Wuhan Zhonglian Securities Labor Service Company v. HKM Cheung Hing Industrial Limited
(Case Concerning the Disputer over Return of Property)@#
@#
@#
@#
Supreme People's Court@#
No. 1 [2005] Civil Judgment of the Retrial Instance of the Fourth Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff in the Original Trial: Wuhan Zhonglian Securities Labor Service Company, domiciled at No. 9, Qingdao Road, Jiang'an District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province.@#
Legal Representative: Ding Daochun, general manager of this company.@#
Defendant in the Original Trial: HKM Cheung Hing Industrial Limited, domiciled at Flat A, Dequn Plaza R/C, Est. Adolfo Loureiro, No. 26, Macao.@#
Legal Representative: Zheng Yanguang, board chairman of this company.@#
Authorized Agent: Guan Anping, attorney of Beijing Anping & Partners Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Peng Xuejun, attorney of Beijing Anping & Partners Law Firm.@#
As for the case concerning the dispute over return of property between Wuhan Zhonglian Securities Labor Service Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhonglian Co.) and HKM Cheung Hing Industrial Limited (hereinafter referred to as HKM Co.), the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province made the No.73 [1996] Civil Mediation Agreement of the First Instance of the Economic Division of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province (hereinafter referred to as the No.73 [1996] Civil Mediation Agreement) on November 7, 1996, which has taken effect. Because HKM Co. applied for retrial, the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province made the No.10 [2001] Civil Mediation Agreement of the Retrial Instance of the Trial Supervision Division of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province (hereinafter referred to as the No. 10 [2001] Civil Mediation Agreement) on March 23, 2001 upon retrial. Afterwards, because Macao Fucheong Property, a party not involved in the case, presented an objection, the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province retried this case for the second time, and made the No. 5 [2003] Civil Ruling of the Retrial Instance of the Trial Supervision Division of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province (hereinafter referred to as the No. 5 [2003] Civil Ruling) on September 5, 2003. Upon review, this court made the No.19 [2005] Civil Ruling of the Review Instance of the Fourth Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the No.19 [2005] Civil Ruling) on July 15, 2005 and decided to bring this case up for trial. This court convened a collegial panel consisting of Lu Xiaolong as the presiding judge, Ren Xuefeng and Gao Xiaoli as acting judges, and Liu Yongshen as the court clerk, and tried this case publicly on November 17, 2005. Zheng Yanguang, Guan Anping and Peng Xuejun appeared in the court, and Zhonglian Co. refused to appear in the court to respond to the lawsuit after being legally summoned by this court without any justifiable cause. This case has now been finalized.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The Higher People's Court of Hubei Province found in the first instance that: on November 16, 1994, HKM Co. and Zhonglian Co. entered into an agreement on joint development of Shijiazhuang Railway Station Air Conditioning Waiting Hall, which stipulates that: up to the end of November 1994, HKM Co. will contribute 11,000,000 yuan and Zhonglian Co. will contribute 9,000,000 yuan, and the investment will be recovered within 18 months, and the annual interests thereof will be calculated at the rate of 25%; after the investment has been recovered, the business revenue from Shijiazhuang Railway Station Waiting Hall for the remaining eight years and six months will be allotted to HKM Co. and Zhonglian Co. respectively at the percent of 55% and 45%. After the said agreement was concluded, Zhonglian Co. remitted the 9,000,000 yuan to HKM Co. as stipulated. On April 5, 1995, HKM Co. entered into a joint venture contract with Shijiazhuang Railway Station Huatong Controlling Company for jointly operating Shijiazhuang Railway Station Waiting Hall, and HKM Co. took 45% of equities. On March 23, 1996, HKM Co. issued an Equity Transfer Letter to Zhonglian Co., which said: “As for the 12,375,000 yuan of investment principal and investment returns this company owes to your company, if they can not be returned before June 30, 1996, this company is willing to transfer all the 45% of our equities in the project of Shijiazhuang Railway Station Waiting Hall to your company.” Because HKM Co. did not fulfill its duties, Zhonglian Co. lodged a lawsuit against HKM Co. with the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province on August 27, 1996, and requesting HKM Co. to pay the 9,000,000 yuan of investment principal and the 3,375,000 yuan of investment returns as stipulated, as well as the default interest thereof. During the trial process, upon mediation of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province, both parties reached the following agreement: 1. HKM Co. should pay the 9,000,000 yuan of investment principal, 3,375,000 yuan of investment returns and 810,000 yuan of default interest, which totaled to 13,180,000 yuan, to Zhonglian Co. before December 31, 1996; otherwise, the execution would be carried out according to Article 232 of the Civil Litigation Law; 2. as for the 81,885 yuan of case acceptance fee, 8,115 yuan of other litigation costs, 62,395 yuan of property preservation fee, which totaled to 142,395 yuna, Zhonglian Co. should assume 71,197.50 yuan, and HKM Co. should assume 71,197.50 yuan. The 142,395 yuan of litigation costs and property preservation fees had been paid by Zhonglian Co. in advance, and HKM Co. should pay its part to Zhonglian Co. before December 31, 1996. The Higher People's Court of Hubei Province made the No.73 [1996] Civil Mediation Agreement on November 7, 1996 to confirm the said agreement.@#
．．．．．．

武汉中联证券劳动服务公司与港澳祥庆实业返还财产纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第八十五条的规定，人民法院审理民事案件，根据当事人自愿进行调解的，也必须在事实清楚的基础上分清是非。@#
二、对于已经发生法律效力的调解书，当事人虽然没有申请再审，但损害了案外人的合法权益，人民法院发现确有错误，必须进行再审的，人民法院可以按照审判监督程序进行再审。@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2005)民四提字第1号@#
@#
原审原告：武汉中联证券劳动服务公司。住所地：湖北省武汉市江岸区青岛路9号。@#
法定代表人：丁道纯，该公司经理。@#
原审被告：港澳祥庆实业。住所地：澳门特别行政区罗利老马路26号德群大厦地下1铺。@#
法定代表人：郑炎光，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：关安平，北京市安平城律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：彭学军，北京市安平城律师事务所律师。@#
原审原告武汉中联证券劳动服务公司 (以下简称中联公司)与原审被告港澳祥庆实业(以下简称澳门祥庆)返还财产纠纷一案，湖北省高级人民法院于1996年11月 7日作出(1996)鄂经初字第73号民事调解书，已经发生法律效力。因当事人澳门祥庆申请再审，湖北省高级人民法院经再审于2001年3月23日作出(2001)鄂高法监二民再字第10号民事调解书，后又因案外人澳门富昌地产提出异议，湖北省高级人民法院对本案进行第二次再审并于2003年9月5日作出(2003)鄂高法监二民再字第5号民事裁定书。本院经复查，于2005年7月15日作出(2005)民四监字第19号民事裁定，对本案进行提审。本院依法组成由审判员陆效龙担任审判长，代理审判员任雪峰、高晓力参加评议的合议庭，刘永申担任书记员，于2005年11月17日公开开庭审理了本案。澳门祥庆的法定代表人郑炎光及其委托代理人关安平、彭学军到庭参加诉讼，中联公司经本院合法传唤，无正当理由未到庭应诉。本案现已审理终结。@#
@#
湖北省高级人民法院经一审查明： 1994年11月16日，澳门祥庆与中联公司签订一份合作开发石家庄火车站空调候车厅协议，约定：1994年11月底，澳门祥庆出资11 000 000元，中联公司出资 9 000 000元，投资款18个月收回，按年利率25％计息；收回投资款后，其余8年零6个月的石家庄火车站候车大厅项目的营业收入，按澳门祥庆55％，中联公司45％进行分配。协议签订后，中联公司依约将投资款 9 000 000元汇到澳门祥庆。1995年4月5日，澳门祥庆以其名义又与石家庄火车站华通总公司签订合作经营合同，共同经营石家庄火车站候车大厅，澳门祥庆占其股份45％。1996年3月23日，澳门祥庆向中联公司出具《股权转让书》称：“我公司所欠中联公司投资本金和投资回报款 12 375 000元，如果在1996年6月30日以前不能按期归还，我公司愿将石家庄火车站候车大厅项目所占45％的股份全部转让给中联公司所有。”因澳门祥庆未履行义务，中联公司于1996年8月27日以澳门祥庆为被告向湖北省高级人民法院提起诉讼，要求澳门祥庆偿付投资本金 9 000 000元人民币和约定的投资回报款 3 375 000及其逾期利息。在审理过程中，经湖北省高级人民法院主持调解，双方当事人达成如下协议：一、澳门祥庆于1996年12月31日前偿付中联公司投资本金 9 000 000元，投资回报款3 370 000元，逾期利息810 000元，共计13 180 000元。逾期不付，则按《民事诉讼法》第二百三十二条执行。二、案件受理费81 885元，其他诉讼费8115元，财产保全费62 395元，共计 142 395元，中联公司承担71 197．50元，澳门祥庆承担71 197．50元。诉讼费、财产保全费共计142 395元，已由中联公司预交，澳门祥庆按应承担的款额于1996年 12月31日前付给中联公司。湖北省高级人民法院于1996年11月7日作出(1996)鄂经初字第73号民事调解书，对上述协议予以确认。@#
此后，澳门祥庆以湖北省高级人民法院(1996)鄂经初字第73号调解书内容违法等为由，向湖北省高级人民法院申请再审。湖北省高级人民法院于2001年3月 12日作出(2001)鄂高法监二民字第70号民事裁定书，决定对(1996)鄂经初字第73号案进行再审。@#
湖北省高级人民法院再审确认了一审查明的事实。案件审理过程中，经湖北省高级人民法院主持调解，双方当事人自愿达成如下协议：一、解除澳门祥庆与中联公司所签订的《关于合作开发石家庄火车站候车大厅的协议》，注销武汉银庆物业有限公司；二、澳门祥庆向中联公司返还本金人民币9 000 000元，并支付相应的资金占用费及其他补偿费人民币4 740 000元；三、中联公司向澳门祥庆据实返还从石家庄冀庆服务有限公司和更名后的石家庄冀昌服务有限公司获取的全部收益和资金(含原审执行款)，该款项澳门祥庆与中联公司于本调解书生效后一个月内进行清算，中联公司不享有上述服务公司的股权。四、上述第二、三项相抵后，不足或超出部分的款项从本协议生效之日起，按人民银行一年期流动资金同期贷款利率分段计算资金占用费，清算完毕后，澳门祥庆因上述服务有限公司股权变更发生的问题，由澳门祥庆负责。五、原审诉讼费、财产保全费、执行费由中联公司负担(已履行)，再审诉讼费人民币68 700元由澳门祥庆负担。湖北省高级人民法院于2001年3月23日作出(2001)鄂高法监二民再字第10号民事调解书，对上述协议予以确认。湖北省高级人民法院在该调解书中同时表述：本调解书经双方当事人签收后，即具有法律效力，该院 (1996)鄂经初字第73号民事调解书和该院(1997)鄂执字第5-1号、5-2号民事裁定书即视为撤销。@#
因在执行(2001)鄂高法监二民再字第 10号民事调解书时案外人提出异议，湖北省高级人民法院又于2002年6月28日作出(2002)鄂高法监二民字第54号民事裁定书决定对该案再审。湖北省高级人民法院经过再次再审又作出(2003)鄂高法监二民再字第5号民事裁定，其查明：该院 (1996)鄂经初字第73号民事调解书发生法律效力后，澳门祥庆未依约履行该调解书确定的义务。该院在执行中将澳门祥庆在原石家庄冀庆旅行服务有限公司45％的股权强制转让给中联公司。1997年5月26日，中联公司与澳门富昌地产达成协议，约定将上述企业45％的股权有偿转让给澳门富昌地产。同年7月，该院裁定将上述企业 45％的股权变卖给澳门富昌地产。另查明，前述澳门富昌地产于1991年成立，以纳税人翁文雄名义登记于澳门财税厅，其营业税档案编号为52286，已于1998年4月结束营业，翁文雄于1998年4月死亡。向该院提出异议的澳门富昌地产是于2001年 4月成立，以纳税人翁德慧名义登记于澳门财税厅，营业税档案编号为98349，该澳门富昌地产(以下简称新富昌地产)与前述澳门富昌地产(以下简称老富昌地产)之间无法律上的财产承接关系。湖北省高级人民法院认为：在该院执行中参与本案的老富昌地产与本案有法律上的利害关系，已于1998年4月结束营业。而向该院提出异议的新富昌地产并未参与本案的审理与执行，与本案没有法律上的利害关系，其于 2001年9月向该院提出异议系冒用持牌人为翁文雄且已结束营业的老富昌地产的名义。该院(2002)鄂高法监二民字第54号民事裁定书认定事实有误。经该院审判委员会讨论决定，依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百四十条第一款第十一项、《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109条并参照《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201条的规定，裁定如下：撤销该院(2002)鄂高法监二民字第54号民事裁定书和(2003)鄂高法监二民再字第5-1号民事裁定书。@#
．．．．．．