[Case].
Guangzhou Weiqing Garden is developed and constructed by Guangzhou Kaicheng Real Estate Development, and Guangzhou Weiqing Property Service is entrusted by the developer to be responsible for the early property management of the community. In August 2015, the Weiqing Garden Owners Committee was established after filing. After the bidding of the property committee, it was determined that since December 1, 2015, Weiqing Garden will be provided by Guangzhou Kengjian Property Management*** to provide property services. According to Article 19 of the Interim Convention of Owners of Weiqing Garden, the property management fee of the community shall be charged in the form of an honorarium. The Owners Committee believes that the "Interim Convention of Owners" is a written agreement between the developer and all owners, and is registered with the ** authority, which is binding on Weiqing Property Company, which is responsible for the early property management. During the period from the management of the community to November 30, 2015, Weiqing Property Company never announced the income and expenditure accounts of property management to the owners and users of the community, and accepted inquiries from the plaintiff's property committee. Therefore, the Owners Committee filed a lawsuit as the plaintiff, asking the court to order:1The defendant, Weiqing Property Management Company, announced to the plaintiff's property committee the annual budget and final accounts of the property service funds and the income and expenditure of the property service funds of the community under its management from October 1, 2013 to November 30, 2015. 2.The defendant disclosed to the plaintiff the accounts of public operating income and expenditure for the period from October 1, 2013 to November 30, 2015.
The defendant argued that the defendant carried out property management in accordance with the pre-property management contract signed between the defendant and the developer, which stipulated that the charging method of property management fees was a lump sum system. The remuneration system agreed in the Interim Convention of Owners is a clerical error, and the content of the remuneration system is to pay a certain proportion of the property fee collected to the property management company as remuneration, while the Interim Convention of Owners does not stipulate the remuneration ratio, so it is impossible to implement it, so the property management company should also implement the lump sum system. Judging from the actual performance of the contract, the defendant has always implemented the lump sum system since the implementation of property management. The property management service company has no obligation to publish the annual budget and final accounts of the property management service funds and the income and expenditure of the property management service funds. The accounts of the defendant's public operating income and expenditure during the operation and management period did not fall within the scope of the owner's right to know, so the court was requested to dismiss the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the law.
After the trial, the court held that the "Preliminary Property Management Entrustment Contract" had clearly stipulated that the property service fee would be subject to a lump sum system, and although the "Interim Convention of the Owners" stipulated a remuneration system, it did not specify the proportion of remuneration to be withdrawn or fix a certain amount, so it could be determined that the defendant had implemented the lump sum system to charge for property services. Only under the method of charging for property services using the remuneration system, the property service enterprise has the obligation to announce the annual budget and final accounts of the property service funds and the income and expenditure of the property service funds to the owners' general meeting or all the owners, and the property management enterprises that implement the lump sum system do not have the above-mentioned statutory obligations, and the "Preliminary Property Management Entrustment Contract" stipulates that the defendant shall regularly publish the accounts of the public operating income and expenditure of the community, and the plaintiff's claim has a legal basis and should be supported. The defendant shall be ordered to disclose to the plaintiff the accounts of public operating income and expenditure for the period from 2013 to 2015 within 30 days of the effective date of this judgment. The remaining claims of the plaintiff's owners' committee were dismissed.
The property service enterprises that implement the lump sum system do not have the legal obligation to publish the annual budget and final accounts of the property service funds and the income and expenditure of the property service funds