In a dispute over the expropriation of private housing, if there is a family agreement between the parties to delineate the usable area, should the specific distribution be made according to the share of the agreement?
According to the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land in Shanghai, where a residential house is expropriated, the expropriated person shall be responsible for relocating the user of the house after obtaining monetary compensation and exchanging property rights. If it involves the distribution of compensation benefits for the death of the property owner of the expropriation of private houses, and the property owner does not inherit the property after his death, the interest of the house expropriation shall be inherited by his heirs as an inheritance. At this time, the co-owner of the house, as the expropriated person of the house at issue, is entitled to receive compensation for the value of the house and incentives and subsidies related to the value of the house according to its share of inheritance. All kinds of incentives and subsidies related to residence are used to ensure the resettlement of the actual residential users of the house, and shall be obtained by the actual residential users. If there is a family agreement between the parties to delineate the usable area, the court will generally consider the actual situation and generally hold that the agreement is only an agreement on the payment and disposal of the parts and maintenance of the house used by the siblings, not the distribution of the ownership of the house, and will not recognize the claim of distributing and expropriating benefits according to the agreement. Taking this case as an example, the land user of the house at issue was registered as Zhong Laohan, the old father, who was originally jointly owned by Zhong Laohan and his wife, Granny Jiang. After the death of Zhong Laohan and Granny Jiang, the six children of his heirs should inherit and obtain the corresponding rights. Among them, Zhong 6 died after the expropriation, and its corresponding share should be obtained by its heir Zhu. In 1999, the Appellant claimed that the relocation benefits should be divided according to the proportion of the usable area determined in the family housing use agreement, but the court held that since the agreement was only an agreement between the siblings on the parts of the house to be used separately, and not a distribution of the ownership of the house, the court could not support the distribution according to the agreed proportion. 
Zhong Laohan (deceased in 1992) and his wife, Granny Jiang (who died in 2009), had six children, namely Zhong 1, Zhong 2, Zhong 3, Zhong 4, Zhong 5 and Zhong 6 (who died in 2016). After the death of his father, Zhong Laohan, his mother Jiang Granny lived with her children. Zhong 6 was divorced before his death, and Zhu was his only child. On November 28, 1999, the mother and her six children signed the Agreement on the Use of Housing Blocks on the use of the house at issue It is agreed that Zhong 2 will use all the living rooms on the ground floor and one-third of the patio near the living room, Zhong 3 will use all the front buildings on the second floor and all the stove rooms on the west side of the ground floor, Zhong 4 will use all the three floors, Zhong 6 will use all the double pavilions and the bathroom on the second floor, Zhong 5 will use all the wings on the second floor, Zhong 1 will use all the wings on the ground floor and all the area in the patio except for the part used by Zhong 2. The public use area of two or more people shall be at the disposal of Granny Jiang, and the specific problems of use and the payment and disposal of the maintenance of each use part shall be agreed upon. In July 2012, the area where the house at issue was located was included in the scope of demolition. Zhong 1 filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that the relocation interests of the property at issue be divided in accordance with the law, and Zhong 1 was awarded 2124 per cent share and a one-sixth share of the temporary placement fee. The court of first instance comprehensively considered factors such as the property at issue, the contributions of all parties to the house, the share of ownership, and the status of residential use, and determined that Zhong 1 would receive 1.45 million yuan for the Changhong Road property right exchange house and monetary compensation, and Zhu X would receive 1.57 million yuan for the Changhong Road property right exchange house and monetary compensation. Zhong 5's appeal request: Zhong 1 was awarded 1 point for Changhong Road property exchange house and monetary compensation of 1,844,876 yuanZhu received a share of the property rights exchange house and monetary compensation of RMB 1,165,082. Zhong 5 argued that the Agreement on the Use of Housing Blocks signed by the family members in 1999 was not an agreement on the right to use the house at issue, but an agreement on the division of property of the house at issue. According to the Agreement, Zhong 5 lived in the house at issue in an area larger than Zhong 1, and it was difficult for Zhong 1 to actually live in it, and Zhong 5 had been living in a rented house, and Zhong 5 had fulfilled the greatest obligation to support his parents, so he was entitled to a larger distribution benefit. Appellee Zhu argued that the Agreement on the Use of Housing Blocks was not an agreement on the division of property of the house at issue, but an agreement on the right to use the house at issue. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The court of first instance held that the land user of the house at issue was registered as Zhong Laohan, which was originally jointly owned by Zhong Laohan and Mrs. Jiang. After the death of Zhong Laohan and Granny Jiang, their heirs should inherit and obtain the corresponding rights, so the property at issue should be jointly owned by Zhong 1, Zhong 2, Zhong 3, Zhong 4, Zhong 5 and Zhong 6 when it is expropriated. If Zhong 6 dies after the expropriation, his corresponding share shall be obtained by his heir, Zhu. Zhong 1 advocated that the relocation interests should be divided according to the proportion of the usable area determined in the family housing use agreement, but the agreement was only an agreement between the brothers and sisters to pay and dispose of the parts and maintenance of the house respectively, and was not a distribution of house ownership. Zhong 1's request to divide the relocation interests on this basis lacked basis and was not accepted. The court of second instance held that the house at issue was a private house jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jiang, and that they did not make a will during their lifetimes, so after their deaths, their heirs Zhong 1, Zhong 2, Zhong 3, Zhong 4, Zhong 5 and Zhong 6 legally inherited the estate of the two people, so the above-mentioned heirs jointly owned the house at issue. At the time of expropriation, the above-mentioned co-owners, as the expropriated persons of the property at issue, are entitled to receive compensation for the value of the house and incentives and subsidies related to the value of the house according to their share of inheritance. All kinds of incentives and subsidies related to residence shall be obtained by the actual resident user. If Zhong 6 dies after the expropriation, his corresponding share shall be obtained by his heir, Zhu. The Agreement on the Use of Housing in Blocks signed in 1999 is not a distribution of ownership of the house, but only an agreement between the family members to pay and dispose of the parts and maintenance of the house for their respective use, which can be used as the basis for the court to judge the parties' residential use of the house at issue. Zhong 5 appealed, arguing that the Agreement on the Use of Housing Blocks was not an agreement on the right to use the housing at issue, but an agreement on the division of property and property, which was inconsistent with the facts and was not accepted by this court.