>>>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
 
No. 9 of Nine Model Trial Cases Involving Environmental Resources Published by the Supreme People's Court: Wang Shilong v. Liu Junbo for Dispute over a Contract on Transfer of Mining Rights
最高法院公布的九起环境资源审判典型案例之九:王仕龙与刘俊波采矿权转让合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

No. 9 of Nine Model Trial Cases Involving Environmental Resources Published by the Supreme People's Court: Wang Shilong v. Liu Junbo for Dispute over a Contract on Transfer of Mining Rights
最高法院公布的九起环境资源审判典型案例之九:王仕龙与刘俊波采矿权转让合同纠纷案
[核心术语]
采矿权转让;报批手续;解除合同
[争议焦点]
1.当事人签订采矿权转让合同后,未依法履行报批手续的,一方提起诉讼要求解除合同时,法院能否判令双方按照各自义务办理相应报批手续?
[案例要旨]
根据《合同法》的规定,一般的合同自合同成立时生效。法律和行政法规规定需要经批准或者登记才能生效的合同,当事人应当办理相应的报批手续。当事人签订采矿权转让合同后,未依法履行报批手续的,此时合同尚未生效。但按照法律规定,合法成立的合同仍然对双方当事人具有法律拘束力,即当事人应当积极履行各自的义务,促使合同生效,以维护交易各方的合法权益。因此,在这种情况下,如果一方提起诉讼要求解除合同的,法院不应当支持其主张,而是应当判令双方按照各自义务办理相应报批手续,积极促使合同生效,以符合合同法鼓励交易、创造财富的原则。
No. 9 of Nine Model Trial Cases Involving Environmental Resources Published by the Supreme People's Court: Wang Shilong v. Liu Junbo for Dispute over a Contract on Transfer of Mining Rights 最高法院公布的九起环境资源审判典型案例之九:王仕龙与刘俊波采矿权转让合同纠纷案
1. Basic Facts (一)基本案情
On August 27, 2007, Wang Shilong, in the name of Xinglong County Simin Marble Quarry, entered into a contract on mine transfer with Liu Junbo which stipulated that Wang Shilong transferred Xinglong County Simin Marble Quarry to Liu Junbo at the price of 3.05 million yuan. Such contents as payment terms and liabilities for breach of contract were also stipulated in the contract. After conclusion of the contract, Liu Junbo made a payment of transfer of 1.335 million yuan in total. Liu Junbo built mine roads and some workshops, but he did not exploit the marble mine. Afterwards, Wang Shilong instituted a lawsuit on the ground that Liu Junbo failed to make a payment in full amount, and requested the court to order that the contract on mine transfer should be terminated and Liu Junbo should return the mine and pay liquidated damages of 760,000 yuan. Liu Junbo raised a counterclaim and requested the court to order that Wang Shilong should continue to perform the contract and compensate for the losses of 1,088,000 yuan. 2007年8月27日,王仕龙以兴隆县龙思敏大理石厂的名义与刘俊波订立了矿山转让合同书,该合同约定王仕龙将兴隆县龙思敏大理石厂作价305万元转让给刘俊波。合同还对付款期限,违约责任等内容进行了约定。合同签订后,刘俊波共支付转让款等款项共计133.5万元。刘俊波修建了矿路及部分厂房,但未对该大理石矿进行开采。后王仕龙以刘俊波未足额付款为由提起诉讼请求判令解除矿山转让合同,刘俊波返还矿山并给付违约金76万元。刘俊波提起反诉请求判令王仕龙继续履行合同并赔偿损失108.8万元。
2. Judgment
来自北大法宝
 (二)裁判结果
After the first-instance hearing, the Intermediate People's Court of Chengde City entered a judgment to dismiss claims of both parties. Both parties refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province. After the second-instance hearing-, the court held that: Both Wang Shilong and Liu Junbo recognized that the subject matter of the transfer contract in this case was the marble mine and corresponding mining rights, the contract on mine transfer concluded between them has been established, but the contract did not take effect until they handled approval formalities at the relevant department according to the law. Due to unclear stipulations on formalities for mine transfer in the contract, both parties were liable for the non-performance of the contract. For a contract that did not take effect until it was approved or registered under the relevant law or administrative regulation, both parties should proactively perform their respective obligations, promote the effectiveness of the contract, and safeguard the lawful rights and interests of all parties to the transaction. In February 2011, the second-instance court entered a judgment and ordered that Wang Shilong and Liu Junbo should submit corresponding materials to the relevant department according to their respective obligations and apply for handling approval formalities for transfer of Xinglong County Simin Marble Quarry. Wang Shilong still refused to accept the judgment and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court rendered a ruling to dismiss the application for retrial. 承德市中级人民法院一审判决驳回双方的诉讼请求。双方不服上诉至河北省高级人民法院。该院二审认为,王仕龙和刘俊波均认可本案转让合同的标的物为大理石矿及相应采矿权,双方所签矿山转让合同已成立,但属于依照法律规定应到相关部门办理批准手续才能生效的合同。由于合同对移交矿山手续等约定不明,双方对合同未能履行均负有责任。对于按照法律、行政法规的规定须经批准或者登记才能生效的合同,双方当事人均应积极履行各自的义务,促使合同生效,以维护交易各方的合法权益。二审法院于2011年2月作出判决,判令王仕龙、刘俊波按照各自义务向有关部门提交相关资料,申请办理转让兴隆县龙思敏大理石矿的批准手续。王仕龙仍不服,向最高人民法院申请再审,最高人民法院裁定驳回再审申请。
3. Significance聊五分钱的天吗 (三)典型意义你怀了我的猴子
Mineral resources were important material basis for human existence and sustainable development of economy and society. The approval of transfer of mining rights was an important system for the state to regulate the orderly circulation of mining rights and implement the scientific protection and rational development of mineral resources. Where the transfer of mining rights was not approved, the transfer contract did not come into force. In the hearing of this case, the second-instance court , in strict accordance with the law, determined that the transfer contract did not take effect because it was not approved, ordered both parties to handle approval formalities for transfer of mining rights according to their respective obligations, and proactively promoted the effectiveness of the contract, which not only maintained the transaction order at the mining right market, but conformed to the principle of encouraging transaction and creating wealth of the Contract Law. 矿产资源是人类生存和经济社会可持续发展的重要物质基础。采矿权的转让审批,是国家规范采矿权有序流转,实现矿产资源科学保护、合理开发的重要制度。采矿权转让未经审批的,转让合同尚未发生法律效力。二审法院在审理本案过程中严格依照法律规定,认定转让合同因未经审批而未生效,并判令双方按照各自义务办理采矿权转让报批手续,积极促使合同生效,维护了采矿权市场交易秩序,也符合合同法鼓励交易、创造财富的原则。
     
     
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