” Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions, the contribution to the special maintenance fund was a statutory obligation specially established for the public interest in a specific scope, namely, the common interest of all property owners of a building. The generation and existence of this obligation only depended on whether a person was an owner of a residential property or a non-residential property within the scope of a building in divided co-ownership. Therefore, the obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund was a statutory obligation to safeguard common or public interest. There was only a matter of late payment, rather than a right of non-payment as time passed by. 物业管理条例》第七条第四项规定,业主在物业管理活动中,应当履行按照国家有关规定交纳专项维修资金的义务。第五十四条第一款规定:“住宅物业、住宅小区内的非住宅物业或者与单幢住宅楼结构相连的非住宅物业的业主,应当按照国家有关规定交纳专项维修资金。”依据上述规定,缴纳专项维修资金是为特定范围的公共利益,即建筑物的全体业主共同利益而特别确立的一项法定义务,这种义务的产生与存在仅仅取决于义务人是否属于区分所有建筑物范围内的住宅或非住宅所有权人。因此,缴纳专项维修资金的义务是一种旨在维护共同或公共利益的法定义务,其只存在补缴问题,不存在因时间经过而可以不缴的问题。
The right of the Property Owners' Meeting to require late payment to the maintenance fund was the right of management exercised by the Property Owners' Meeting on behalf of all property owners in performing the duty of safeguarding the common or public interest of the community. If owners without contributing to the maintenance fund were allowed to enjoy benefits from the maintenance of the common parts using contributions made to the maintenance fund by other owners, it was likely that other owners paid money exceeding their shares in the maintenance of the common parts, which violated the principle of fairness and would cause damage to the long-term safety of buildings and the common or public interest of all property owners. 业主大会要求补缴维修资金的权利,是业主大会代表全体业主行使维护小区共同或公共利益之职责的管理权。如果允许某些业主不缴纳维修资金而可享有以其他业主的维修资金维护共有部分而带来的利益,其他业主就有可能在维护共有部分上支付超出自己份额的金钱,这违背了公平原则,并将对建筑物的长期安全使用,对全体业主的共有或公共利益造成损害。
Based on the nature of the special maintenance fund and the nature of property owners' obligation of contributing to the special maintenance fund, Huanya Corporation as an owner of Yongle Building failed to voluntarily contribute to the special maintenance fund according to the law, and its defense that the lawsuit for recovery of its contribution to the special maintenance fund was filed by the Property Owners' Meeting beyond the statute of limitation was unfounded. The amount of contribution that should be made by the defendant to the special maintenance fund as claimed by the plaintiff was reasonable, as calculated according to the area of properties owned by the defendant and the basis for calculating contributions to the special maintenance fund by other property owners over the same period. Accordingly, the court ruled that the defendant should contribute to the special maintenance fund as claimed by the plaintiff. 基于专项维修资金的性质和业主缴纳专项维修资金义务的性质,被告环亚公司作为久乐大厦的业主,不依法自觉缴纳专项维修资金,并以业主大会起诉追讨专项维修资金已超过诉讼时效进行抗辩,该抗辩理由不能成立。原告根据被告所有的物业面积,按照同期其他业主缴纳专项维修资金的计算标准算出的被告应缴纳的数额合理,据此判决被告应当按照原告诉请支付专项维修资金。
(Judges rendering the effective judgment: Lu Weiwei, Chen Wenli, and Cheng Min) (生效裁判审判人员:卢薇薇、陈文丽、成皿)
fnl_8539373 
     
     
【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