>>>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
 
Changsha Institute of Survey and Design of China Non-ferrous Metals Industry v. Changsha Branch of Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. and Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. for Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction (Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction)
中国有色金属工业长沙勘察设计研究院与海南省汇富房地产开发公司长沙公司、海南省汇富房地产开发公司合作建房合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Changsha Institute of Survey and Design of China Non-ferrous Metals Industry v. Changsha Branch of Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. and Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. for Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction (Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction)
(Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction)
中国有色金属工业长沙勘察设计研究院与海南省汇富房地产开发公司长沙公司、海南省汇富房地产开发公司合作建房合同纠纷案

Changsha Institute of Survey and Design of China Non-ferrous Metals Industry v. Changsha Branch of Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. and Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. for Disputes over Contract on Cooperative Building Construction

 

中国有色金属工业长沙勘察设计研究院与海南省汇富房地产开发公司长沙公司、海南省汇富房地产开发公司合作建房合同纠纷案

The Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court 【裁判摘要】
No.28 [2006] Civil Division I, Final 依照审判监督程序对案件进行再审的基础,是已经发生法律效力的判决、裁定确有错误,或者有证据证明已经发生法律效力的调解书违反调解自愿原则或调解协议的内容违法。纠正原审错误是再审的基本功能。因此,再审应当依据原审的审理范围进行,而不能超出原审范围进行裁判。
 最高人民法院
 民事判决书
 (2006)民一终字第28号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Plaintiff): Changsha Institute of Survey and Design of China Non-ferrous Metals Industry, at 81 Shaoshan Beilu, Changsha, Hunan Province. 上诉人(原审原告):中国有色金属工业长沙勘察设计研究院,住所地湖南省长沙市韶山北路81号。
Legal representative: Yang Chuande, principal. 法定代表人:杨传德,该院院长。
Attorney: Jin Yiyuan, deputy principal. 委托代理人:金义元,该院副院长。
Attorney: Yang Wanlin, lawyer of Beijing Chang An Law Firm. 委托代理人:杨万林,北京市长安律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Defendant): Changsha Branch of Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co., at 1/F., Entrance 4, Building 15, Block 2, Hongqi District, Changsha, Hunan Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):海南省汇富房地产开发公司长沙公司,住所地湖南省长沙市红旗区2片15栋4门1楼。
Person in charge: Fu Xiaohua, manager. 负责人:付晓华,该公司经理。
Appellee (Defendant): Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co., at 3/F., Building 5, Dianhua Xincun, Haikou, Hainan Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):海南省汇富房地产开发公司,住所地海南省海口市甸花新村5栋3楼。
Legal representative: Tang Yuguang, general manager. 法定代表人:唐宇光,该公司总经理。
Appellee (Third party): Hunan Xiongxin Construction Co., Ltd., at Shijiapo, Kaifu District, Changsha, Hunan Province. 被上诉人(原审第三人):湖南雄新建筑有限公司,住所地湖南省长沙市开福区史家坡。
Legal representative: Zhou Qifei, general manager. 法定代表人:周奇飞,该公司总经理。
Attorney: Che Ning, male, born on October 12, 1970 in Changsha, Hunan Province, dwelling at Suite 602, Building 2, 226 Laodong Xilu, Tianxin District, Changsha, Hunan Province. 委托代理人:车宁,男,1970年10月 12日出生,湖南省长沙市人,住湖南省长沙市天心区劳动西路226号2栋602房。
Attorney: Gong Ziping, lawyer of Hunan Guangji Law Firm. 委托代理人:龚自平,湖南广济律师事务所律师。
The civil mediation ruling, No.7 [1997] Hunan Civil First Instance, as rendered by the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province on March 19, 1998 has taken legal effect, in respect of the case of disputes over contract on cooperative building construction between the plaintiff in the original trial, Changsha Institute of Survey and Design of China Non-ferrous Metals Industry (“Changsha Institute”) and the defendants in the original trial, Changsha Branch of Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. (“Changsha Huifu”) and Hainan Huifu Real Estate Development Co. (“Huifu”). Changsha Office of China Oriental Asset Management Corp. (“Changsha Oriental”), which is not a party in the present case, raised an objection. On September 8, 2004, the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province made a civil ruling, No.148, [2004], Hunan HPC Civil Supervision, on the retrial of this case. Meanwhile, as the assignee, Hunan Xiongxin Construction Co., Ltd. (“Xiongxin”) took over the debts of Changsha Oriental, and applied to take part in the action. The Higher People's Court of Hunan Province separately formed a collegial bench according to law, added Xiongxin as the third party to this action, and made a civil judgment, No.148, [2004], Hunan HPC Civil Retrial, on February 21, 2006. The appellant, Changsha Institute, appealed the judgment to this court. This court formed a collegial bench according to law, and held an open hearing of this case on July 6, 2006. The attorneys of Changsha Institute, Jin Yiyuan and Yang Wanlin, and attorneys of Xiongxin, Che Ning and Gong Ziping, were present at the hearing, and Changsha Huifu and Huifu as subpoenaed by this court were absent at the hearing. By now, the trial of this case has been concluded. 原审原告中国有色金属工业长沙勘察设计研究院(以下简称长勘院)与原审被告海南省汇富房地产开发公司长沙公司(以下简称汇富长沙公司)、海南省汇富房地产开发公司(以下简称汇富公司)合作建房合同纠纷一案,湖南省高级人民法院于1998年3月19日作出(1997)湘民初字第7号民事调解书,已经发生法律效力。案外人中国东方资产管理公司长沙办事处(以下简称东方资产公司长沙办事处)提出异议。湖南省高级人民法院于2004年9月8日作出 (2004)湘高法民监字第148号民事裁定,决定对该案进行再审。在此期间,湖南雄新建筑有限公司(以下简称雄新公司)受让东方资产公司长沙办事处的债权,并申请参加诉讼。湖南省高级人民法院依法另行组成合议庭,追加了雄新公司为本案第三人,并于2006年2月21日作出(2004)湘高法民再字第148号民事判决。上诉人长勘院不服该判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,于2006年7月6日对本案进行了开庭审理。长勘院的委托代理人金义元、杨万林,雄新公司的委托代理人车宁、龚自平到庭参加诉讼,汇富长沙公司和汇富公司经本院传票传唤未到庭。本案现已审理终结。
In the retrial, the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province found out: on November 25, 1994, Changsha Institute and Changsha Huifu entered into a Contract on Cooperative Building Construction, under which Changsha Institute should invest the right to use the land of 7.982 mu (about 5,324 square meters) located at 81, Shaoshan Beilu, Changsha, obtained through administrative appropriation, in the cooperative building construction with Changsha Huifu. On December 16 of the same year, Changsha Institute entered into a contract on the transfer of this land use right with the land authority, and paid the fees for the transfer as required. Meanwhile, at the request of Changsha Huifu, Changsha Institute applied to transfer this land use right to Changsha Huifu, and the land authority after examination conducted the formalities for the red line plan, transferor and transferee and issued the Certificate of Use of State Land for this land to Changsha Huifu. On December 28, 1994, Changsha Institute and Changsha Huifu formally signed the Contract on the Cooperative Construction of “Jinfu Building”, under which Changsha Institute should provide the land for construction and Changsha Huifu should secure all funds in relation to the construction. This contract also had provisions on the allocation of the buildings to be constructed, liabilities for breaches of contract, etc. After the signing of this contract, Changsha Institute carried out such work as the removal and relocation of buildings on the land for construction as agreed on in this contract, and Changsha Huifu invested part of construction funds and began such work as removal compensation, project filing, construction report and organizing of survey and design at the early stage of construction, part of groundwork and increase of water and power capacities. During cooperation, Changsha Huifu additionally rented some of Changsha Institute's office facilities, and still owed some rents and water and power fees to Changsha Institute. Later on, for Changsha Huifu could not secure the follow-up funds for construction, the cooperative building construction stopped in July 1996, and consultations between the two parties failed. On August 4, 1997, Changsha Institute filed an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha, Hunan Province. Changsha Huifu protested against its jurisdiction, and the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province took over the case. The Higher People's Court of Hunan Province conducted mediation, and, on March 19, 1998, the two parties reached voluntarily the following agreement: (a) For the incompetence of Changsha Huifu and other causes, the contract on the cooperative building construction, agreement on the transfer of land use right and any of other contracts or agreements in relation thereto signed by it and Changshai Institute should be void, and Changsha Huifu should return to Changsha Institute unconditionally the right to use the land of 7.928 mu located at 81 Shangshan Beilu, with all the information and materials in relation to the cooperative project. (b) The existing pit works on the land of this cooperative project should be delivered to Changsha Institute. Changsha Huifu should be responsible for all debts incurred by it in relation to this project before the conclusion of this mediation agreement (including but not limited to the payments for earthwork, civil engineering and design). (c) The air-conditioners, desks and other office furniture in the office buildings rented by Changsha Huifu now should be converted into money to offset some rents and water and power fees owed by it to Changsha Institute. In addition, Changsha Huifu should compensate Changsha Institute for economic losses of RMB 3 million yuan. (d) Changsha Huifu should bear the court costs of RMB 122,910 yuan and property preservation fees of RMB 100,000 yuan. (e) Huifu should be liable for the above obligations of Changsha Huifu in this agreement, jointly and severally. After this mediation agreement were served on and signed by both parties and took legal effect, Changsha Institute applied for enforcement of this agreement. In September 1998, this land was changed from being under the name of Changsha Huifu to Changsha Institute. Changsha Institute developed this land and constructed buildings for sale, and the land use right had been allocated among the buyers. 湖南省高级人民法院再审查明,1994年11月25日,长勘院与汇富长沙公司签订一份《合作建房合同》约定,长勘院用其行政划拨取得的位于长沙市韶山北路81号的7.928亩土地的使用权,作为投资与汇富长沙公司合作建房。同年12月16日,长勘院与国土管理部门签订了该宗土地使用权的出让合同,并按规定缴纳了土地出让金。与此同时,长勘院应汇富长沙公司的要求,申请将该土地使用权转让至汇富长沙公司名下,国土管理部门审查后办理了有关该宗土地的红线图及出让、转让手续,并给汇富长沙公司颁发了该宗土地的国有土地使用权证。1994年12月28日,长勘院与汇富长沙公司正式签订了《合作共建“金富大厦”合同书》约定,长勘院提供建设用地,汇富长沙公司承担全部与建设相关的资金,并约定了对所建房屋的分配、违约责任等内容。合同签订后,长勘院依约进行了建设用地上的房屋拆迁安置等工作,汇富长沙公司则投入了部分建设资金,着手拆迁补偿、工程前期立项、报建、组织勘察,设计及部分基础基建工程、水电增容等方面的工作。合作期间,汇富长沙公司另行租借了长勘院部分办公用房,尚欠长勘院部分房租、水电费。此后,由于汇富长沙公司后续建设资金不能到位,合建工程于1996年7月停工,双方多次协商未果。长勘院于 1997年8月4日向湖南省长沙市中级人民法院提起诉讼。汇富长沙公司提出管辖异议,湖南省高级人民法院对该案进行提审。经湖南省高级人民法院原审主持调解,双方当事人于1998年3月19日自愿达成如下协议:1.因汇富长沙公司主体资格不符等方面的原因,其与长勘院所签订的合作建房合同、土地使用权转让协议及与此相关的有关合同(协议)均无效,汇富长沙公司无条件返还长勘院韶山路81号7.928亩土地的使用权,并将合作项目有关的所有资料一并移交长勘院。2.该土地上合建项目的基坑现有工程移交长勘院。此调解协议之前汇富长沙公司在该项目上的债务 (包括基坑土方、土建、设计等款项)均由汇富长沙公司承担。3.汇富长沙公司现在租用的长勘院办公用房内的空调、办公桌等办公家具全部折款冲减其所欠长勘院的部分房租、水电费。此外,汇富长沙公司另行赔偿长勘院300万元经济损失。4.案件受理费122 910元,财产保全费10万元,由汇富长沙公司负担。5.汇富公司对上述协议中汇富长沙公司的义务承担连带责任。该调解书经双方签收发生法律效力后,长勘院申请执行,该土地于1998年9月从汇富长沙公司过户到长勘院名下。长勘院对该土地进行开发,修建了商品房对外出售,土地使用权已分摊到各住户的名下。
In the retrial, the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province also found out that: in March 1995, in the construction of “Jinfu Building”, Changsha Huifu posted security over the land of the “Jinfu Building” project for two loans under two loan contracts in the amounts of RMB 3 million yuan and RMB 1 million yuan borrowed by the Changsha Subbranch of Haikou Branch of Changsha H-Tech Development Zone Jinhai Co. Ltd. (“Changsha Jinhai”) from the Changsha Branch of Bank of China, and the security was registered. Because Changsha Jinhai failed to repay the loans, the Changsha Branch of Bank of China brought two actions in the People's Court of Tianxin District of Changsha, Hunan Province. On December 22, 1997, this court made two civil judgments, No.354 and No.367, [1997], Tianxi Economic First Instance, respectively, for the two cases of disputes over loan contracts, holding that the security posted was valid, Changsha Jinhai should repay the principal of RMB 4 million yuan and the interest thereof, and the Haikou Branch of Changsha H-Tech Development Zone Jinhai Co. Ltd. should be liable for it jointly and severally; Changsha Huifu should be liable for it jointly and severally to the extent of the security posted. None of the parties appealed, and this judgment took legal effect. In June 2000, this creditor's right was peeled off from the Changsha Branch of Bank of China to Changsha Oriental. By the end of March 31, 2000, this creditor's right had covered the principal of RMB 4 million yuan and interest of RMB 1,964,290.36 yuan. In December 2004, Changsha Oriental in the manner of open auction transferred this creditor's right to Xiongxin, and the confirmation paper, document on auction payment and list of principal and interest as provided by Xiongxin indicated that it had paid a commission of RMB 108,000 yuan to the auction house, and bought the creditor's right worth RMB 8, 901,509.5 at a price of RMB 3.6 million yuan. 湖南省高级人民法院再审另查明, 1995年3月,汇富长沙公司在建设“金富大厦”项目过程中,以“金富大厦”项目的土地为长沙高新技术开发区金海股份有限公司海口公司长沙分公司(以下简称金海长沙公司)借中国银行长沙市分行300万元和100万元贷款的两份《借款合同》进行担保,并办理了抵押登记手续。由于金海长沙公司没有归还借款,中国银行长沙市分行向湖南省长沙市天心区人民法院提起诉讼。该院于1997年12月22日对两起借款合同纠纷案分别作出(1997)天经初字第354号和367号民事判决,判决认定抵押有效,由金海长沙公司偿还借款本金400万元及利息,长沙高新技术开发区金海股份有限公司海口公司负连带清偿责任;汇富长沙公司在抵押担保的范围内承担连带责任。各方当事人均未上诉,判决已发生法律效力。2000年6月,该债权从中国银行长沙市分行剥离到东方资产公司长沙办事处。截止2000年3月31日,该债权本金为400万元,利息为1 964 290.36元。 2004年12月,东方资产公司长沙办事处以公开拍卖方式,将此债权转让给雄新公司,雄新公司提供成交拍卖确认书、支付拍卖价款凭证、本息清单,表明其向拍卖行支付佣金10.8万元,以360万元成交价购买了 8 901 509.5元的债权。
In the retrial, the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province also found out: formed in early 1993, Huifu had a registered capital of RMB 20 million yuan, and its legal representative was Tang Anyun. The department in charge of it was the Hainan Provincial Committee of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang. In May 1997, the legal representative of this company was changed to Tang Yuguang, younger brother of Tang Anyun. In November 2003, the Administration of Industry and Commerce of Hainan Province cancelled the business license of Huifu for failure in annual inspection. Changsha Huifu was set up by Huifu, but its registered capital of RMB 5 million was not duly contributed. Its legal representative was Tang Anyun, and was changed to Fu Xiaohua later. In August 2001, the Administration of Industry and Commerce of Changsha cancelled the business license of Changsha Huifu. The persons-in-charge of the two companies were suspected of involvement in crimes of fraud, and were of unknown whereabouts for the time being. 湖南省高级人民法院再审还查明,汇富公司于1993年初成立,主管部门为中国国民党革命委员会海南省委员会,注册资金2000万元,法定代表人唐安云。1997年 5月,该公司将法定代表人变更为唐安云之弟唐宇光。2003年11月,汇富公司因未年检被海南省工商局吊销营业执照。汇富长沙公司的开办单位为汇富公司,其注册资金500万元没有到位,负责人唐安云,后变更为付晓华。2001年8月,汇富长沙公司被长沙市工商局吊销营业执照。以上两公司的负责人因涉嫌诈骗犯罪,现均下落不明。
Changsha Oriental (“applicant”) raised objections before the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province: (a) The security had been posted over the land at issue in favor of the applicant, so the applicant had a preemptive right in the debt repayment. The legal interests of the applicant were directly involved in the trial result of this case, so the court should notify it to participate in the action. (b) The land arrangement in the mediation ruling was detrimental to the interests of the applicant. 东方资产公司长沙办事处向湖南省高级人民法院提出异议称:1.争议土地已对申诉人设立了抵押,申诉人有优先受偿的权利。本案的处理结果与申诉人有法律上的利害关系,法院应通知其参加诉讼;2.调解书处理该土地损害了申诉人的利益。
After the creditor's right of Changsha Oriental was assigned to Xiongxin, Xiongxi requested to the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province that: (a) Xiongxin participate in the action as a third party; and (b) Changsha Institute compensate Xiongxin for damages of RMB 8,901,509.5 yuan caused by the impossibility to exercise the security. 雄新公司在受让了东方资产公司长沙办事处的债权后,向湖南省高级人民法院请求:1.作为第三人参加本案诉讼;2.判令长勘院赔偿因抵押权无法实现的损失 8 901 509.5元。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
In the retrial, the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province held that: Changsha Institute and Changsha Huifu reached a mediation agreement in the original trial, under which Changsha Huifu should return to Changsha Institute the right to use the land located at 81 Shaoshan Beilu. Prior to the mediation on the return, Changsha Huifu had posted security over this land for the debts of Changsha Jinhai, and this security had been affirmed to be valid by the two civil judgments, No.354 and No.367, [1997], Tianxi Economic First Instance, of the People's Court of Tianxin District of Changsha, Hunan Province. The creditor's right against Changsha Jinhai had been assigned to Xiongxin, and Xiongxin asserted its right in the security over this land. Since the right in the security was a right clinging to property and was transferred as a security, and the holder of the right in the security may exercise a preemptive right in the security in the debt repayment. The security had been posted by Changsha Huifu over the land returned by it to Changsha Institute, and its validity would not be affected by the transfer of the security. So, it should be legal and supported for Xiongxin to exercise its right of recourse against Changsha Institute. Changsha Institute had developed the land and constructed and sold buildings, and the land use right had been allocated among buyers. It had become impractical to dispose of this land, so Changsha Institute should instead assume the obligation of the debtor to repay all debts secured, so that the obligations of Changsha Huifu under the security could be legally fulfilled, and Changsha Institute after repaying all debts under the security should be entitled to reimbursement from Changsha Huifu according to law. Meanwhile, the mediation agreement reached between Changsha Institute, Changsha Huifu and Huifu on the disputes over the contract on the cooperative building construction was the true expression of intent of the parties, was legal in content, and should be affirmed by this court. However, this mediation ruling failed to deal with the right in the security posted over the land to be returned by Changsha Huifu to Changsha Institute. While this mediation agreement on the return of land was affirmed according to law, the right in the security over the land should also be dealt with, so as to protect the legal rights and interests of all parties about the land in a legal and fair way. In accordance with Article 89(b) of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 112 of the Opinions on Issues concerning Enforcement of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China 来自北大法宝(for trial implementation) of the Supreme People's Court, and Articles 180 and 130 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, after discussion at the Judicial Committee of the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province, this court ruled that: (a) the civil mediation ruling, No.7 [1997] Hunan Civil First Instance, rendered by the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province should be upheld; and (b) Changsha Institute, instead of Changsha Huifu, should assume the liability for repaying the debts under the security to Xiongxin. Changsha Institute, after repaying all such debts, could request for reimbursement from Changsha Huifu and Huifu according to law. 湖南省高级人民法院再审认为,长勘院与汇富长沙公司在原审中达成调解协议,依约由汇富长沙公司将韶山路81号 7.928亩土地使用权返还给长勘院。而在调解返还之前,汇富长沙公司已经以该土地为金海长沙公司的债务设置了抵押,且该抵押经湖南省长沙市天心区人民法院 (1997)天经初字第354号和367号民事判决确认有效。现雄新公司受让了对金海长沙公司的债权,在本案中主张对该土地的抵押权。因抵押权是附着在物上的权利,随抵押物的转移而转移,抵押权人可在抵押物上行使优先受偿权。长勘院所接受汇富长沙公司返还的土地上已附着了汇富长沙公司所设置的抵押,并且,不因为抵押物的转让而影响抵押权的效力,故雄新公司向长勘院行使追及权,符合法律规定,依法应予支持。由于长勘院已将土地进行了开发,修建了商品房对外出售,土地使用权已分摊到各住户的名下,变卖土地已不现实,长勘院应依法承担代替债务人清偿全部抵押债务的义务,使汇富长沙公司的抵押债务依法得以履行,并在清偿抵押债务后长勘院依法享有向汇富长沙公司追偿的权利。同时,长勘院与汇富长沙公司、汇富公司对双方合作建房合同纠纷所达成的调解协议,是当事人的真实意思表示,内容符合法律规定,该院予以确认。但因为该调解书对汇富长沙公司返还长勘院的土地所涉及的抵押债权未予处理,故依法在对返还土地的调解协议予以确认的同时,还应对土地上的抵押债权予以处理,才能依法公平保护土地上各方当事人的合法权益。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十九条(二)项及最高人民法院《关于贯彻执行<中华人民共和国民法通则>若干问题的意见》(试行)第一百一十二条、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百八十条、第一百三十条之规定,经湖南省高级人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,判决:(一)维持湖南省高级人民法院(1997)湘民初字第7号民事调解书;(二)由长勘院代汇富长沙公司承担对雄新公司抵押债权的清偿责任。长勘院在清偿抵押债务后,可依法向汇富公司和汇富长沙公司追偿。
The appellant, Changsha Institute, appealed the judgment of the first instance to this court, alleging that: (a) the transfer of the land use right in this case was illegal, but the return of the land use right was legal; and (b) the judgment of the first instance was confusing, since it upheld the mediation ruling, the appellant should not be liable for damages to a third party. Paragraph (b) in the judgment of the first instance was uncertain, unspecific and unenforceable. Therefore, the appellant requested this court to revoke Paragraph (b) in the judgment of the first instance. Prior to the open trial by this court, Changsha Institute applied to add the Hainan Provincial Committee of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, Hainan Branch of China Construction Bank, Hainan Congxin Accounting Office and Hunan High-Tech Industrial Co. Ltd. as third parties to this case, and supplemented its appeal by requesting this court to rule that the legal personalities of Huifu, Changsha Huifu and Haikou Branch of Changsha H-Tech Development Zone Jinhai Co. Ltd. should be denied, that the Hainan Provincial Committee of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang should repay all debts of Huifu and Changsha Huifu, and that the Hainan Branch of China Construction Bank, Hainan Congxin Accounting Office and Hunan High-Tech Industrial Co. Ltd. should be liable for repaying the debts of Huifu and Changsha Huifu jointly and severally. During trial, Changsha Institute argued that: this case was being heard in the trial supervision procedures, the original trial did not involve the security over the land use right, and it was improper to add Xiongxin as a third party in the trial supervision procedures; it had no direct legal relationship with Xiongxin, and should not be liable to Xiongxin, because Xiongxin was not a third party with independent claims. The appellee, Xiongxin, contended that: (a) the security had been posted legally over the land use right and affirmed by the effective judgment of the People's Court of Tianxin District of Changsha, Hunan Province, and Changsha Institute, after the land use right was returned to it, should be liable for the security posted on the land use right; (b) the judgment of the first instance was clear and specific without any conflicts; and (c) the trial of the first instance did not omit any party, and it was out of the extent of trial of this case for Changsha Institute to request for adding parties and relevant claims. As to the arguments of Changsha Institute during trial, Xiongxin contended that: the reason for the retrial of this case was that the interests of Xiongxin as the holder of right in the security had been injured by the mediation ruling in the original trial, and it was not improper for Xiongxin to participate in the retrial; the provisions on the transfer of security in the mediation ruling in the original trial caused direct damages to the holder of right in the security, and the transfer of the land use right should not hinder the rights of the holder of right in the security. Therefore, it was correct for the court of the first instance to rule that Changsha Institute should be liable to Xiongxin. 上诉人长勘院不服一审判决,向本院提起上诉称:1.本案土地使用权转移本身不合法,其收回土地使用权是依法进行的; 2.一审判决本身存在矛盾,原调解书既然被维持,则其不应对第三人承担赔偿责任,且一审判决第二项不确定、不具体,无法履行。故请求撤销一审判决第二项。本院开庭审理前,长勘院向本院递交追加当事人申请书和补充上诉状,申请追加中国国民党革命委员会海南省委员会、中国建设银行海南省分行、海南从信会计师事务所和湖南高新实业股份有限公司为本案第三人,并请求判决对汇富公司、汇富长沙公司、长沙高新技术开发区金海股份有限公司海口公司的法人人格予以否认,判决汇富公司、汇富长沙公司的债务由中国国民党革命委员会海南省委员会清偿,中国建设银行海南省分行、海南从信会计师事务所、湖南高新实业股份有限公司对汇富公司、汇富长沙公司的债务承担连带清偿责任。庭审中,长勘院另提出:本案系适用审判监督程序审理的案件,原审中并未涉及土地使用权抵押的内容,再审程序中追加雄新公司为第三人不当;其与雄新公司之间没有直接的法律关系,且雄新公司不属于有独立请求权第三人,其不应对雄新公司承担责任。被上诉人雄新公司答辩称:1.本案土地使用权已设置合法抵押且被湖南省长沙市天心区人民法院的生效判决确认,长勘院受让土地使用权后,应依法承担土地使用权已抵押的担保责任;2.一审判决明确、具体,无矛盾之处;3.一审没有遗漏当事人,长勘院提出的追加当事人及相应的诉讼主张,不属于本案审理的范围。针对长勘院庭审中提出的主张,雄新公司答辩称:本案再审的原因是原审调解书侵害了作为抵押权人的雄新公司的利益,雄新公司加人到再审程序中并无不当;原审调解书关于抵押物转移的约定是对抵押权人的直接侵害,土地使用权转移不能妨碍抵押权人的权利,故一审判决长勘院对雄新公司承担责任是正确的。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING来自北大法宝 
The facts found by this court in the trial of the second instance were the same as those found by the court of the fist instance. 本院二审查明的事实与一审法院查明的事实相同。
In the opinion of this court, the trial of the first instance before the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province was as a result of trial supervision, so the extent of trial of this case should be limited to the extent of the original trial. Before the mediation agreement was reached in the trial of the first instance, the right in the security assigned to Xiongxin had been affirmed by two effective civil judgments, No.354 and No.367, [1997], Tianxi Economic First Instance, rendered by the People's Court of Tianxin District of Changsha, Hunan Province. Based on the retroactive effect of security, the holder of right in the security enjoyed a right of recourse against the final assignee of the security. Therefore, this security had had a legal basis for it to be realized in the enforcement procedure. In the original trial, the contract on the cooperative building construction between Changsha Institute, Huifu and Changsha Huifu did not involve the security over the land. Consequently, the judgment of the first instance had exceeded the extent of trial of the first instance by dealing with the security while upholding the mediation agreement in the original trial. 本院认为,本案一审程序系湖南省高级人民法院基于审判监督程序提起,因此,本案的审理范围应当受原审审理范围的限制。由于原审调解协议达成前,雄新公司受让的抵押权已经湖南省长沙市天心区人民法院(1997)天经初字第354号和367号生效民事判决确认,基于抵押权的追及效力,抵押权人可以向抵押物的最终受让人追偿,故该项抵押权已经获得可以在执行程序中实现的法律依据。原审中,长勘院与汇富公司、汇富长沙公司之间的合作建房合同纠纷并不涉及土地抵押权的内容。故一审判决在维持原审调解协议的同时,对抵押权作出处理,超出了原审的审理范围。
Because Xiongxin participated in the action after being notified by the court of the first instance upon Xiongxin's request, according to Article 56 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, its status in action was a third party without independent claims. The principle of “no trial without complaint” in civil proceedings was violated for the judgment of the first instance to rule that Changsha Institute should be liable to Xiongxin as a third party without independent claims. 由于雄新公司是基于其申请,由一审法院通知参加诉讼,根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法谁敢欺负我的人》第五十六条的规定,其诉讼地位为无独立请求权第三人。一审判决判令一审原告长勘院向无独立请求权第三人雄新公司承担责任,违反了民事诉讼“不告不理”原则。
The requests of Changsha Institute for the addition of the Hainan Provincial Committee of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, et. al. as third parties to this case and for this court to rule that the legal personalities of Huifu, Changsha Huifu and Haikou Branch of Changsha H-Tech Development Zone Jinhai Co. Ltd. should be denied, that the Hainan Provincial Committee of the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang should repay all debts of Huifu and Changsha Huifu, and that the Hainan Branch of China Construction Bank, Hainan Congxin Accounting Office and Hunan High-Tech Industrial Co. Ltd. should be liable for repaying the debts of Huifu and Changsha Huifu jointly and severally also exceeded the extent of trial of this case. 关于长勘院二审期间提出的“申请追加中国国民党革命委员会海南省委员会等为本案第三人、请求判决对汇富公司、汇富长沙公司、长沙高新技术开发区金海股份有限公司海口公司的法人人格予以否认,判决汇富公司、汇富长沙公司的债务由中国国民党革命委员会海南省委员会清偿,中国建设银行海南省分行、海南从信会计师事务所、湖南高新实业股份有限公司对汇富公司、汇富长沙公司的债务承担连带清偿责任”的主张,亦超出了本案审理范围。
JUDGMENT 
In conclusion, the original mediation ruling in this case has taken effect for many years, and should be upheld for absence of any errors therein. The judgment of retrial is wrong in the application of law, and should be revoked. In accordance with Paragraph 1(b) of Article 153 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, this court rules: 综上,本案原调解已生效数年,并非确有错误,应予维持。再审判决适用法律错误,应予撤销。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(二)项之规定,判决如下:
(a) To revoke the civil judgment, No.148, [2004], Hunan HPC Civil Supervision, rendered by the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province; and 一、撤销湖南省高级人民法院(2004)湘高法民再字第148号民事判决;
(b) To uphold the civil mediation, No.7, [1997] Hunan Civil First Instance, rendered by the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province 二、维持湖南省高级人民法院(1997)湘民初字第7号民事调解。
The court costs for the trial of the second instance of RMB 122,910 yuan should be at the expense of Xiongxin. 二审案件受理费122 910元,由湖南雄新建筑有限公司负担。
This judgment should be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Presiding judge: Zhang Jinxian 审 判 长 张进先
Judge: Wu Xiaofang 审 判 员 吴晓芳
Deputy judge: Song Chunyu 代理审判员 宋春雨
August 21, 2006 二00六年八月二十一日
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