>>>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
 
Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company v. Jiangxi Sanqingshan Administrative Committee (Dispute over Associated Construction of Ropeway)
浙江金华市自来水公司诉江西三清山管委会联营建设索道纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company v. Jiangxi Sanqingshan Administrative Committee (Dispute over Associated Construction of Ropeway)
(Dispute over Associated Construction of Ropeway)
浙江金华市自来水公司诉江西三清山管委会联营建设索道纠纷案

Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company v. Jiangxi Sanqingshan Administrative Committee
(Dispute over Associated Construction of Ropeway)

 

浙江金华市自来水公司诉江西三清山管委会联营建设索道纠纷案

Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court 【裁判摘要】
No. 197 (2001) 当事人以同一标的先后与他人签订两个协议,两个协议内容均不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定,依法符合合同生效条件的,不能因前协议有效而认定后协议无效,或认定前、后协议存在效力上的差异。当事人因履行其中一个协议而对另一个协议中的对方当事人构成违约的,应承担违约责任。
 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
 民事判决书
 (2001)民二终字第197号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Third person in the first instance): Jiangxi Sanqingshan Ropeway Co., Ltd., located at Shuangxi, Nanshanwai, Sanqingshan, Shangrao, Jiangxi. 上诉人(原审第三人):江西三清山索道有限公司。住所地:江西上饶三清山南山外双溪。
Legal Representative: Chen Bin, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:陈斌,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Shang Jinquan, lawyer of Beijing Dacheng Law Firm. 委托代理人:尚金泉,北京市大成律师事务所。
Authorized Agent: Huang Qili, lawyer of Beijing Dacheng Law Firm. 委托代理人:黄启力,北京市大成律师事务所。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company, located at No. 415, Bayi South Street, Jinhua, Zhejiang. 被上诉人(原审原告):浙江金华市自来水总公司。住所地:浙江省金华市八一南街415号。
Legal Representative: Wu Lixin, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:吴立新,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Xu Jiayun, engineer of the Company. 委托代理人:许家云,该公司工程师。
Authorized Agent: Wen Xingbin, lawyer of Zhejiang Chuangxin Law Firm. 委托代理人:温兴斌,浙江创欣律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., located at Suite 1206, International Commercial Center, 38 Datong Road, Haikou, Hainan. 被上诉人(原审原告):海南亚洲制药有限公司。住所地:海南省海口市大同路 38号国际商业大厦1206室。
Legal Representative: Lou Jin, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:楼金,该公司董事长。
Authorized Agent: Zhou Yanrong, lawyer of Beijing Century Law Firm. 委托代理人:周彦荣,北京市世纪律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff in the first instance): Zhejiang Jinhua Construction Engineering Company, located at 77 Jiefang West Road, Jinhua, Zhejiang. 被上诉人(原审原告):浙江金华市建筑工程公司。住所地:浙江省金华市解放西路77号。
Legal Representative: Huang Jianhua, general manager. 法定代表人:黄建华,总经理。
Authorized Agent: Wen Xingbin, lawyer of Zhejiang Chuangxin Law Firm. 委托代理人:温兴斌,浙江创欣律师事务所律师。
Defendant in the first instance: Sanqingshan Administrative Committee, located at 2/F, Zhongshan Building, Xinzhou District, Shangrao, Jiangxi. 原审被告:三清山管委会。住所地:江西上饶市信州区中山楼二楼。
Legal Representative: Wang Xiaofeng, director general of the Committee. 法定代表人:王晓峰,该委员会主任。
Authorized Agent: Yu Xiangming, lawyer of Jiangxi Sida Law Firm. 委托代理人:俞香明,江西司达律师事务所律师。
Third person in the first instance: Jiangxi Shangrao Jinsha Ropeway Co., Ltd., located at Jinsha, Sanqingshan, Shangrao, Jiangxi. 原审第三人:江西上饶金沙索道有限公司。住所地:江西上饶三清山金沙。
Legal Representative: Wu Lixin, board chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:吴立新,该公司董事长。
With regard to the dispute with Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company, Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinhua Construction Engineering Company (the appellees, hereinafter collectively referred to as Water Supply Company, et al), Sanqingshan Administrative Committee (defendant in the first instance, hereinafter referred to as SAC), and Jiangxi Shangrao Jinsha Ropeway Co., Ltd. (third person in the first instance, hereinafter referred to as Jinsha Company) over the associated construction of ropeway, Jiangxi Sanqingshan Ropeway Co., Ltd. (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as Sanqingshan Company) was dissatisfied with the No. 2 (2001) civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province (hereinafter referred to as Jiangxi Higher Court), and appealed to the present Court. The present Court formed a collegial panel according to law, composed of Jiang Wei as presiding judge, Chen Bailing and Lei Ji Ping as acting judges, and then heard the case. Xia Dongxia was the court clerk to make the records. During the trial of the present case, Jiangxi Higher Court made No. 22 (2002) civil ruling on March 22, 2002 to bring up No. 12 (2001) case of Shangrao Intermediate Court for trial by itself. Since Jiangxi Higher Court's adjudication of the No. 12 case would affect the present Court from handling the present case, the present Court ruled on May 27, 2002 to suspend the proceedings of the present case. Jiangxi Higher Court made No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment on May 9, 2004 regarding the No. 12 case, and then the present Court resumed the trial of the present case on June 29, 2004. The present case has now been finalized. 上诉人江西三清山索道有限公司(以下简称三清山索道公司)为与被上诉人浙江金华市自来水总公司、海南亚洲制药有限公司、浙江金华市建筑工程公司(以下统称自来水公司等三公司)、原审被告三清山管委会(以下简称三清山管委会)、原审第三人江西上饶金沙索道有限公司(以下简称金沙索道公司)联营建设索道纠纷一案,不服江西省高级人民法院(2001)赣民初字第2号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成由审判员姜伟担任审判长,代理审判员陈百灵、雷继平参加的合议庭进行了审理,书记员夏冬霞担任记录。本案审理期间,江西省高级人民法院于2002年3月 22日以(2002)赣民监字第22号民事裁定对(2001)饶中法民二终字第12号案进行提审,因江西省高级人民法院对该提审案件的审理结果将影响本院对本案的处理,本院于2002年5月27日裁定本案中止诉讼。江西省高级人民法院于2004年5月9日对上述提审案件作出(2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决,本院遂于2004年6月 29日恢复审理本案。本案现已审理终结。
It was verified by Jiangxi Higher Court: From 1993 to 1995, the leaders of the Administrative Office for Scenery Resorts in Shangrao and Sanqingshan went to Jinhua, Zhejiang for many times to attract investments, the Sanqingshan “Jinsha-Goddess Peak” Ropeway Development Project in dispute is one of the projects of both Yushan County and Shangrao Prefecture for attracting investments from Zhejiang. On December 28, 1995, the Administrative Committee of Jinsha Tourism Development Zone of Sanqing Township, Yushan County and the Sanqing Recreation and Vacation Center of Jinhua Development Zone (shortened as Sanqing R&C Center hereafter) concluded the “Agreement on Preparing the Construction of Jinsha Goddess Ropeway” for the purpose of jointly developing Sanqingshan Jinsha Scenic Spot. On March 28, 1996, Yushan County Government approved the development of Jinsha Ropeway by Decree No. 035 [1996]. During that period, the Party Committee and the Administration of Shangrao Prefecture decided in March 1996 to straighten out the administrative system of Sanqingshan by authorizing SAC to exercise the administrative power over Sanqingshan Scenic Spot, Sanqing Township, Yushan County, and other four villages, as well. On May 10, SAC concluded the “Agreement on Preparing the Construction of Jinsha Ropeway of Sanqing Township” (hereinafter referred to as “Jinsha Ropeway Agreement”) with Zhejiang Jinhua Huangdaxian Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jinhua Construction Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as Jinhua Construction Engineering), No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Peng Dengguo (called Peng hereafter), setting forth that Jinsha Ropeway shall be 2,105 meters long, and the total investments shall be 13 million Yuan. The agreement also sets forth the shares of each party. In order to prevent the original policies from being discontinued due to systemic adjustment, SAC and Water Supply Company, et al concluded the “Agreement on Establishing Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway Limited Liability Company” on July 8, 1996, setting forth that the stock capital of the Company shall be 15.3 million Yuan, including 1 million Yuan of Sanqingshan scenery resource shares, 13 million Yuan of corporate shares on the basis of which each party shall add 10% of individual shares. Water Supply Company, et al contributed 550,000 Yuan, 440,000 Yuan and 110,000 Yuan, respectively, on July 15, 1996 as per their proportions of shares. Sanqing Township Government remitted 110,000 Yuan into Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC on July 29, 1996, and invested 220,000 Yuan on behalf of SAC upon entrustment. On July 26, 1996, Jinsha Company was registered upon the approval of Jiangxi Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce and obtained its industrial and commercial business license. The proposal on the location of the “Jinsha-Goddess Peak” ropeway was also submitted by Shangrao Prefecture Government to the Provincial Department of Construction pursuant to the examination and approval procedures. In August 1996, the Provincial Department of Construction organized experts to visit the site. After they made arguments on the location proposal of Jinsha ropeway, the Provincial Department of Construction forwarded the location proposal to the Ministry of Construction. On January 27, 1997, the Ministry of Construction officially approved the project location proposal by Decree No. 8 (1997). On June 4, 1997, June 10, 1998, July 7, 1998, May 18, 1999, May 24, 2000, and September 18, 2000, Jinsha Company separately reported to SAC and Shangrao Prefecture Planning Commission for several times, requesting to make project initiation and start construction, but was not approved. Since 1994, Water Supply Company, et al requisitioned 116 Mu of land in the scenic spot, and Jinsha Company concluded with Sanqing Township Government an agreement on purchase of 25 Mu of land, prepaying 100,000 Yuan. Water Supply Company, et al and Jinsha Company spent approximately 1.3 million Yuan on early-stage survey and preparations, and more than 200,000 Yuan for other purposes, as well. The direct economic losses were about 100,000 Yuan. On June 6, 1998, Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company, Shen Zengfu (called Shen hereafter) from No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, Jiangxi Sanqingshan Tourism Joint Stock Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Sanqingshan Jinsha Tourism Economic Development Co., Ltd., Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Yushan Sanqingshan Tourism Company concluded the “Agreement on Readjusting the Shareholders of Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC and Their Investments”, which was not actually performed. After that, the Jinsha ropeway project was suspended. Therefore, Water Supply Company, et al reported to Jiangxi Provincial Government, Zhejiang Provincial Government, Jinhua Municipal Government and other relevant departments for several times, requesting performance of the agreement. As of 1999, Jiangxi and Zhejiang Provincial Government and Jinhua Municipal Government as well as other relevant departments have also convened several coordination meetings. Shu Shengyou, former governor of Jiangxi Province, also made several instructions in this regard. On June 1, 1999, Shangrao Prefecture Government replied Jiangxi Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce, Jiangxi Provincial Cooperation Office, and Jiangxi Provincial Department of Construction separately by Letters No. 41, 42 and 43 [1999], saying that Jinsha Company's registration and establishment were a kind of activities of the enterprise, that the main issue was the divergence on the location and construction time of the ropeway, and holding that the project was not fully argued. As a result, Shangrao Prefecture Government disapproved the project initiation. On March 20, 2000, Jiangxi Provincial Office for Economic and Technological Cooperation with Foreign Parties submitted No. 18 [2000] “Report on the Coordination Meeting on Sanqingshan Ropeway Project” to Jiangxi Provincial Government, requesting it to order Shangrao Government to, by the end of April, approve the project initiation and the start of construction. The General Office of Jiangxi Provincial Government approved the report on April 7, 2000 by Decree No. 44 [2000], requiring Shangrao Government to lose no time in fulfilling the procedures for the project initiation and construction, and requiring the Provincial Department of Construction to provide ropeway construction guidance and protect the scenic spot during the construction. On November 9, 2000, Jiangxi Provincial Office for Foreign Economic and Technological Cooperation, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Supervision, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Construction, the Commerce and Finance Division and the Supervision Division of the General Office of Jiangxi Provincial Government went to Shangrao to inspect the implementation of Decree No. 44 [2000], and made a written report to the provincial government on November 21, 2000. Later, the General Office of Jiangxi Provincial Government distributed the “Opinions on the Issue of Sanqingshan ‘Jinsha-Goddess Peak' Ropeway”, requiring Shangrao Municipal Government to order the relevant department to conscientiously implement the Contract on “Jinsha-Goddess Peak” Ropeway, to treat all investors equally without discrimination, and to encourage fair competition. On March 20, 2001, Water Supply Company, et al brought a lawsuit with Jiangxi Higher Court, claiming that SAC should perform a series of agreements on building Jinsha Ropeway, promptly fulfill the procedures for project initiation, and compensate 10,010,000 Yuan of economic losses incurred from its delay in performing the contract. 江西省高级人民法院查明:1993年至 1995年间,上饶地区及三清山风景名胜区管理局的领导曾多次前往浙江金华招商,本案争议的三清山金沙至女神峰索道开发项目即是玉山县及上饶地区向浙江的招商项目。1995年12月28日,玉山县三清乡金沙旅游开发区管委会,与金华市开发区三清休养度假中心签订了共同开发三清山金沙风景区《关于筹建金沙女神索道协议书》。1996年3月28日,玉山县政府以玉府字[1996]035号文件予以批准开发金沙索道。此间,1996年3月,上饶地委、行署决定理顺三清山管理体制,将三清山景区及玉山县三清乡和另外四个村划归三清山管委会,授权管委会行使行政管理权。同年 5月10日,三清山管委会与浙江金华黄大仙有限公司、浙江金华市建筑工程公司、金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区、海南亚洲制药有限公司以及彭登国个人签订了《关于筹建三清乡金沙索道协议书》,协议约定金沙索道全长2105米,总投资1300万元,并约定了协议各方的股份。三清山管委会为保持原有政策不被因体制调整而中断,又于1996年7月8日,与自来水公司等三公司等签订了《关于组建三清山金沙索道有限责任公司协议书》,约定公司股本为 1530万元,其中100万元为三清山风景资源股,1300万元的法人股各增10%为个人股。自来水公司等三公司分别于1996年7月15日按比例出资55万元、44万元、11万元,三清乡政府于1996年7月29日汇入11万元,并受三清山管委会的委托代其出资22万元。1996年7月26日金沙索道公司经江西省工商局批准注册、领取了工商营业执照。金沙至女神峰索道选址也由上饶地区按审批程序报省建设厅,1996年 8月,省建设厅组织专家考察论证了金沙索道选址方案后,由省建设厅转报国家建设部。1997年1月27日,建设部以建景字 (1997)第8号文正式批复了该项目选址方案。1997年6月4日、1998年6月10日、 1998年7月7日、1999年5月18日、2000年5月24日、2000年9月18日,金沙索道公司多次向三清山管委会、上饶地区计划委员会报告,要求立项开工建设,但未得到批准。自1994年以来,自来水公司等三公司在景区征地116亩,金沙索道公司与三清乡政府签订协议受让土地25亩,预付 10万元土地款。自来水公司等三公司以及金沙索道公司用于前期勘察和准备工作约 130万元,其他费用约20余万元。直接经济损失约10万元。1998年6月6日,浙江金华市自来水公司、金华市建筑工程公司第八工区沈增富、江西三清山旅游股份有限公司、江西三清山金沙旅游经济开发有限公司、海南亚洲制药有限公司、玉山县三清山旅游总公司签订了《关于重新调整三清山金沙索道有限公司股东及出资额的协议书》,但该协议未实际履行。此后,金沙索道项目处于停滞状态。为此,自来水公司等三公司多次向江西省政府、浙江省政府、金华市政府及有关方面反映,要求履行协议。自1999年起,江西省政府、浙江省政府、金华市政府及有关方面多次召开协调会,江西省原省长舒圣佑也多次作出批示。1999年6月1日,上饶地区行署以饶行字[1999]41号、42号、43号文分别复函江西省工商局、江西省合作办、江西省建设厅,称金沙索道公司注册成立是一种企业行为,主要问题是对索道选址以及建设时间有分歧,并认为该项目未经充分论证,不同意立项。2000年3月20日,江西省对外经济技术合作办公室以赣外经办字[2000]18号《关于三清山索道项目协调会的情况报告》向江西省政府报告,请江西省政府责成上饶行署在4月底前负责批准该项目立项和开工建设。江西省人民政府办公厅2000年4月7日以赣府厅字[2000]44号文批准了该报告,要求上饶行署抓紧办好该项目立项的建设的各项手续,省建设厅负责做好索道建设指导和施工中的景区保护工作。2000年11月9日,江西省对经济技术合作办公室、江西省监察厅、江西省建设厅、江西省政府办公厅商金处和督查处到上饶市了解有关赣府办[2000]44号文的执行情况,并于2000年11月21日向江西省政府行文汇报,江西省政府办公厅又发出《关于三清山金女线索道问题的处理意见》,要求上饶市政府责成有关部门认真执行金女线合同,对客商应一视同仁,鼓励公平竞争。2001年3月20日,自来水公司等三公司向江西省高级人民法院提起诉讼,要求三清山管委会履行有关修建金沙索道的一系列协议,迅速给予立项办妥开工手续,并赔偿因拖延履行合同所造成的经济损失1001万元。
It was further verified by Jiangxi Higher Court that, on March 18, 1995, SAC and Hong Kong Xinhai International Group Joint Stock Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinhai Company) concluded a “Contract on Constructing Cable Cars at Sanqingshan Tiyunling Scenic Area” (hereinafter referred to as “Contract on Cable Cars”) to establish Sanqingshan Company, a joint venture, and agreed that no second ropeway was to be built in the south of Sanqingshan, Shangrao, Jiangxi. On April 8, both parties concluded a “Supplementary Contract to the Contract on Cable Cars” (hereinafter referred to as “Supplementary Contract”). Article 3 of the Supplementary Contract sets forth that, the second ropeway, if it is really necessary to build one within Sanqingshan, shall be invested and built by the registered Sanqingshan Company. In February 2001, Xinhai Company brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xinzhou District, Shangrao Municipality, Jiangxi Province (hereinafter referred to as Xinzhou District Court) against SAC, holding that the contract concluded between SAC and Water Supply Company, et al was in conflict with the above mentioned two contracts concluded by Xinhai Company, and seriously injured Xinhai Company's lawful rights and interests. Xinhai Company requested the court to confirm the contract between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC as ineffective. Xinzhou District Court made No. 31 [2001] civil judgment on May 8, 2001, and supported Xinhai Company's claim. Jinsha Company, who took part in the lawsuit as a third person, was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Shangrao Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Shangrao Intermediate Court). On June 26, 2001, Shangrao Intermediate Court held in its No. 12 (2001) final civil judgment that, the “Agreement on Readjusting the Shareholders of Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC and Their Investments” concluded between Zhejiang Jinhua Water Supply Company, No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, Jiangxi Sanqingshan Tourism Industrial Joint Stock Co., Ltd., Yushan Sanqingshan Tourism Company, Jiangxi Sanqingshan Jinsha Tourism Economic Development Co., Ltd. and Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. on June 6, 1998 is the substitution of the “Agreement on Establishing Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC”, thus SAC was no longer a shareholder of Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC, and should no longer be bound by the agreement. Since the agreement did not exist any more, its effectiveness was out of question. Shangrao Intermediate Court decided to sustain the lawfulness and effectiveness of the “Contract on Cable Cars” and “Supplementary Contract” between Xinhai Company and SAC, and to revoke Xinzhou District Court's adjudication on the void clauses in the agreement between SAC and the shareholders of Jinsha Company. On December 28, 2000, Yang Shenquan, director of Xinhai Company (registration number: 496180) submitted to the Companies Registry of Hong Kong SAR the “Application for Revocation of Registration of the Private Company due to Non-operation”, and Hong Kong Companies Registry published an announcement on May 11, 2001, announcing that Xinhai Company (registration number: 496180) was revoked and dissolved on that day. 江西省高级人民法院另查明,1995年3月18日,三清山管委会与香港新海国际集团股份有限公司(以下简称新海公司)签订了一份《关于三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车的合同书》,成立合资经营的三清山索道公司,并约定在中国江西上饶地区三清山的南部范围内不再建第二条缆车索道线路。同年4月8日,双方又签订一份《关于在三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车合同书的补充合同》,其中第三条约定,在三清山范围内,确需建第二条旅游索道时,应由注册的三清山索道公司投资承建。2001年 2月,新海公司以三清山管委会为被告,诉至江西省上饶市信州区人民法院,认为三清山管委会与自来水公司等三公司签订的合同和上述新海公司的两份合同内容发生冲突,严重地侵犯了其合法权益,要求法院确认自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会签订的合同无效,江西省上饶市信州区人民法院于2001年5月8日作出[2001]饶信经初字第31号民事判决,支持了新海公司的请求。以第三人身份参加诉讼的金沙索道公司不服该判决向上饶市中级人民法院提起上诉。2001年6月26日,上饶市中级人民法院作出的(2001)饶中法民二终字第12号民事判决认为,1998年6月6日,浙江金华市自来水总公司、金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区、江西三清山旅游实业股份有限公司、玉山县三清山旅游总公司、江西三清山金沙旅游经济开发有限公司、海南亚洲制药有限公司签订的“关于重新调整三清山金沙索道有限公司股东及出资额的协议书”是对“关于组建三清山金沙索道有限责任公司协议书”的替代,三清山管委会已不再是三清山金沙索道有限责任公司的股东,不再受该协议的约束,该协议已不复存在,因而不存在协议的有效无效问题,因而判决维持新海公司与三清山管委会签订的“关于三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车的合同书”及“补充合同”合法有效,并撤销江西省上饶市信州区人民法院关于三管委与金沙索道公司股东所签协议无效的条款。2000年12月28日,新海公司(注册号496180)董事杨深泉向香港特区政府公司注册处递交《不营运私人公司撤销注册申请书》,香港公司注册处于2001年5月11日刊登公告,宣告新海公司(注册号 496180)于当日撤销,该公司亦在撤销时解散。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Jiangxi Higher Court held after trial that, SAC and Water Supply Company, et al were qualified to conclude the agreement in question, the contents of the agreement were clear and specific, the proposal on the location of the scenic spot was submitted level by level in accordance with relevant provisions, the approval was granted by the relevant authority, and each party to the agreement has performed part of their obligations, thus the agreement should be lawful and effective. Despite that the relevant clauses in the contract between SAC and Xinhai Company (registration number: 496180) and the Supplementary Contract denied the agreement concluded between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC, such a denial could not be tenable. Furthermore, Xinhai Company was revoked on May 11, 2001, and was no longer an qualified subject. SAC's allegation on the failure to perform the investment obligations under the agreement dated July 8, 1996 was not true to the fact, and its assertion made upon the said agreement that it had waived the status as an investor on its initiative had no legal basis. SAC has the power to initiate, examine and approve construction projects, but it delayed in performing the agreement for five years, thus it ought to compensate for the losses caused to Water Supply Company, et al. The claim of Water Supply Company, et al and Jinsha Company for performing the agreement should be supported, but the anticipated profits among the losses they claimed should not be counted because the investments had not been made yet. The properties invested by Water Supply Company, et al were still under their control, and thus should not fall within the scope of losses. The unnecessary travel expenses paid by Water Supply Company, et al for maintaining the status quo should be compensated by SAC. Therefore, Jiangxi Higher Court decided in accordance with Articles 44, 60 and 107 of the “Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”: 1. The agreement between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC on preparation and establishment of Jinsha Ropeway and Company shall be lawful and effective, and shall continue to be performed; 2. SAC shall compensate 100,000 Yuan of losses to Water Supply Company, et al due to its breach of the agreement; and 3. Other litigation claims of Water Supply Company, et al shall be rejected. For the 60,060 Yuan of case acceptance fee, SAC shall bear 40,000 Yuan, and Water Supply Company, et al bear 20,060 Yuan. 江西省高级人民法院经审理认为,三清山管委会与自来水公司等三公司签订的有关协议主体合格,内容清楚明确,景点选择已按照有关规定逐级上报,已取得国家有关部门的批准,协议各方都已按协议作了部分履行,应合法有效。三清山管委会以与新海公司(注册号496180)所签合同的有关条款及补充合同否定自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会所签订的内容明确的协议的主张是不能成立的。况且,新海公司已于2001年5月11日被注销,权利主体已不存在。三清山管委会称未履行1996年 7月8日协议约定的投资义务与事实不符,以1998年6月6日的协议主张自己已主动放弃了投资主体资格没有法律依据。三清山管委会具有建设项目的立项、审批职权,其不履行协议,无故拖延达五年之久,给自来水公司等三公司造成的损失应予赔偿。自来水公司等三公司及金沙索道公司要求履行协议的要求应予支持,其要求赔偿损失中的预期利润因其并未投资不应计算,自来水公司等三公司已经投资的财产因在其支配下,不应列入损失赔偿范围。自来水公司等三公司为维持现状造成不必要的旅差费等损失应由三清山管委会酌情赔偿。该院根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第四十四条、第六十条、第一百零七条的规定,判决:一、自来水公司等王公司与三清山管委会关于筹建、组建金沙索道及公司的协议合法有效,继续履行;二、三清山管委会因违约应赔偿自来水公司等三公司损失人民币10万元;三、驳回自来水公司等三公司的其他诉讼请求。案件受理费 60060元,由三清山管委会承担4万元,由自来水公司等三公司承担20060元。
Sanqingshan Company was dissatisfied with Jiangxi Higher Court's above mentioned civil judgment, and appealed to the present Court, alleging: (1) The judgment of the first instance is in conflict with another effective judgment, failed to find the true facts, is based on insufficient evidence, and had violated the relevant laws and regulations. The effective No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment of Jiangxi Higher Court ordered SAC to perform the contract to Hong Kong Xinhai Company regarding the construction of the second ropeway. According to the contract, the second ropeway shall be invested and built by Sanqingshan Company, but the judgment of the present case ordered SAC to perform a contract to Water Supply Company, et al regarding the ropeway, which is in conflict with another effective judgment. (2) It is wrong for the judgment of the first instance to affirm that the agreement between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC as effective, because No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, SAC and Sanqing Township Government were not qualified subjects, and had no capacity for civil conduct to conclude the agreement. Hence, the agreement shall be ineffective. (3) Although the location proposal on the ropeway has been approved, it does not mean the project had been initiated or not even mean the approval was specially granted for the performance of the agreement. Because the proposal is not a basis to determine whether a certain agreement is effective. (4) Since whether the parties have performed an agreement is not a condition for determining whether the agreement is lawful and effective, the judgment of the first instance has mixed up the effectiveness of a contract with the performance thereof. (5) The judgment of the first instance denied SAC's ground for demurral on the ground that Xinhai Company was revoked on May 11, 2001 and was no longer a party to the agreement, but such a denial cannot be tenable. (6) The procedures for making the judgment of the first instance were unlawful. Sanqingshan Company took part in the court proceedings of the first instance as a third person with independent claims, and raised its own litigation claims, thus the judgment should make some adjudication regarding Sanqingshan Company's claim. However, the judgment of the first instance did not affirm or decide on Sanqingshan Company's litigation claims in any way, which obviously violated the court proceedings. (7) Xinhai Company brought a separate lawsuit with regard to the dispute at issue. During the court proceedings, Jinsha Company took part in the litigation as a third person with independent claims, and Jiangxi Higher Court's trial was repeated. (8) After the present case was accepted by Jiangxi Higher Court, Sanqingshan Company raised its written objection to the jurisdictional power, but Jiangxi Higher Court directly made the judgment without making a ruling according to the law, and thus violated Article 140 of the “Civil Litigation Law”. (9) Some parties were omitted in the court proceedings of the present case. To determine whether the agreement is effective or ineffective or to be performed or not, the persons relevant to the agreement should be added as the parties concerned, otherwise there would be serious flaws with the litigation subjects and the substantive contents, and the lawful rights and interests of the parties concerned could not be fully protected. (10) In the judgment of the first instance, the application of laws was wrong as the effectiveness of the agreement between SAC and Water Supply Company, et al was governed by Article 44 and 60 of the “Contract Law” without any factual or evidential basis. 三清山索道公司不服江西省高级人民法院上述民事判决,向本院提起上诉称: (一)本案原审判决与已生效的判决相矛盾,且其认定事实不清,证据不足,与有关法律法规的规定相违背。江西省高级人民法院已经生效的(2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决已经判令三清山管委会就第二条索道的建设问题要向香港新海公司履行合同,按合同约定,具体由三清山索道公司投资承建,而本案判决三清山管委会就该索道又要向自来水公司等三公司履行合同,与已生效的判决相矛盾。(二)原审判决认定自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会签订的有关协议有效错误,浙江省金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区、三清山管委会及三清乡政府的主体资格不合格,不具有签订该项协议的民事行为能力的,其所签订的协议无效。(三)索道的选址得到有关部门的批准,并不意味着该项目就已立项,更不意味着该批准就是专门为履行协议而针对性的申报批准的,它不是确定某一协议是否有效的依据。(四)协议当事人是否履行了协议,并不是该协议是否合法有效的条件,原审判决混淆了合同效力和合同履行的法律关系。(五)原审判决以新海公司已于2001年5月11日被注销,权利主体已不存在为由否认三清山管委会的抗辩理由是不能成立的。(六)原审判决程序不合法。三清山索道公司在原审中是以有独立请求权的第三人的身份参加到诉讼当事人行列中来的,提出了自己的诉讼请求,判决时应对上诉人的请求予以判决。本案原审对上诉人的诉讼请求无任何认定和判决,显然违反了诉讼程序。(七)本案纠纷已经由香港新海公司另案提起诉讼。在诉讼期间,金沙索道公司已经以有独立请求权的第三人参加了诉讼,原审法院属重复审理。(八)本案原审法院受理后,三清山索道公司提出了书面的管辖权异议,原审法院未依法作出裁定而作出了迳行判决,违背了《民事诉讼法》第140条之规定。(九)本案在诉讼中遗漏当事人,既然认定协议有效或无效及是否继续履行的问题,就应将与协议相关的主体追加为当事人,否则就严重存在诉讼主体和实体上的瑕疵,不能全面保护当事人的合法权益。(十)原审判决适用法律错误。原审判决就三清山管委会与自来水公司等三公司所签协议的效力问题适用了《合同法谁敢欺负我的人》第44条60条等条之规定,是缺乏事实、证据基础的,适用法律错误。
Water Supply Company, et al argued: (1) The judgment of the first instance is not in conflict with the No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment. Firstly, the No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment is wrong. The “Contract on Cable Cars”, which was confirmed by the No. 12 (2001) judgment to be effective, and the so-called “Supplementary Contract” actually violate the “Anti-unfair Competition Law”, and no procedures for approval have been undergone in accordance with Article 3 of the “Law on Chinese-foreign Equity Joint Ventures” of China, so both of the contracts shall be void. Secondly, the No. 12 (2002) case and the present case are two lawsuits, and there were no conflicts or contradictions between them at all. What are to be confirmed in the two cases are two different contracts. (2) All the parties to the agreements between No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, SAC and Sanqing Township Government are qualified. Firstly, No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering was later admitted by Jinhua Construction Engineering, and the agreements were attached with the signature of Shen from No. 8 Engineering Zone. Therefore, as investors, both Shen and Jinhua Construction Engineering, were lawful and qualified parties. Secondly, Sanqing Township Government is an organization entitled to exercise both the functions of the grass-roots government and those of the farm, and is qualified as a party. (3) The judgment of the first instance correctly found the facts by describing “the proposal on the location of the scenic spot was submitted level by level in accordance with relevant provisions, the approval was granted by the relevant authority, and each party to the agreement has performed partial obligations”, but it did not say such facts were the only basis to affirm the effectiveness of the agreement. (4) The judgment of the first instance did not mix up the effectiveness of a contract with the performance thereof, nor did it affirm the failure to perform the agreement as partial performance in violation of the facts. (5) The judgment of the first instance did not violate any law procedurally. Sanqingshan Company did not raise its own litigation claims in the first instance at all. In fact, it participated in the present case as a third person without independent claim. The present case is a confirmative lawsuit concerning a contract, but Sanqingshan Company was not a party to the contract at all, and had no right to raise its litigation claims. Accordingly, the court did not have to adjudicate in this regard. (6) Jiangxi Higher Court did not “violate the relevant provisions on repeated trial” when accepting the present case. The Shangrao case and the present case are two different confirmative lawsuits. (7) Sanqingshan Company was a third person without independent claim in the first instance, and had no right to raise its objection to the jurisdictional power at all. Therefore, the objection was immediately rejected by Jiangxi Higher Court orally in court after being raised. At that moment, the judge asked Sanqingshan Company about whether it would appeal or not, and Sanqingshan Company answered no. (8) The present case is not a necessary joint lawsuit, and no other party needed to be added at all in the judgment confirming effectiveness of the contract, because the judgment has “fully protected the lawful rights and interests of the party concerned”. (9) In the judgment of the first instance, the application of laws was completely correct. The present case is mainly a confirmative lawsuit concerning a civil contract, and it is completely correct to be based on Article 44 and 60 of the “Contract Law” to confirm the effectiveness of a contract. (10) Jiangxi Sanqingshan Ropeway Co., Ltd. has no right to appeal. The present case is mainly a lawsuit for confirming the effectiveness of a contract. Sanqingshan Company was neither a contractual party, nor an obligor in the present case. In the first instance, it was in the identity of a third person without independent claims that Sanqingshan Company participated in the lawsuit, hence, in accordance with the “Civil Litigation Law光宗耀祖支撑着我去教室” of China and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, it had no right to appeal at all, or let alone to request the court to adjudicate the agreement between others as ineffective. 被上诉人自来水公司等三公司答辩称:(一)原审判决与(2002)赣民再终字第 12号民事判决并不矛盾。首先,(2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决是错误的。该案确认有效的《关于三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车的合同书》及所谓的《补充合同》,实际上违反了《反不正当竞争法》,而且也没有按照我国《中外合资经营企业法》第三条的规定履行审批手续,是无效的。其次, (2002)赣民再终字第12号案与本案是两个诉讼,根本无冲突不矛盾。两案要求确认的是两份不同的合同。(二)金华市建筑工程公司第八工区、三清山管委会与三清乡人民政府之间所签的有关协议主体是合格的。首先,金华市建筑工程公司第八工区后来已被金华市建筑工程公司追认了,且当初签协议的时候,均附有第八工区沈增富 (个人)的签名,故作为投资者,无论是沈增富个人还是金华市建筑工程公司都是合法合格的主体。其次,三清乡人民政府是“场乡合一”的组织,其既行使着基层政府的职能,同时又行使着农场这一经济组织的双重职权,它是具备主体资格的。(三)原审判决所述“景点选择已按照有关规定逐级上报,已取得国家有关部门批准,协议各方都已按照协议作了部分履行”,是对事实的正确认定,其并未说此即协议的有效的唯一依据。(四)原审判决并没有“混淆了合同效力和合同履行的法律关系”,也并没有“违背事实地将未履行协议认定为作了部分履行”。(五)原审判决在程序上并无违法之处。三清山索道公司在本案原审中根本没有提出过自己的诉讼请求,事实上,其是以无独立请求权的第三人身份进入本案当中来的。本案是合同确认之诉,上诉人根本不是合同一方的当事人,其既无权利提出自己的诉讼请求,法院当然无必要进行判决。 (六)原审法院受理本案中并没“违背了有关重复审理的规定”。上饶案与本案确认的是两个不同的诉讼。(七)三清山索道公司在原审中为无独立请求权的第三人,根据规定其完全无权提出管辖异议。因而,其提出异议后,原审法院就在法庭上当庭口头予以驳回了,当时,法官曾询问过三清山索道公司要否上诉,上诉人回答说:“不上诉算了”。(八)本案不是必要的共同诉讼,在确认合同有效的判决中,根本无需追加其他当事人。因为其已经“全面地保护了当事人的合法权益”了。(九)本案原审判决适用法律完全正确。本案主要为民事合同的确认之诉,对合同效力问题的确认,适用《合同法》的第44条和第60条好饿但是不想动完全是正确的。 (十)江西三清山索道有限公司对本案没有上诉权。本案主要是合同确认之诉,上诉人既不是合同一方的当事人,又非本案义务、承担者,原审中其是以无独立请求权的第三人身份参与进来的,因而依据我国《民事诉讼法》的规定和最高人民法院的司法解释,其根本无权对本案提起上诉,更无权对他人之间签订的协议请求判定其无效。
In addition to confirming the facts verified in the first instance, the present Court verified the following facts in the second instance: 1. As set forth in the “Ropeway Construction Agreement” concluded between the Administrative Committee of Yushan Sanqingshan Jinsha Tourism Development Zone and Sanqing R&C Center on December 28, 1995, both parties who propose their intent of preliminary cooperation shall seek investors in Jiangxi and Zhejiang respectively. 2. As set forth in the “Jinsha Ropeway Agreement” concluded between SAC, Zhejiang Jinhua Huangdaxian Co., Ltd., Jinhua Construction Engineering, No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Peng on May 10, 1995, all parties shall jointly invest to build up the “Jinsha-Goddess Peak” Ropeway in Sanqing Township. The ropeway is 2,105 meters long. Jinhua Construction Company is entrusted to undertake the general contract of the project quality and costs. The total construction costs shall be 13 million Yuan, with the profits and losses to be borne by Jinhua Construction Company itself; the quality shall meet relevant norms and standards of the state; the construction of the ropeway shall be completed within one year. 本院除对原审查明的事实予以确认外,二审另查明:1.原审判决所述玉山县三清山金沙旅游开发区管委会与金华市开发区三清休养度假中心于1995年12月28日签订的《关于筹建金沙女神索道协议书》的主要内容是协议双方提出初步合作意向,并约定由双方各自分头负责在江西和浙江联系投资单位。2.原审判决所述三清山管委会与浙江金华黄大仙有限公司、浙江金华市建筑工程公司、金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区、海南亚洲制药有限公司以及彭登国个人于1995年5月10日签订的《关于筹建三清乡金沙索道协议书》的主要内容是,各方约定共同投资兴建三清乡金沙至女神峰索道。索道全长2105米。委托金华市建筑公司总承包工程质量和费用,建设总费用为1300万元,自负盈亏;质量应符合国家有关规范和标准;索道建设要求在1年内完成。
During the second instance, Jiangxi Higher Court made No. 22 (2002) civil ruling on March 22, 2002, affirming that in the No. 12 (2001) final civil judgment of Shangrao Intermediate Court, the facts were not clearly found, the evidence was weak, and the adjudication was inappropriate. Jiangxi Higher Court ruled to bring up the case for trial. On May 9, 2004, Jiangxi Higher Court made No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment. This judgment of post-final instance mainly modified the No. 12 (2001) final civil judgment of Shangrao Intermediate Court in two aspects: 1. Since Xinhai Company was revoked and was disqualified as a party during the proceedings of the present case, the above said post-final judgment required Chen Xin, Xinhai Company's shareholder, to replace Xinhai Company to take part in the proceedings. 2. Item (1) of the No. 12 (2001) final civil judgment of Shangrao Intermediate Court (specifically, the “Contract on Cable Cars” between Xinhai Company and SAC as well as the “Supplementary Contract” shall be affirmed as effective, and both shall continue performing the contracts) shall be modified as follows: only the two contracts are affirmed as effective, and both parties shall not be directly ordered to continue performing the contracts. 本院二审期间,江西省高级人民法院于2002年3月22日以(2002)赣民监字第 22号民事裁定认定上饶市中级人民法院 (2001)饶中法字民二终字第12号民事判决认定事实不清,证据不足,处理不妥,裁定该案由江西省高级人民法院提审。2004年5月9日,江西省高级人民法院就该案作出(2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决,该再审判决对上饶市中级人民法院(2001)饶中法字民二终字第12号民事判决所作变更主要包括两个方面:1.因该案原审原告香港新海国际集团股份有限公司于诉讼期间被撤销,丧失主体资格,上述再审判决变更该公司股东陈新代替该公司参加诉讼。2.将上饶市中级人民法院(2001)饶中法字民二终字第12号民事判决第一项,即认定香港新海国际集团股份有限公司与三清山管委会签订的《关于三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车的合同书》以及《关于在三清山梯云岭景区架建旅游缆车合同书的补充合同》有效,双方应继续履行,变更为仅认定该两份合同有效,未直接判令双方继续履行。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The present Court held that, neither the “Jinsha Ropeway Agreement” nor the “Agreement on Establishing Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC”, regarding which Water Supply Company, et al pleaded with Jiangxi Higher Court to confirm the effectiveness, violated the compulsory provisions in any law or administrative regulation. None of the parties raised any demurral that the above contract was not its expression of their true will. According to the principle stated in Article 3 of the “Interpretation of the present Court concerning Several Issues on the Application of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China” on affirming the effectiveness of contracts and Article 52 of the “Contract Law”, the above said contract shall be affirmed as lawful and effective. In terms of the issue raised by Sanqingshan Company that No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering, SAC and Sanqing Township Government had no capacity to conclude civil agreements, it was found by the present Court from court hearing that in the process of developing Sanqingshan Scenery Resort, both Sanqing Township Government and SAC have enterprise functions and some administrative functions in respect of absorbing investments, etc., thus the civil contracts concluded between them within their scope of powers regarding the relevant development and construction projects within Sanqingshan Scenery Resort shall be affirmed as effective; although No. 8 Engineering Zone of Jinhua Construction Engineering is an internal office of Jinhua Construction Engineering, once the contract it concluded has been admitted by Jinhua Construction Engineering, the effectiveness of the contract shall not be affected. Therefore, the present Court does not support Sanqingshan Company's assertion in the appeal that the contract at issue shall be ineffective. 本院认为,自来水公司等三公司诉请原审法院确认效力的《关于筹建三清乡金沙索道协议书》以及《关于组建三清山金沙索道有限责任公司协议书》,其内容均不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定,各方当事人均未抗辩上述合同不是其真实意思表示,根据本院《关于适用<中华人民共和国合同法>若干问题的解释(一)》第三条所确立的认定合同效力的原则以及《合同法》第五十二条的规定,应认定上述合同合法有效。关于上诉人三清山索道公司提出的浙江省金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区、三清山管委会及三清乡政府不具有签订民事协议行为能力的问题,经本院审查,在三清山风景名胜区的开发发展过程中,三清乡政府和三清山管委会均负有招商引资等企业管理职能和部分行政管理职能,其在职权范围内就三清山风景名胜区内有关开发建设项目所签订的民事合同应认定有效;浙江省金华市建筑工程公司第八工程区虽为浙江省金华市建筑工程公司的内设机构。但其所签订的合同既然已经得到金华市建筑工程公司追认,其效力也不受影响。因此,三清山索道公司关于本案系争合同无效的上诉主张,本院不予支持。
As agreed upon between SAC and Xinhai Company in the contract involved, when the second ropeway really needs to be built within Sanqingshan (the first ropeway is the Cable Car Ropeway of Tiyunling Scenic Area of Sanqingshan, which has been built and put into use), it shall be invested and built by Sanqingshan Company. The effective No. 12 (2001) final civil judgment of Jiangxi Higher Court confirmed the effectiveness of the contract. After the above said agreement was concluded, SAC concluded with Water Supply Company, et al the “Jinsha Ropeway Agreement” and the “Agreement on Establishing Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC”, specifying the obligation of Water Supply Company, et al to build up Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway, as well as the route, length, quality standards, construction funds and construction period, etc. of the ropeway. Although SAC and Water Supply Company, et al concluded the contract later, the contract concluded between SAC and Xinhai Company earlier only sets forth that the second ropeway shall be solely invested and built by Sanqingshan Company, without specifying the route, length, quality standards, construction funds or construction period, etc. of the ropeway. Moreover, when SAC concluded the contract with Water Supply Company, et al, the second ropeway in Sanqingshan was not yet actually invested and built by Sanqingshan Company. Therefore, the contract concluded later does not constitute the objective inability of the subject matter from the very beginning, nor does the contract or the expression of wills of the parties concerned contain any factor leading to ineffectiveness. In conclusion, the contract between SAC and Water Supply Company shall not be ineffective or be different from the one concluded earlier in respect of effectiveness due to the fact that it was concluded later. Water Supply Company, et al and Xinhai Company may all request SAC to perform the contract upon strength of their respective contractual relationships. If SAC was to perform the contract it concluded with Water Supply Company, et al, that is to say, if Water Supply Company, et al were to invest to build up the second ropeway, actually Sanqingshan Company would lose the opportunity to build the second ropeway, and legally, SAC might breach the contact it concluded with Xinhai Company. Sanqingshan Company may lawfully request SAC to bear the liabilities for breach of contract, instead of requesting confirmation of the contract between SAC and Water Supply Company, et al as ineffective. Therefore, Sanqingshan Company's demurral to the effectiveness of the contract between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC on the ground that the effective No. 12 (2002) post-final civil judgment of Jiangxi Higher Court has confirmed the effectiveness of the contract between Xinhai Company and SAC is short of legal basis and shall not be supported by the present Court. Although what Xinhai Company pleaded with Xinzhou District Court to confirm was the effectiveness of the contract between Xinhai Company and SAC as well as that between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC, the effectiveness of the said contract was not tried in the post-final retrial instance (i.e., the instance on the No. 12 [2002] post-final civil judgment). Therefore, when Jiangxi Higher Court accepted the present case in the first instance and affirmed the effectiveness of the contract between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC, the procedures were lawful. Sanqingshan Company's appellate grounds that the first instance of the present case was a repeated lawsuit and that the judgment of the first instance was contradictive to an effective judgment shall not be supported by the present Court. 三清山管委会与新海公司在有关合同中约定,在三清山范围内确需建第二条旅游索道时(第一条索道系指已经建成并投入使用的三清山梯云岭景区空中旅游缆车),应由三清山索道公司投资承建,江西省高级人民法院已生效的(2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决确认了该合同的效力。在上述协议签订之后,三清山管委会又与自来水公司等三公司签订《关于筹建三清乡金沙索道协议书》以及《关于组建三清山金沙索道有限责任公司协议书》,明确约定了由自来水公司等三公司修建三清山金沙索道,并具体约定了索道线路、长度、质量标准、建设资金以及建设周期等相关内容。虽然三清山管委会与自来水公司等三公司的合同签订在后,但因三清山管委会与新海公司在此之前签订的合同仅约定第二条索道应由三清山索道公司独家投资承建,但双方尚未具体约定该索道线路、长度、质量标准、建设资金以及建设周期等内容,在三清山管委会又与自来水公司等三公司签订合同时,三清山第二条索道并未由三清山索道公司实际投资承建。因此,就合同标的而言,签订在后的合同并不构成自始客观不能,且该合同内容以及当事人意思表示均不存在无效因素,因此,三清山管委会与自来水公司的合同不因签订在后而无效或与签订在前的合同产生效力上的差异。自来水公司等三公司和香港新海国际集团有限公司均可依各自合同关系请求三清山管委会履行合同。如果三清山管委会履行其与自来水公司等三公司所签订的合同,即由自来水公司等三公司投资修建第二条索道,那么在事实上将导致三清山索道公司失去修建第二条索道的机会,在法律后果上可能构成三清山管委会对新海公司的违约。对此,三清山索道公司可以依法请求三清山管委会承担违约责任,而不能在本案中请求确认三清山管委会与自来水公司等三公司签订的合同无效。因此,上诉人三清山索道公司以本案原审法院已生效的 (2002)赣民再终字第12号民事判决已确认新海公司与三清山管委会合同效力为由,抗辩自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会所签订合同的效力,缺乏法律依据,本院不予支持。虽然,新海公司向江西省上饶市信州区人民法院起诉时请求确认的是新海公司与三清山管委会之间合同的效力以及自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会之间合同的效力,但该案业经再审,终审判决 (即[2002]赣民再终字第12号民事判决)对自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会之间合同的效力问题未予审理,因此,原审法院一审受理本案并对自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会之间合同的效力作出认定,程序合法,上诉人三清山索道公司有关本案一审系重复诉讼以及本案原审判决与已经生效判决相矛盾的上诉理由,本院不予支持。
In the present case, the contracts concluded between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC only established the rights and obligations of the contractual parties, and did not establish rights and obligations for Sanqingshan Company. As a subject other than the contractual parties, Sanqingshan Company had no right to raise any independent claim with regard to the effectiveness of an irrelevant contract or to the jurisdictional power over the lawsuit. Sanqingshan Company was notified by Jiangxi Higher Court to take part in the court proceedings, but it enjoyed no rights as a party to the litigation, nor did the judgment of the first instance order it to bear any liability. Hence, the present Court does not support any of its appellate grounds, such as the procedures were illegal because Jiangxi Higher Court did not decide on its litigation claims or make a written ruling on its objection to the jurisdictional power. The judgment of the first instance ordered SAC to compensate 100,000 Yuan of losses to Water Supply Company, et al, and SAC did not appeal. In accordance with Article 35 of the “Some Provisions of the present Court on the Reform of Courtroom Procedures for Civil and Economic Cases”, the present Court shall not accept this claim. The relevant adjudication items in the judgment of the first instance shall be directly sustained by the present Court. 就本案而言,自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会所签订的一系列合同仅设定了合同双方的权利义务关系,没有为三清山索道公司设定权利和义务,三清山索道公司作为该合同关系之外的主体,对不涉及自己利益的他人合同关系的效力以及诉讼管辖问题均没有独立的请求权。三清山索道公司虽由原审法院通知参加诉讼,但因其不具有当事人的诉讼权利且原审判决也未判令其承担责任,其所提出的原审法院未对其诉讼请求作出判决、未对其管辖异议作出书面裁定等程序违法的上诉理由,本院均不予支持。原审判决判令三清山管委会赔偿自来水公司等三公司损失人民币10万元,三清山管委会未提起上诉,根据本院《关于民事经济审判方式改革问题的若干规定》第三十五条的规定,对此本院不予审理,原审相关判项本院迳行予以维持。
JUDGMENT 
To sum up, in Sanqingshan Company's appellate grounds were not based on conclusive facts and legal basis, and thus should not be supported by the present Court. In the judgment of the first instance, the facts were clearly found, the series of contracts between Water Supply Company, et al and SAC were correctly affirmed to be effective and SAC was correctly ordered to perform its contractual obligations. However, since the start of construction under the contract on ropeway construction and the actual performance of the contract depend on the relevant administrative organ's approval and license which are not governed by civil legal relationships, the judgment of the first instance shall be properly modified in order to avoid conflicts between enforcement of the judgment and the administrative license power. Therefore, the present Court decided as follows in accordance with Items (1) and (3), Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”: 综上所述,三清山索道公司的上诉理由,其事实和法律依据不足,本院不予支持。本案原审判决认定事实清楚,认定自来水公司等三公司与三清山管委会签订的一系列合同有效并判令三清山管委会履行合同义务正确,但因索道建设合同的开工和实际履行需要有关行政机关的审批和许可,该行为不受民事法律关系调整,为了避免本判决在执行中与行政许可权产生冲突,对原审判决应予适当变更。据此,本院根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(一)项、第(三)项的规定,判决如下:
1. Items (2) and (3) of the principal text of No. 2 (2001) civil judgment of Jiangxi Higher Court shall be sustained; and 一、维持江西省高级人民法院(2001)赣民初字第2号民事判决主文的第二、三项;
2. Item (1) of the principal text of the above said civil judgment shall be modified as: the “Jinsha Ropeway Agreement” and the “Agreement on Establishing Sanqingshan Jinsha Ropeway LLC” concluded between Water Supply Company, Hainan Asia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Jinhua Construction Engineering and SAC shall be lawful and effective. 二、变更上述民事判决主文的第一项为:浙江金华市自来水总公司、海南亚洲制药有限公司、浙江金华市建筑工程公司与三清山管委会签订的《关于筹建三清乡金沙索道协议书》、《关于组建三清山金沙索道有限责任公司协议书》合法有效;
The case acceptance fee in the first instance shall be borne under the judgment of the first instance, while the 50 Yuan of case acceptance fee in the second instance shall be borne by Jiangxi Sanqingshan Ropeway Co., Ltd.. 一审案件受理费按照原审判决执行,二审案件受理费50元,由江西三清山索道有限公司承担。
The present judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Presiding Judge Jiang Wei 审 判 长 姜 伟
Acting Judge Chen Bailing 代理审判员 陈百灵
Acting Judge Lei Jiping 代理审判员 雷继平
November 9, 2004 二00四年十一月九日
Court Clerk Xia Dongxia

 书 记 员 夏东霞
 

     
     
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