>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
An Zhenying, Guan Zilian, An Jian & An Quan v. Liu Hanquan (case regarding subcontracting contractual operation right of rural land)
安振营、关子莲、安舰、安泉诉刘汉全土地承包经营权转包案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property -->Usufruct
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 06-07-2012
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

An Zhenying, Guan Zilian, An Jian & An Quan v. Liu Hanquan (case regarding subcontracting contractual operation right of rural land)
(case regarding subcontracting contractual operation right of rural land)
安振营、关子莲、安舰、安泉诉刘汉全土地承包经营权转包案
[Key Terms]
contracting of rural land ; subcontracting fee ; principle of fairness ; standard
[核心术语]
农村土地承包;转包费;公平原则;标准
[Disputed Issues]
Revenue created through subcontracting of land is significantly different to the benefits created through cultivation of land, thus, the contract subcontracting fee standard should be adjusted appropriately.
[争议焦点]
转包其土地所获收益与耕种此土地所获利益相差较大,应对该合同转包费标准适当调整.
[Case Summary]
According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court regarding Issues concerning the Laws Applicable to the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Rural Land Contracting where revenue created through the subcontracting of land is significantly different from the benefits created through the cultivation of land and where parties cannot reach an agreement on the negotiated payment agreement...
[案例要旨]
根据《最高人民法院关于审理涉及农村土地承包纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》的规定转包其土地所获收益与耕种此土地所获利益相差较大...

Full-text Omitted.

 

安振营、关子莲、安舰、安泉诉刘汉全土地承包经营权转包案

 判决书字号:辽宁省沈阳市沈北新区人民法院(2012)北新民初字第02679号判决书。
 案由:土地承包经营权转包合同纠纷。
 诉讼双方
 原告:安振营
 原告:关子莲
 原告:安舰
 原告:安泉
 四原告共同委托代理人:齐永森,辽宁北天律师事务所律师。
 被告:刘汉全
 委托代理人:曹英魁、解兵,辽宁正直律师事务所律师。
 审级:一审。
 审判机关和审判组织
 审判机关:辽宁省沈阳市沈北新区人民法院。
 独任审判:审判员:魏大勇。
 审结时间:2012年6月7日。
 原告诉称
 原告安振营等4人诉称:2003年年末,四原告将其承包的19. 56亩耕地以30 000元的价格承包给被告,期限24年。按双方之间的协议,当时每亩承包金不足64元。现黄家乡的土地承包价格已经达到每亩700元左右。要求被告刘汉全每亩增加租金500元,每年给付增加的租金11 031. 84元。
 被告辩称
 被告刘汉全辩称:不同意增加租金。首先,原告安振营、安泉、安舰是非农业户口,不具有土地承包经营权主体资格,且双方签订的是转让协议,并非转包协议,该耕地转让协议合法、有效。其次,四原告的诉讼请求已经超过诉讼时效。最后,四原告主张该地块的土地承包租金已经涨到700元没有事实依据,被告对此并不认可。
 辽宁省沈阳市沈北新区人民法院经公开审理查明:2004年2月13日,安振营与刘汉全签订了房产交易契约书、耕地转让协议书各1份,房产交易契约书约定,安振营将砖木房4间卖与刘汉全,价款3 000元。耕地转让协议书中约定,将安振营为代表的家庭户[安振营为承包方代表,承包经营权共有人为关子莲、安舰、安泉、陶子荣(1998年6月15日死亡)]的土地承包经营权19. 56亩转让给被告刘汉全二次承包。
 上述事实有下列证据证实:
 (1)土地承包合同、土地承包经营权证;
 (2)村委会证明;
 (3)黄家乡派出所证明;
 (4)土地转让契约书;
 (5)原、被告陈述。
 辽宁省沈阳市沈北新区人民法院经审理认为:本案争议焦点为:(1)四原告是否均享有诉讼主体资格;(2)原、被告签订的合同性质;(3)原告诉求是否超过诉讼时效;(4)被告是否应适当增加土地租金及增加数额、期限。
 针对争论焦点一,《农村土地承包法》第二十六条第三款规定:“承包期内,承包方全家迁入设区的市,转为非农业户口的,应当将承包的耕地和草地交回发包方。承包方不交回的,发包方可以收回承包的耕地和草地。”也即承包方全家迁入设区的市及均转为非农业户口,其土地承包经营权才有可能被发包方收回,两个条件缺一不可。本案中原告关子莲并未迁入城区、户口亦未转为非农户,且家庭土地承包权主体是以户为单位,“增人不增地、减人不减地”是《农村土地承包法》所固定下来的原则,所以本案四原告作为19. 56亩土地承包经营权证记载的经营权人,并未丧失土地承包经营权,均有资格起诉。
 ......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥300.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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