General Trade of Hunan Province v. Changsha Sanitary and Anti-epidemic Station
(Case of Dispute over Contract for Assignment of Real Property)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Defendant of the Original Instance): Changsha Sanitary and Anti-epidemic Station, Hunan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Mo Renfang, chief of the station.@#
Appellee (Plaintiff of the Original Instance): General Trade of Hunan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Liu Yu'e, chairman of the union.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The General Trade of Hunan Province (hereinafter referred to as General ) brought a lawsuit to the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province against Changsha Sanitary and Anti-epidemic Station, Hunan Province (hereinafter referred to as Sanitary Station) for the dispute over contract for assignment of real property. This court made the first judgment that: 1. as both parties agreed to terminate the contract for assignment of real property, this court hereby approves it; 2. Sanitary Station shall return to General the assignment fees of 3.7 million yuan and the corresponding interests which shall be calculated on the monthly interest rate of 7.5‰, the general rate for infrastructure loans, since the date when the payment was made by General till the date of return; and 3. Sanitary Station shall pay damages of 2.75 million yuan to General . The case acceptance fee of 51,260 yuan and the attachment fee of 41,770 yuan shall be paid by General . Sanitary Station shall pay off all the above-mentioned payables within 2 months since the judgment becomes effective. If it fails to do so, the 12.9 mu land and the above-ground buildings owned by Sanitary Station at its new site located at Changsha Mars Development Zone will be auctioned to make the aforesaid payments, and any over-payment will be returned and any deficiency will be demanded.@#
．．．．．．

湖南省总工会诉长沙市卫生防疫站房地产转让合同纠纷案@#
@#
上诉人（原审被告）：湖南省长沙市卫生防疫站。@#
法定代表人：莫任芳，站长。@#
被上诉人（原审原告）：湖南省总工会。@#
法定代表人：刘玉娥，总工会主席。@#
@#
湖南省总工会（下称总工会）因与海南省长沙市卫生防疫站（下称防疫站）发生房地产转让合同纠纷，向湖南省高级人民法院提起诉讼。该院作出一审民事判决：一、双方当事人同意解除房地产转让合同，本院予以准许。二、防疫站退还总工会已付的转让费３７０万元及利息，利息按一般基建贷款月息７．５‰计算，自总工会付款之日起至收款之日止。三、长沙市卫生防疫站支付总工会赔偿金２７５万元。案件受理费５１２６０元、财产保全费４１７７０元全部由防疫站负担。以上应付款项，防疫站应在本判决生效后两个月内付清，逾期不付，拍卖该站在长沙市火星开发区新站址的１２．９亩土地及地上建筑物，以所得价款偿付总工会，多退少补。@#
防疫站不服一审民事判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉。其上诉理由是：１．双方签订的《房地产有偿划拨转让协议书》，因没有按双方的约定和法律的规定办理房产过户手续，尚未生效，法院不应保护。２．对方在履行协议中也有过错，不应由上诉人承担２７５万元赔偿金和已付的３７０万元转让费的利息，以及全部受理费和财产保全费。３．上诉人新站址的房地产是经长沙市人民政府规划的，法院无权将其拍卖。总工会辩称：双方签订的协议已经生效；上诉人违约给被上诉人造成了经济损失，应承担全部赔偿责任；上诉人新站址的房地产，是用被上诉人支付的转让费建设的，应将其作价抵偿给被上诉人。@#
最高人民法院审理查明：防疫站经上级批准，决定迁址新建，以适应卫生防疫事业的发展；总工会为解决直属单位住宿、办公用房决定征用防疫站的旧站址建房，得到全国总工会的批准。双方就旧站址的房地产划拨转让进行了多次协商，在经长沙市政府及其土地管理局、城建局等有关部门办了手续后，于１９９１年６月２２日签订《房地产有偿划拨转让协议书》。双方约定，防疫站将长沙市民主西街８号６亩土地使用权及地上７２５９．９平方米房屋及其他附属设施的所有权，作价５５０万元划拨转让给总工会。协议生效后３０天内，总工会付给防疫站转让费２５０万元，１９９２年５月３１日前再付１００万元。１９９３年２月底防疫站交付３栋住宅楼（３５６３平方米）后，总工会于同年３月１０日前付给防疫站１２０万元；余下８０万元待防疫站１９９４年３月底前将全部房地产交付总工会，经验收双方签字认可后半个月内，总工会一次付清。协议还约定两项违约赔偿条款，即双方不得以任何借口不履行协议，也不得提出协议以外的要求，不论哪方违约，不划拨转让或不接受划拨转让上述房地产，均按转让费总价格的５０％向对方交纳赔偿金。如果总工会逾期付款，每逾一日，按已付款数的３％向防疫站交纳赔偿金；如防疫站逾期交房，亦按对等条件向总工会交纳赔偿金。@#
．．．．．．