>>>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
 
Naval Air Force, Hainan Office v. Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company, et al (Appellate Case on Dispute over House Lease Contract)
海军航空兵海南办事处诉深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司等房屋租赁合同纠纷上诉案
【法宝引证码】

Naval Air Force, Hainan Office v. Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company, et al (Appellate Case on Dispute over House Lease Contract)
(Appellate Case on Dispute over House Lease Contract)
海军航空兵海南办事处诉深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司等房屋租赁合同纠纷上诉案

Naval Air Force, Hainan Office v. Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company, et al
(Appellate Case on Dispute over House Lease Contract)

 

海军航空兵海南办事处诉深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司等房屋租赁合同纠纷上诉案

Letter of Civil Reconciliation of the Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院民事调解书
No. 35 (2003) (2003)民一终字第35号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Defendant in the first instance): Naval Air Force of the People's Liberation Army of China, Hainan Office, domiciled at No. 33, Airport Road, Qiaodong District, Haikou City, Hainan Province. 上诉人(原审被告):中国人民解放军海军航空兵部海南办事处,住所地海南省海口市桥东区机场路33号。
Person-in-charge: Shao Fangbing, chief of the Office. 负责人:邵方兵,该办事处主任。
Authorized Agent: Zhao Bingjin, cadre of Real Estate Administration Division of Naval Air Force of the People's Liberation Army of China. 委托代理人:赵炳金,中国人民解放军海军航空兵部房地产管理处干部。
Authorized Agent: He Baozhong, lawyer of Beijing Aoxiang Law Firm. 委托代理人:何宝忠,北京市翱翔律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company (former Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel (Group) Limited Liability Company), domiciled at Sanjiu Hotel, 2 Shennan East Road, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province. 被上诉人(原审原告):深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司(原名深圳三九旅游酒店(集团)有限责任公司),住所地广东省深圳市深南东路2号三九大酒店。
Legal Representative: Li Chun, general manager of the Company. 法定代表人:李春,该公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Ding Yihong, general manager of Hainan Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company. 委托代理人:丁一虹,海南三九旅游服务有限公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Fan Zhiyong, lawyer of Beijing Yizhong Law Firm. 委托代理人:樊志勇,北京市亿中律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Hainan Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company, domiciled at Suite 412, No. 33, Lantian Road, Haikou City, Hainan Province. 被上诉人(原审原告):海南三九旅游服务有限公司,住所地海南省海口市蓝天路33号412室。
Legal Representative: Ding Yihong, general manager of the Company. 法定代表人:丁一虹,该公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Fan Zhiyong, lawyer of Beijing Yizhong Law Firm. 委托代理人:樊志勇,北京市亿中律师事务所律师。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
With regard to the case under the dispute between Naval Air Force of the People's Liberation Army of China, Hainan Office, the appellant, and Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company and Hainan Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company, the appellees, over house lease contract, the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army of China (hereinafter referred to as the Military Court of PLA) rendered the No. 1 (2002) civil judgment on March 18, 2003. Naval Air Force of the People's Liberation Army of China, Hainan Office (hereinafter referred to as NAF Office) was dissatisfied with the judgment, and appealed to the present court. The present court formed a collegial panel according to the provisions of law, and then heard the present case publicly on July 10, 2003. NAF Office's authorized agents Zhao Bingjin and He Baozhong, Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Hotel Limited Company's authorized agents Ding Yihong and Fan Zhiyong, Hainan Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company's legal representative Ding Yihong and its authorized agent Fan Zhiyong appeared in the court and took part in the court proceedings. The present case has now been finalized. 上诉人中国人民解放军海军航空兵部海南办事处与被上诉人深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司、海南三九旅游服务有限公司房屋租赁合同纠纷一案,中国人民解放军军事法院于2003年3月18日作出(2002)军民初字第1号民事判决,中国人民解放军海军航空兵部海南办事处对该判决不服,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭于2003年7月10日对本案进行了公开审理,上诉人中国人民解放军海军航空兵部海南办事处的委托代理人赵炳金、何宝忠,被上诉人深圳市三九旅游酒店有限公司的委托代理人丁一虹、樊志勇,被上诉人海南三九旅游服务有限公司的法定代表人丁一虹及其委托代理人樊志勇到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
It was verified by the Military Court of PLA that: on January 25, 1994, Shenzhen Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen Sanjiu Company) and NAF Office concluded a “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, in which both parties agreed: NAF Office shall lease Jinghang Mansion which it built with its own funds (22,000 square meters of building area and 1,500 square meters of place to the east and the south of the mansion) to Shenzhen Sanjiu Company for business operation. The term of lease shall be 12 years, commencing on April 1, 1995 and expiring on March 30, 2007. The annual rental shall be CNY 15 million. Party B shall pay CNY 1,250,000 of monthly rental on the first day of each month, and if Party B delays the payment of rental for up to three months, Party A shall be entitled to take back Party B's right to house property operation (including the real properties invested by Party B in decoration). On the same day, both parties also concluded the “Decoration Standards and Equipment Standards of Jinghang Mansion”, and agreed upon some matters concerning civil engineering equipment and facilities. In order to perform the contract, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company contributed investments to register and establish Hainan Sanjiu Tourism Service Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Hainan Sanjiu Company) on February 18, 1994, and used Jinghang Mansion as the domicile and business place. It appointed Ding Yihong as legal representative of the Company. After Hainan Sanjiu Company was established, it concluded with NAF Office a “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, with the time and contents being basically the same as those in the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” with Shenzhen Sanjiu Company. In November 1994, upon consent of NAF Office, Hainan Sanjiu Company registered and established Hainan Sanjiu International Hotel Limited Company (the legal representative was still Ding Yihong), Hainan Sanjiu International Hotel (which is not an independent legal person, and the person-in-charge was Li Qiwei). On July 15, 1994, Hainan Sanjiu Company and NAF Office concluded a “Supplementary Agreement to the Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, allowing Hainan Sanjiu Company to use the 1,330 square meters of space to the north of Jinghang Mansion for establishing outbuildings, including a hotel, a work room of the dining hall, a singing and dancing hall, and a boiler room. Both parties also agreed to the construction and management, etc. of the outbuildings. On October 25, 1994 and March 20, 1995, Hainan Sanjiu Company and NAF Office successively concluded the “Agreement on the Handover of Some Floors of Jinghang Mansion” and the “Agreement on the Handover of Jinghang Mansion Project”. After that, Hainan Sanjiu Company organized the construction, installed equipment to and decorated the mansion, and carried out civil engineering construction of the outbuildings. On April 26, 1995, Hainan Sanjiu International Hotel Limited Company and NAF Office concluded the “Supplementary Agreement on Postponing the Commencement Date of Lease Specified in the Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, and modified the term of lease into the period commencing on August 1, 1995 and expiring on July 30, 2007. 一审法院查明:1994年1月25日,深圳三九旅游服务有限公司(以下简称深圳三九公司)与中国人民解放军海军航空兵部海南办事处(以下简称海航办事处)签订《京航大厦租赁合同》,双方约定:海航办事处将其独资兴建的京航大厦(建筑面积22000平方米及大厦东侧、南侧前的场地1500平方米)出租给深圳三九公司经营,租期为12年,从1995年4月1日起至2007年3月30日止,年租金为人民币1500万元。每月一日前付清每月租金125万元,逾期三个月不交清租金,甲方有权收回乙方房产经营权(包括乙方投资装修的不动产)。同日,双方还签订了《京航大厦装修标准及设备标准》,对土建设备、设施部分作了约定。为了履行合同,深圳三九公司出资,以京航大厦为住所地和经营场所,于1994年2月18日注册成立了海南三九旅游服务有限公司(以下简称海南三九公司),委任丁一虹为该公司法定代表人。海南三九公司成立后,又与海航办事处签订一份《京航大厦租赁合同》,时间、内容与深圳三九公司和海航办事处签订的《京航大厦租赁合同》基本相同。1994年11月,经海航办事处同意,海南三九公司又注册成立了海南三九国际大酒店有限公司(法定代表人仍系丁一虹)、海南三九国际大酒店(非独立法人,负责人李启维)。1994年7月15日,海南三九公司与海航办事处签订《京航大厦租赁合同补充协议书》,约定将京航大厦北侧的1330平方米空地划归海南三九公司兴建酒店、餐厅操作间、歌舞厅、锅炉房等附属用房,并对附属房的建设、管理等作了约定。1994年10月25日和1995年3月20日,海南三九公司与海航办事处先后签订了《京航大厦部分楼层移交协议》和《京航大厦项目移交协议》。此后,海南三九公司组织施工,对大厦进行了设备安装、装修和对附楼进行土建。1995年4月26日,海南三九国际大酒店有限公司与海航办事处签订了《京航大厦租赁合同推迟起租日期的补充协议》,将起租时间变为1995年8月1日起至2007年7月30日止。
After concluding the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, Hainan Sanjiu Company paid NAF Office CNY 5 million of deposit on March 15, 1994, CNY 2 million of rental on May 8, 1997, and CNY 5 million on June 17, 1997. After that, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company did not pay the remaining rental under the contract any more. Jinghang Mansion's decoration engineering work failed to be accomplished according to the plan and the standards due to the insufficient funds of Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company. During that period, Hainan Sanjiu Company claimed against NAF Office for several times regarding the water, electricity and communication, etc. but in vain. From June 1, 1996 to May 27, 1998, NAF Office sent letters to Shenzhen Sanjiu Company, Hainan Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu International Hotel Limited Company for several times asking for the payment of rental, otherwise it would terminate the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” and all supplementary agreements, and take back the right to use Jinghang Mansion unconditionally pursuant to the contract. On July 12, 1998, Hainan Sanjiu Company and NAF Office signed “Meeting Minutes”, in which both parties agreed upon that as of July 13, 1998, Hainan Sanjiu Company should return Jinghang Mansion to NAF Office for management. Meanwhile, Hainan Sanjiu Company proposed that it would reserve the right to settle the problem through legal procedures. 签订《京航大厦租赁合同》后,海南三九公司于1994年3月15日付给海航办事处定金500万元,1997年5月8日付租金200万元,1997年6月17日支付5万元。合同约定的其余租金,深圳三九公司和海南三九公司未付。京航大厦的装饰工程亦因深圳三九公司、海南三九公司资金不足,未能按计划和标准完成。在此期间,海南三九公司就水、电、通信等问题曾多次向海航办事处提出要求未果。1996年6月1日至1998年5月27日期间,海航办事处曾多次致函深圳三九公司、海南三九公司、海南三九国际大酒店有限公司索要房租,否则终止《京航大厦租赁合同》及所有补充协议,按合同约定无条件收回京航大厦的使用权。1998年7月12日,海南三九公司与海航办事处签署了《会谈纪要》,双方同意从1998年7月13日起,海南三九公司将京航大厦交还海航办事处管理。同时,海南三九公司提出保留通过法律程序解决这一问题的权利。
It was further verified that, on July 18, and August 30, 1992, NAF Office applied to Haikou Municipal Urban Planning Bureau for establishing the Naval Air Force's comprehensive building project and commercial building project. Haikou Municipal Urban Planning Bureau approved the application on November 2, 1992, but NAF Office failed to submit the army's application documents for establishing the Jinghang Mansion project. The construction of Jinghang Mansion was started in December 1992, and was completed on July 30, 1994. Specifically, the decoration work of the exterior walls and that of the interior walls on the fourth, fifth and sixth floors had been completed, while that of the other floors, the outdoor engineering work and the water and electricity supply work had not been completed, nor had they been accepted upon inspection. After Jinghang Mansion was built, NAF Office did not provide the “Certificate for Using State-owned Land” or the “Certificate of House Ownership” to the Military Court of PLA in the first instance. On October 15, 1994, the Logistics Technology Department of Naval Air Force approved the lease of Jinghang Mansion, but required NAF Office to obtain the license for house property operation. In the first instance, NAF Office submitted a photocopy of the “License of the People's Liberation Army of China for Carrying out Business Activities by Making Use of Real Estates” issued by the Real Estate Administration of the Naval Air Force on January 1, 1995, which stated that the address of the building was No. 33, Airport Road, Haikou City. However, it was verified by the Military Court of PLA that the mansion was originally located at No. 1, Airport Road, and was then relocated at No. 33, Airport Road on July 29, 1997. During the retrial of the Military Court of PLA, NAF Office submitted to the court a photocopy of the “Certificate of House Ownership” issued by Haikou Municipal Bureau of House Property Administration on August 20, 1999 and an attestation letter issued by Haikou Municipal Administration for Land and Marine Resources on July 10, 2000. The letter says: the “Certificate for Using State-owned Land” concerning the buildings including Jinghang Mansion was checked and issued to NAF Office in August 1999. 另查明,1992年7月18日、8月30日,海航办事处向海口市城市规划局申报兴建海军航空兵部综合楼、商住楼项目。海口市城市规划局于1992年11月2日批复同意。但海航办事处未能提交关于兴建京航大厦项目的军队报批文件。京航大厦1992年12月开工,1994年7月30日竣工,外墙装饰工程与内墙四、五、六层装饰工程已完工,其余楼层及室外工程和水电部分未完工,亦未验收。京航大厦建成以后,海航办事处至原一审期间未向一审法院提供《国有土地使用证》和《房屋所有权证》。1994年10月15日,海军航空兵后勤技术部曾批复同意京航大厦出租,但要求海航办事处办理房产经营许可证。一审期间,海航办事处提交了1995年1月1日由海军房地产管理局签发的《中国人民解放军利用房地产开展经营活动许可证》复印件,载明房屋地址是海口市机场路33号。但经一审法院查明,该大厦原座落系机场路1号,1997年7月29日才编制为机场路33号。一审法院重审期间,海航办事处向该院提交了海口市房产管理局1999年8月20日向海航办事处签发的《房屋所有权证》复印件和海口市国土海洋资源局2000年7月10日的证明函,函中称:1999年8月向海航办事处核发了包括京航大厦建筑在内的《国有土地使用证》。
On August 20, 1998, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company brought a lawsuit with the Military Court of PLA, claiming against NAF Office for compensation of CNY 11 million of losses. On October 20, 1998, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company modified its litigation claims. It pleaded with the court to adjudicate that all contracts concluded between both parties shall be void, that NAF Office shall bear all the liabilities, and shall, in addition to refunding all its investments, compensate CNY 13,402,000 of losses and bear the litigation costs. On January 27, 1999, the Military Court of PLA rendered the No. 2 (1998) civil judgment. NAF Office was dissatisfied with the judgment, and appealed to the present court. After trial, the present court remanded the case by the No. 138 (1999) civil ruling on December 22, 2001 for retrial. 1998年8月20日,深圳三九公司向一审法院起诉,要求海航办事处赔偿损失1100万元。1998年10月20日,深圳三九公司变更诉讼请求,请求判决双方签订的所有合同无效,由对方承担全部责任,除返还其全部投入外,赔偿损失1340.2万元,承担诉讼费用。1999年1月27日,中国人民解放军军事法院作出(1998)军经初字第2号民事判决。海航办事处对该判决不服,向本院提出上诉。本院经审理,于2001年12月22日以(1999)经终字第138号民事裁定将该案发回重审。
During the retrial, upon application of Hainan Sanjiu Company, the Military Court of PLA decided to add Hainan Sanjiu Company as a joint plaintiff to participate in the court proceedings. NAF Office filed an application for objecting the jurisdictional power, and held that the Military Court of PLA had no jurisdictional power over Hainan Sanjiu Company and should even not add it as a co-plaintiff. The Military Court of PLA ruled according to law to reject NAF Office's application for objection to the jurisdictional power. NAF Office did not appeal. On June 21, 2002, NAF Office brought a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Haikou Municipality, Hainan Province (hereinafter referred to as Haikou Intermediate Court) regarding the dispute with Hainan Sanjiu Company over house lease contract, pleading with the court to confirm the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” between both parties as effective, and to order Hainan Sanjiu Company to pay CNY 28,250,000 of rental. On September 9, Haikou Intermediate Court ruled to transfer the case to the Military Court of PLA for trial. During the retrial of the Military Court of PLA, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company requested the modification of their litigation claims. They pleaded with the court to order NAF Office to refund CNY 17,220,000 of project investment funds and CNY 7,050,000 of directly paid rental; to compensate CNY 2,919,521.26 of losses in conclusion of contract and CNY 16,334,900 of interest losses. They also requested re-valuation. Considering the objection proposed by both parties regarding the original valuation report and the request proposed by NAF Office, the Military Court of PLA entrusted Beijing Jinli'an Real Estate Consulting & Valuation Limited Liability Company on October 10, 2002 to make a re-valuation, with the conclusion as follows: the price of the decorations and equipment installed by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company in the principal building of Jinghang Mansion on August 1, 1995 was CNY 12,528,880.43, and the price on July 12, 1998 was CNY 8,770,216; Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company's civil engineering price of the outbuildings on July 12, 1998 was CNY 4,860,486, but on October 12, 2002, the depreciation price was CNY 4,374,437 (both included CNY 1,590,000 of the owed outbuilding construction funds); when Hainan Sanjiu Company handed over Jinghang Mansion to NAF Office on July 12, 1998, it obtained the equipment and relevant articles from the scene, with the then price at CNY 1,462,248.3; NAF Office's real estate revenue losses from Jinghang Mansion, i.e., the reasonable use fee, from August 1, 1995 to July 12, 1998 amounted to CNY 13,890,178. 重审期间,根据海南三九公司的申请,一审法院决定追加海南三九公司为共同原告参加诉讼。海航办事处对此提出管辖权异议申请,认为军事法院对海南三九公司无管辖权,更不应追加其为共同原告。一审法院依法裁定驳回该办事处的管辖异议申请。海航办事处对此未再上诉。2002年6月21日,海航办事处就其与海南三九公司的房屋租赁合同纠纷向海南省海口市中级人民法院起诉,请求确认双方签订的《京航大厦租赁合同》有效,判令海南三九公司给付房屋租金2825万元。同年9月9日,海口市中级人民法院裁定将该案移送军事法院审理。一审法院重审期间,深圳三九公司、海南三九公司提出变更诉讼请求为:请求判令海航办事处返还其工程投资款1722万元和其直接支付的租金705万元;赔偿其缔约损失2919521.26元和贷款利息损失1633.49万元,并要求重新进行评估。一审法院鉴于双方当事人对原评估报告提出的异议和海航办事处的请求,于2002年10月10日委托北京市金利安房地产咨询评估有限责任公司进行重新评估,结论为:深圳三九公司、海南三九公司安装在京航大厦主楼的装饰及设备1995年8月1日的价格为12528880.43元,1998年7月12日的价格为8770216元;深圳三九公司、海南三九公司对附属楼土建 1998年7月12日的价格为486.0486万元,到2002年10月12日的折旧价格为437.4437万元(均包括建设附属楼的外欠工程款159万元);海南三九公司在1998年7月12日将京航大厦移交给海航办事处时从现场领走设备及有关物品,按照当时的价格为1462248.3元;海航办事处1995年8月1日至1998年7月12日期间京航大厦房地产收益损失即合理使用费为13890178元。
The Military Court of PLA held that, NAF Office brought a lawsuit with Haikou Intermediate Court against Hainan Sanjiu Company as a plaintiff during the period of retrial of the case, and Haikou Intermediate Court ruled to transfer the case to the Military Court of PLA for trial; because the subject matter and the facts in the lawsuit brought by NAF Office against Hainan Sanjiu Company were the same, the Military Court of PLA did not render a separate judgment. After Shenzhen Sanjiu Company concluded the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” with NAF Office on January 25, 1994 for the sake of performing the contract, it established Hainan Sanjiu Company upon approval of the then Hainan Operation and Development Office of People's Liberation Army of China and upon registration in the local administrative department for industry and commerce. Shenzhen Sanjiu Company contributed investments, and Hainan Sanjiu Company specifically performed the contract. After Hainan Sanjiu Company was established on February 18, 1994, it concluded with NAF Office the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion”, with the time and contents being the same as those in the contract between Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and NAF Office. During that period, Hainan Sanjiu Company also borrowed loans from the bank and used the loans for Jinghang Mansion's decoration and the construction of the outbuildings. Therefore, the litigation result of the case has a direct interest in both Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company. Upon application of Hainan Sanjiu Company, the court conformed to legal provisions by adding Hainan Sanjiu Company as a co-plaintiff to participate in the litigation activities. NAF Office alleged that NAF Office should have the right to bring a lawsuit since Shenzhen Sanjiu Company did not perform the contract, but such a litigation claim was short of basis, and that, in the meanwhile, the Military Court of PLA had no jurisdictional power over Hainan Sanjiu Company, and should not have added Hainan Sanjiu Company as a co-plaintiff to participate in the court proceedings. However, the grounds for NAF Office's allegation should not be tenable. The “License of the People's Liberation Army of China for Carrying out Business Activities by Making Use of Real Estate” regarding the 30,000 square meters of Jinghang Mansion located at No. 33, Airport Road, Haikou City, which was submitted by NAF Office to the Military Court of PLA and was issued by the Real Estate Administration of the Naval Air Force on January 1, 1995, was not authentic, and should not be adopted. Considering the objections proposed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding the original valuation result, the Military Court of PLA separately entrusted a valuation entity to make a re-valuation, and the re-valuation conclusion had been cross-examined by both parties, and may be used as a basis for reference in making the adjudication. The consequences from Hainan Sanjiu Company's keeping and disposing of the equipment and articles valued CNY 1,462,248.3 at its own initiative shall be borne by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company. The CNY 280,000 of construction funds owed by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company to other parties for decorating Jinghang Mansion shall be paid off by NAF Office at the time of the handover of Jinghang Mansion. Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company made a wrong estimation of the market, contributed blind investments, and failed to take timely and effective measures against the enlarged losses, thus they shall bear the liabilities for interest losses from the contributed funds. NAF Office violated the provisions of the Central Military Commission in obtaining necessary approval from the General Logistics Department by investing CNY 46,734,692 to built up 22,344.7 square meters of Jinghang Mansion without approval, and nor did NAF Office report to the General Logistics Department for approval. It violated the “Law of the People's Republic of China for the Administration of Urban Real Estates” by leasing Jinghang Mansion without obtaining the “License of the People's Liberation Army of China for Carrying out Business Activities by Making Use of Real Estates”. In addition, it did not go to the relevant competent department in charge for making registration and obtaining the “Certificate for Using State-owned Land” and the “Certificate of House Ownership” within the legally prescribed time limit. Therefore, the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” and the auxiliary contracts, including the “Supplementary Agreement”, which were concluded by NAF Office with Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company, should all be void. NAF Office's ground for its allegation that the “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” concluded with Hainan Sanjiu Company should be ascertained as lawful and effective should not be supported by the Military Court of PLA. On this issue, both the plaintiffs and the defendant were at fault. NAF Office violated the relevant provisions of the state and the army to build up and lease Jinghang Mansion, and should bear corresponding liabilities. While Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company blindly concluded contracts when clearly knowing that NAF Office violated the state provisions and had no right to lease the mansion, hence they should also bear corresponding liabilities. In accordance with Item (5) of Article 52 来自北大法宝of the “Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, as well as Article 4 and Paragraph 1 of Article 61 来自北大法宝of the “General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China”, the Military Court of PLA adjudicated as follows: 1. The “Contract on the Lease of Jinghang Mansion” concluded by NAF Office with Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and that with Hainan Sanjiu Company as well as the auxiliary contracts shall all be void; 2. NAF Office shall refund the CNY 7,050,000 paid by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company in the form of deposit, etc. as well as 50% of the interest thereof (the interest shall be calculated as of the date of payment up to the date of repayment at the conterminous interest rate of one-year current fund loans as prescribed by the People's Bank of China); 3. The outbuildings built with the capital of Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company their own shall be handed over to NAF Office along with the principal building. NAF Office shall pay Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company CNY 4,374,437 of investment funds for building up the outbuildings by October 12, 2002 (excluding the interest on the CNY 1,590,000 of construction funds, which is calculated at the conterminous interest rate of one-year current fund loans as prescribed by the People's Bank of China); 4. NAF Office shall pay Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company CNY 8,770,216 of converted investment funds occurring when Jinghang Mansion was handed over on July 12, 1998; 5. As for the CNY 4,244,713.43 of economic losses from depreciation of investments, Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company shall bear CNY 2,122,356.72 by themselves, and NAF Office shall bear CNY 2,122,356.72; 6. Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company shall pay NAF Office CNY 11,200,000 of reasonable use fee for the period when they occupied Jinghang Mansion. After the above-mentioned amounts have been offset, NAF Office shall pay CNY 11,117,009.72 to Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company (excluding 50% of CNY 7,050,000 of interest in Item 2, and CNY 1,590,000 of interest in Item 3). Other litigation claims of both parties shall be rejected. The litigation fee paid by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and the appeal fee paid by NAF Office shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the defendant respectively. 一审法院认为,被告海航办事处在该案重审期间,以原告的身份向海南省海口市中级人民法院起诉海南三九公司,海口市中级人民法院裁定移送该院审理;因海航办事处起诉海南三九公司讼争所指向的标的以及依据的事实均相同,所以该院不再另行作出判决。深圳三九公司1994年1月25日与海航办事处签订《京航大厦租赁合同》后,为履行合同,经申请并经当时的中国人民解放军海南经营开发办事处批准和当地工商管理部门注册成立了海南三九公司,深圳三九公司出资由海南三九公司具体履行合同。海南三九公司1994年2月18日成立后,又与海航办事处签订了和深圳三九公司与海航办事处同一时间和内容的《京航大厦租赁合同》。期间,海南三九公司也从银行贷款用于京航大厦的装修和附属楼的建设。因此,该案的诉讼结果与深圳三九公司和海南三九公司均有直接的利害关系,根据海南三九公司的申请,追加其作为共同原告参加该案的诉讼活动符合法律规定。被告海航办事处提出深圳三九公司没有履行合同,其有起诉权利,但诉讼请求缺乏依据及军事法院对海南三九公司无管辖权、更不应追加其为共同原告参加诉讼的理由不能成立。海航办事处向该院提交的1995年1月1日由海军房地产管理局签发的座落于海口市机场路33号3万平方米的京航大厦的《中国人民解放军利用房地产开展经营活动许可证》不具有真实性,不予采信。考虑原、被告双方对原评估结果提出的异议,该院另委托评估单位进行了重新评估,重新评估的结论,已经双方当事人质证,是为司法裁判的参考依据。海南三九公司保存和自行处理价值1462248.3元设备物品,由深圳三九公司、海南三九公司自行负责。深圳三九公司、海南三九公司装修京航大厦外欠工程款28万元,随京航大厦的移交由海航办事处负责清偿。深圳、海南三九公司错误估计市场,盲目投资,对于损失的扩大未采取及时有效的措施,应该承担已投入资金的利息损失的责任。海航办事处投资46734692元所建22344.7平方米的京航大厦,违反了中央军委关于必须向总后勤部报批的规定,出租京航大厦亦没有报总后勤部审批和办理《中国人民解放军利用房地产开展经营活动许可证》,违反了《中华人民共和国城市房地产管理法》,未在法律规定的期限内到有关主管部门登记、办理《国有土地使用证》、《房屋所有权证》,故海航办事处与深圳三九公司、海南三九公司所签订的《京航大厦租赁合同》及《补充协议》等附属合同均无效。海航办事处提出应认定其与海南三九公司签订的《京航大厦租赁合同》合法有效的理由,该院不予支持。对此,原告与被告均有过错。海航办事处违反国家和军队的有关规定,建设、出租京航大厦,应承担相应的责任,深圳三九公司和海南三九公司明知海航办事处违反国家规定无权出租,而盲目签约,亦应承担相应的责任。依照《中华人民共和国合同法北京大学互联网法律中心》第五十二条第五项和《中华人民共和国民法通则卡在了奇怪的地方》第四条、第六十一条第一款的规定,判决如下:一、海航办事处与深圳三九公司、海南三九公司签订的《京航大厦租赁合同》及附属合同均无效。二、海航办事处返还深圳三九公司、海南三九公司以定金等方式支付的705万元及该款利息的50%(利息从付款之日起算至还款之日止,按中国人民银行规定的同期流动资金一年期贷款利息计算);三、深圳三九公司、海南三九公司独资建筑的附属楼随主楼移交给海航办事处。海航办事处支付深圳三九公司、海南三九公司建筑附属楼至2002年10月12日价值4374437元的投资款(不含159万元工程款的中国人民银行规定的同期流动资金一年期贷款利息);四、海航办事处给付深圳三九公司、海南三九公司1998年7月12日移交京航大厦时的投资折价款8770216元;五、深圳三九公司、海南三九公司的投资折旧经济损失4244713.43元,自己承担2122356.72元,海航办事处承担2122356.72元;六、深圳三九公司、海南三九公司给付海航办事处占用京航大厦期间的合理使用费1120万元;以上相抵后,被告海航办事处支付给原告深圳、海南三九公司11117009.72元(不含第二条中705万元利息的50%、第三条中159万元的利息)。驳回双方当事人的其他诉讼请求。原告深圳三九公司缴纳的诉讼费和被告海航办事处缴纳的上诉费,由原告、被告各自承担。
BASIC FACTS 
NAF Office was dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, and appealed to the present court. In the second instance, upon reconciliation presided over by the present court, both parties reached the following reconciliation agreement through friendly negotiations and mutual concessions: 海航办事处不服一审判决向本院上诉。二审期间,经本院主持调解,双方当事人经友好协商,互谅互让,达成如下调解协议:
1. NAF Office agrees to, after offsetting the deposit and interest refundable to Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company, the converted price of the decorations and outbuildings of Jinghang Mansion as well as the sanitary wares stored in Jinghang Mansion and kept by NAF Office, and the house use fee which ought to be paid by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company, pay CNY 9 million to Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company. In this way, both parties shall have the dispute over the contract on the lease of Jinghang Mansion settled. 一、海航办事处同意将其应返还给深圳三九公司、海南三九公司定金及其利息、京航大厦装修及附楼的折价、以及现存于京航大厦、由海航办事处实际保管的卫生洁具等,与深圳三九公司、海南三九公司应当支付给其的房屋使用费进行折抵后,海航办事处再支付给深圳三九公司、海南三九公司900万元,双方就此了结京航大厦房屋租赁合同纠纷。
2. Both parties agree that the above-mentioned CNY 9 million may be paid by three installments: by September 30, 2003, NAF Office shall pay CNY 3 million; by July 31, 2004, NAF Office shall pay CNY 3 million, and pay the interest of the CNY 6 million of arrears at the conterminous interest rate prescribed by the People's Bank of China; by July 31, 2005, NAF Office shall pay CNY 3 million, and pay the interest of this sum at conterminous loan interest rate prescribed by the People's Bank of China. 二、双方同意上述900万元款项分三期支付:2003年9月30日之前,海航办事处支付300万元;2004年7月31日之前海航办事处支付300万元,并按中国人民银行规定的同期贷款利率给付利息,利息按欠款600万元计;2005年7月31日之前支付300万元,并按中国人民银行规定的同期贷款利率给付该款的利息。
3. If NAF Office fails to perform its obligations after the first sum of money has become due, it shall pay an interest surcharge; while Shenzhen Sanjiu Company and Hainan Sanjiu Company may apply to the court for compulsory enforcement of all the credits. 三、如果前一笔款项到期后,海航办事处不履行义务,则应当支付罚息;深圳三九公司、海南三九公司也可以就全部债权申请法院强制执行。
4. The case acceptance fee of the first instance shall be borne by Shenzhen Sanjiu Company; the case acceptance fee of the second instance shall be borne by NAF Office. The part of authentication fee and the litigation preservation fee, which have been paid by both parties, shall be borne by them respectively. 四、一审案件受理费由深圳三九公司负担;二审案件受理费由海航办事处负担。鉴定费、诉讼保全费双方已付部分,由双方各自负担。
JUDGMENT 
The present court holds after examination that, the above reconciliation agreement is the expression of true wills of both parties on a voluntary basis, which does not violate any legal provision, and shall be confirmed by the present court. 本院经审查认为,以上调解协议是双方自愿达成的真实意思表示,不违反法律规定,本院予以确认。
The present letter of reconciliation shall become legally effective once it is signed in by both parties. 本调解书经双方当事人签收后即具有法律效力。
Presiding Judge Huang Songyou 审判长 黄松有
Judge Sun Huapu 审判员 孙华璞
Judge Hu Shihao 审判员 胡仕浩
July 10, 2003 二00三年七月十日
Court Clerk Wang Dongyin

 书记员 王冬颖
 

     
     
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