>>>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
 
Weihai Kunpeng Investment Co., Ltd. v. Weihai Xigang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. & Shandong Key Construction Industrial Co., Ltd. (Case of Jurisdictional Objection on Dispute over Land Use Right)
威海鲲鹏投资有限公司与威海西港房地产开发有限公司、山东省重点建设实业有限公司土地使用权纠纷管辖权异议案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 11-09-2005
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 5,2006

Weihai Kunpeng Investment Co., Ltd. v. Weihai Xigang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. & Shandong Key Construction Industrial Co., Ltd. (Case of Jurisdictional Objection on Dispute over Land Use Right)
(Case of Jurisdictional Objection on Dispute over Land Use Right)
威海鲲鹏投资有限公司与威海西港房地产开发有限公司、山东省重点建设实业有限公司土地使用权纠纷管辖权异议案

Weihai Kunpeng Investment Co., Ltd. v. Weihai Xigang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. & Shandong Key Construction Industrial Co., Ltd.
(Case of Jurisdictional Objection on Dispute over Land Use Right)

 

威海鲲鹏投资有限公司与威海西港房地产开发有限公司、山东省重点建设实业有限公司土地使用权纠纷管辖权异议案

 【裁判摘要】
 判断基于同一纠纷而提起的两次起诉是否属于重复起诉,应当结合当事人的具体诉讼请求及其依据,以及行使处分权的具体情况进行综合分析。如果两次起诉的当事人不同,具体诉讼请求等也不同,相互不能替代或涵盖,则人民法院不能简单地因两次起诉基于同一纠纷而认定为重复起诉,并依照“一事不再理”的原则对后一起诉予以驳回。
Supreme People's Court 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
No. 86 [2005] of the First Civil Tribunal (2005)民一终字第86号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Plaintiff of the Original Instance): Weihai Kunpeng Investment Co., Ltd., located at No.9 North Binhai Road, Weihai City, Shandong Province. 上诉人(原审原告):威海鲲鹏投资有限公司,住所地山东省威海市海滨北路9号。
Legal Representative: Liu Changshui, board chairman of the company. 法定代表人:刘长水,董事长。
Authorized agent: Liu Jinghong, lawyer from Shandong Huatian Law Firm. 委托代理人:刘景红,山东华田律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Defendant of the Original Instance): Weihai Xigang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., located at No.315 Shenyang Road, Weihai City, Shandong Province. 被上诉人(原审被告):威海西港房地产开发有限公司,住所地山东省威海市沈阳路315号。
Legal Representative: Miao Yanfei, board chairman of the company. 法定代表人:苗延飞,董事长。
Authorized Agent: Meng Ying, lawyer from Shandong Jueping Law Firm. 委托代理人:孟颖,山东觉平律师事务所律师。
Third Party of the Original Instance: Shandong Key Construction Industrial Co., Ltd., located at No.46 Jingwu Xiaowei Silu, Jinan City, Shandong Province. 原审第三人:山东省重点建设实业有限公司,住所地山东省济南市经五小纬四路46号。
Legal Representative: Zhao Xianqing, board chairman of the company. 法定代表人:赵先清,董事长。
The appellant, Weihai Kunpeng Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kunpeng Company) was dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment No. 8 [2005] of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, and filed an appeal at the Supreme People's Court against the appellee, Weihai Xigang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xigang Company) and the third party of the original instance, Shandong Key Construction Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Key Construction Company) concerning the case of jurisdictional objection on dispute over land use right. This Court formed a collegial panel according to law, and inquired Kunpeng Company and Xigang Company on October 26th, 2005. Liu Jinghong, authorized agent of Kunpeng Company and Meng Ying, authorized agent of Xigang Company, participated in the inquiry. The hearing of the present case has now been concluded. 上诉人威海鲲鹏投资有限公司(以下简称鲲鹏公司)为与被上诉人威海西港房地产开发有限公司(以下简称西港公司)、原审第三人山东省重点建设实业有限公司 (以下简称重点建设公司)土地使用权纠纷一案,不服山东省高级人民法院(2005)鲁民一初字第8号民事裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,于2005年10月 26日对鲲鹏公司和西港公司进行了询问。鲲鹏公司的委托代理人刘景红,西港公司的委托代理人孟颖参加询问。本案现已审理终结。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
During the first instance, Xigang Company raised an objection within the period for defense. It held that this case was actually sued on the basis of the same parties concerned and the same contract-related facts with the civil case No.5 [2005] of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, the first instance court's acceptance of this case was actually a behavior of a repeated establishment of a same case. Kunpeng Company defended during the first instance that this case was an action of performance, while the civil case No.5 [2005] of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province was an action of confirmation, thus the first instance court's acceptance of this case was not a behavior of repeated establishment of a same case. 一审法院在审理本案的过程中,西港公司在答辩期内提出异议,认为本案与山东省高级人民法院(2005)鲁民一初字第5号民事案件系同一实质标的和同一合同事实再次起诉,一审法院受理本案属重复立案。鲲鹏公司一审期间对此答辩认为,本案为给付之诉,山东省高级人民法院(2005)鲁民一初字第5号案件为确认之诉,一审法院受理本案不属重复立案。
Upon trial, the first instance court held that, the case of dispute over land use right between Kunpeng Company on the one hand, and Xigang Company and Key Construction Company on the other hand (hereinafter referred to as Civil Case No.8), and the case of dispute over the contract of real estate development cooperation filed by Xigang Company against Kunpeng Company and was put on record on May 26th, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Civil Case No.5) involved the same litigants, same case facts and same legal relations. 1. With respect to the parties concerned, Kunpeng Company included Key Construction Company as the third party in its case of dispute over land use right filed against Xigang Company and Key Construction Company, but as it did not make any claim against it, Key Construction Company was a third person without any independent claim right in terms of its legal status, so the parties concerned of the two cases were basically same. 2. With respect to the case facts, the focus of both the case of dispute over land use right filed by Kunpeng Company against Xigang Company and the case of dispute over the contract on real estate development and cooperation filed by Xigang Company against Kunpeng Company lay in the effectiveness of the Contract on Real Estate Development and Cooperation concluded by both parties on March 25th, 2003. So the case facts of the two cases were the same. 3. With respect to the legal relations, all the disputes occurred between Kunpeng Company and Xigang Company were about the relation of rights and duties resulting from a contract on real estate development and cooperation. Therefore, both cases involved the same litigants, facts and legal relations. The claim of Kunpeng Company in the present case should be lodged as a counter suit in the case of dispute over the contract on real estate development and cooperation, which had been put on record and tried by the court of the first instance, filed against it by Xigang Company (Civil Case No.5) after applying for the addition of the third party, and should be tried and concluded together with that case instead of lodging another suit on the basis of same litigants and same contract facts. Kunpeng Company's act of lodging another suit not only added the burden of action of the parties concerned, wasted the suit resources of court, but also violated the principle of “no repeated trial of a same matter” as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Thus the objection presented by Xigang Company shall be established. Therefore, in accordance with Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first instance rejected the suit filed by Kunpeng Company against Xigang Company and Key Construction Company. 一审法院经审查认为,鲲鹏公司与西港公司、重点建设公司土地使用权纠纷一案(以下简称第8号民事案件),与2005年 5月26日立案的西港公司诉鲲鹏公司房地产开发合作合同纠纷一案(以下简称第 5号民事案件)主体相同,案件事实相同,法律关系相同。1.在主体方面,虽然鲲鹏公司诉西港公司、重点建设公司土地使用权纠纷一案中,增加了第三人重点建设公司,但在诉讼请求中,未向其主张任何权利,从法律地位看,重点建设公司应为无独立请求权第三人,因此,两案的主体基本相同。 2.在案件事实方面,无论鲲鹏公司诉西港公司土地使用权纠纷,还是西港公司诉鲲鹏公司房地产开发合作合同纠纷,双方诉争的焦点主要是2003年3月25日双方签订的《房地产开发合作合同》效力问题,故两案的事实相同。3.在法律关系方面,鲲鹏公司与西港公司双方发生的纠纷均围绕着一个房地产开发合作合同而产生的权利义务关系。所以两案的主体相同,事实相同,法律关系相同。本案鲲鹏公司的诉讼请求应当在一审法院已经立案审理的西港公司诉其房地产开发合作合同纠纷一案(第5号民事案件)中提起反诉,申请追加第三人,一并审理解决,而没有必要就同一实质标的和同一合同事实再次起诉,鲲鹏公司再次起诉的行为既增加了当事人诉累,又造成法院诉讼资源的浪费,同时违反了《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》一事不得再理的原则。西港公司提出的异议成立。据此,一审法院依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条,《最高人民法院关于适用 <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第139条之规定,于2005年8月29日裁定驳回鲲鹏公司对西港公司、重点建设公司的起诉。
Kunpeng Company was dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, appealed to this court and claimed that: 1. The descriptions in the ruling of the first instance was not true to the case facts. It submitted an application for changing the third party into defendant and making it bear joint and several liabilities for compensation resulting form the nullification of the contract on August 24th, 2005 during the first instance; 2. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment of rejecting a suit shall be signed by the judges and clerks who hear the case, while as members of the collegial panel were judges of Case Filing Tribunal, there existed a procedural error; 3. The ground of repeated establishment of a same case as held by the first instance was not tenable, as the first instance determined that Kunpeng Company should be entitled to lodge counter suit, which exactly means that it was not a repetitive lawsuit; 4. The two cases were different in nature, claims and the amount, the object, subject and the quantity, legal facs, and legal relation of lawsuit, thus shall not be regarded as a repetitive lawsuit; 5. Kunpeng Company's lawsuit was in compliance with Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, while the basis of the judgment of the first instance, Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was about jurisdiction objection, and Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was about the circumstances when the conditions for bringing an action are not satisfied, thus the application of law was wrong. 鲲鹏公司不服一审裁定,向本院提出上诉称:1.一审裁定书叙述的内容与案件事实不符,其在一审中已经于2005年8月 24日提交申请,请求将第三人变更为被告,并承担合同无效的连带赔偿责任;2.根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第139条第2款,驳回起诉裁定应当由负责审理该案的审判员、书记员署名,而本案合议庭成员为立案庭法官,故程序错误;3.一审认为重复立案的理由不成立,因为一审认定鲲鹏公司可以提出反诉恰恰说明不属于重复起诉;4.两个案件的诉讼性质、诉讼请求及数量、诉讼标的物、诉讼主体及数量、法律事实和法律关系均不相同,不属于重复起诉;5.鲲鹏公司的起诉符合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条的规定,而一审裁定依据的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条针对管辖权异议,《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第139条针对不符合起诉条件的情形,适用法律错误。
Xigang Company defended that: 1. The conclusions reached in the Civil Case No.5 and Civil Case No.28 [2005] of the Intermediate People's Court of Weihai City, Shandong Province had actually solved the claims made by Kunpeng Company in the present case, thus Kunpeng Company was filing a repeated action; 2. The court of first instance's determination that this case was a repetitive lawsuit is compatible with the case facts and legal provisions, Kunpeng Company's claim for adding the defendant or changing its claims lacked factual and legal basis; 3. The proceedings of the court of first instance complied with the Interim Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Filing of Cases of the People's Court; 4. The court of first instance rejected the suit brought by Kunpeng Company but did not deprived it of its right of action, Kunpeng Company may apply for making further claims in the Civil Case No.5, and it was not necessary to bring another suit. 西港公司答辩称:1.第5号民事案件与山东省威海市中级人民法院(2005)威民一初字第28号民事案件的结论解决了鲲鹏公司在本案中的诉求,鲲鹏公司再次提起诉讼属于重复起诉;2.一审法院对本案重复起诉的认定,符合案件事实及法律规定,鲲鹏公司主张追加被告、变更诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据;3.一审法院审理程序,符合最高人民法院《关于人民法院立案工作的暂行规定》;4.一审法院驳回鲲鹏公司的起诉,并未剥夺其诉权,鲲鹏公司可以在第5号民事案件中申请追加,没有必要另行起诉。
Upon trial, this court verified that, on May 25th, 2005, Kunpeng Company brought a lawsuit against Xigang Company to the Intermediate People's Court of Weihai City, Shandong Province, pleaded the court to confirm that the Contract on Real Estate Development and Cooperation concluded by both parties was effective, and required Xigang Company to handle the construction permission formalities and pay the relevant fees. On May 26th, 2005, Xigang Company brought a lawsuit against Kunpeng Company to the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province and pleaded the court to determine that the Contract on Real Estate Development and Cooperation concluded by both parties was invalid. The Higher People's Court combined the aforesaid two actions together as Civil Case No. 5, and held a hearing on this case on July 11th, 2005. On July 25th, 2005, Kunpeng Company brought this suit to the court of first instance and pleaded the court to adjudicate Xigang Company to deliver land use right in accordance with the Contract on Real Estate Development and Cooperation concluded by both parties. 本院经审理查明,2005年5月25日, 鲲鹏公司在山东省威海市中级人民法院起诉西港公司,请求确认双方签订的《房地产开发合作合同》有效,并要求西港公司办理合作项目的开工手续及缴纳相应费用。 2005年5月26日,西港公司在山东省高级人民法院起诉鲲鹏公司,请求确认双方之间的《房地产开发合作合同》无效。山东省高级人民法院将前述两个诉讼合并为第 5号民事案件,并于2005年7月11日,对该案进行了开庭审理。2005年7月25日,鲲鹏公司向一审法院提起本案诉讼,请求西港公司按照双方的《房地产开发合作合同》交付土地使用权。
Kunpeng Company submitted an Application for Adding a Defendant and Changing Claims to the court of first instance on August 24th, 2005, before the expiration of the time limit for the presenting of evidence, in which it pleaded the court to change the third party, Key Construction Company, into a defendant and to adjudicate that the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Xigang Company and Key Construction Company was invalid, and that both companies shall bear joint and several liabilities for compensation. The court of first instance received the application on August 25th, 2005. 鲲鹏公司于2005年8月24日举证期限届满前向一审法院提出《追加被告、变更诉讼请求申请书》,申请将第三人重点建设公司变更为被告,并请求判令西港公司与重点建设公司之间的《合作协议书》无效,由西港公司与重点建设公司承担连带赔偿责任。一审法院于2005年8月25日收到该申请书。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
This court held that, whether this case was repeatedly sued shall be comprehensively judged according to the basis of claims of parties concerned and the specific situation of the exercise of right of disposal. In the Application for Adding Defendant and Changing Claims submitted on August 24th, 2005, Kunpeng Company had already changed Key Construction Company into defendant, so the parties concerned in this case were different from those in Civil Case No. 5. Kunpeng Company's claim in the Civil Case No. 5 was a joinder of action of confirmation and action of performance, but as the claims of performance in this case was different form those of the action of performance lodged on July 25th, 2005, the claims made by Kunpeng Company in the Civil Case No. 5 could not cover the claims made in this case. In addition, as Kunpeng Company had already changed its claim into “pleading the court to adjudicate that the Cooperation Agreement concluded between Xigang Company and Key Construction is invalid and that both Xigang Company and Key Construction Company shall bear joint and several liabilities for compensation” in its Application for Adding a Defendant and Changing Claims, therefore, the claims of this case were different from those of the Civil Case No. 5. As for the judgment of the first instance that Kunpeng Company's action violated the principle of “no repeated hearing of a same matter” as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and that the suit filed by Kunpeng Company against Xigang Company and Key Construction Company shall be rejected, its application of law is wrong and shall be corrected. 本院认为,本案是否构成重复起诉,应当结合当事人诉讼请求的依据及行使处分权的具体情况进行综合判断。鲲鹏公司在 2005年8月24日《追加被告、变更诉讼请求申请书》中,已将重点建设公司变更为被告,故本案与第5号民事案件的当事人并不相同。鲲鹏公司在第5号民事案件中的诉讼请求为确认之诉与给付之诉的合并之诉,但该案诉讼请求中的给付内容与本案鲲鹏公司于2005年7月25日提起的给付之诉的内容并不相同,鲲鹏公司在第5号民事案件中的诉讼请求不能涵盖本案中鲲鹏公司的诉讼请求。且鲲鹏公司在《追加被告、变更诉讼请求申请书》中,已将本案诉讼请求变更为“请求判令西港公司与重点建设公司之间的《合作协议书》无效,并由西港公司与重点建设公司承担连带赔偿责任”,故本案与第5号民事案件诉讼请求亦不相同。一审裁定认为鲲鹏公司的起诉违反《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》一事不再理的原则,驳回鲲鹏公司对西港公司和重点建设公司的起诉,适用法律错误,应予纠正。
JUDGMENT 
In conclusion, in accordance with Article 187 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this court ruled that: 综上,依据最高人民法院《关于适用 <中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》第187条之规定,裁定如下:
1. the civil rule No. 8 [2005] of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province shall be overruled; 一、撤销山东省高级人民法院(2005)鲁民一初字第8号民事裁定;
2. the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province is ordered to try this case. 二、指令山东省高级人民法院对本案进行审理。
Presiding Justice He Xiaorong 审 判 长 贺小荣
Justice Zhang Yafen 审 判 员 张雅芬
Acting Justice Song Chunyu 代理审判员 宋春雨
November 9th, 2005 二00五年十一月九日
Clerk Yu Wenjun

 书 记 员 虞文君
 

     
     
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