Hung Yun Jin Yuan (Xiamen) Real Estate Development Company Limited v. Stephen Peng and Hung Yun Group Limited
(Dispute over Contract on Advance Sale of Commodity House)@#
Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court@#
No. 34 of (2006)@#
@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant in the first instance): Hung Yun Jin Yuan (Xiamen) Real Estate Development Company Limited, located at Units A, B and C, 1/F, Building No. 4, Huahong Garden, 325 Hexiang West Road, Xiamen, Fujian.@#
Legal Representative: Xu Liping, board chairman of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Lin Tao, lawyer of Fujian Zhiyuan Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Stephen Peng, male, born on August 15, 1945, Hong Kong resident, dwelling at Suite 28, 9/F, Focal Industrial Center, 21 Man Lok Street, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.@#
Authorized Agent: Wang Ping, lawyer of Beijing Tianya Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Wang Ying, lawyer of Beijing Tianya Law Firm.@#
With regard to the dispute between Hung Yun Jin Yuan (Xiamen) Real Estate Development Company Limited (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as HYJY Company), Stephen Peng (the appellee, called Peng hereafter) and Hung Yun Group Limited (defendant in the first instance) over a contract on advance sale of commodity house, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as Fujian Higher Court) made No. 38 (2005) civil ruling, and rejected HYJY Company's objection to the jurisdictional power. HYJY Company was dissatisfied with the ruling, and appealed to the present Court. The present Court formed a collegial panel according to law, and examined the present case. The case has now been finalized.@#
．．．．．．

鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司与彭雄浑、鸿润集团房地产投资有限公司商品房预售合同纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条第(四)项和第三十八条的规定，管辖权异议是指当事人对案件是否属于人民法院受理范围或者是否由受诉人民法院管辖提出的异议。当事人有权提出管辖权异议，但当事人以其不是适格被告为由提出管辖权异议，不符合上述规定，不属于管辖权异议。当事人是否属于适格被告，应当经人民法院实体审理确定。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
民事裁定书@#
(2006)民一终字第34号@#
@#
上诉人(原审被告)：鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司，住所地福建省厦门市禾祥西路325号华鸿花园4座1楼A、 B、C单元。@#
法定代表人：许礼评，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：林涛，福建知圆律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审原告)：彭雄浑(PENG STEPHEN)，男，1945年8月15日出生，香港居民，住香港九龙红碪民乐街21号富高工业中心9楼28室。@#
委托代理人：王萍，北京市天亚律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：王英，北京市天亚律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司与被上诉人彭雄浑(PENC STEPHEN)及原审被告鸿润集团房地产投资有限公司(HUNG YUN GROUP LIMITED)商品房预售合同纠纷一案，福建省高级人民法院作出(2005)闽民初字第38号民事裁定，驳回鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司对本案提出的管辖权异议。鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司对该裁定不服，向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查。现已审查终结。@#
经审查，鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司在一审提交答辩状期间以其不是该案适格被告为由提出管辖权异议，请求驳回原告的起诉。@#
@#
一审法院经审查认为，《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条第(一)、(二)、 (三)项规定起诉必须符合的条件是：原告是与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织；有明确的被告；有具体的诉讼请求和事实、理由。可见，就被告而言，只要明确，该项条件就具备。本案原告彭雄浑起诉的两个被告均是明确的，且具备诉讼主体资格。因此，依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二十四条“因合同纠纷提起的诉讼，由被告所在地或者合同履行地人民法院管辖”、第二十二条第三款“同一诉讼的几个被告住所地、经常居住地在两个以上人民法院辖区的，各该人民法院都有管辖权”的规定，一审法院对本案有管辖权。由于鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司关于“其及鸿润集团房地产投资有限公司 (HUNG YUN GROUP LIMITED)均不是适格被告”的主张，与本案管辖权的确定无关，其以此为由对一审法院受理本案提出管辖权异议，一审法院不予采纳。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条、第一百四十条第一款第(二)项、第二款之规定，裁定驳回鸿润锦源(厦门)房地产开发有限公司对本案提出的管辖权异议。@#
．．．．．．