For public housing purchased by the parties from the market, when the housing is expropriated, who should obtain the expropriation benefits?
Lawyer's opinion: For the public housing purchased by the client from the market, the house has the nature of public housing, and at the same time, it is not due to distribution but through purchase. In view of the nature of public housing, according to Article 44 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land in Shanghai, "where residential houses are expropriated, the expropriated person shall be responsible for relocating the housing users after obtaining monetary compensation and property rights for exchanging houses;The monetary compensation received by the tenant of public housing and the exchange of property rights shall be shared by the tenant of public housing and its co-occupants. "In view of the fact that it is not obtained through distribution but through purchase, the relevant expropriation compensation benefits should also be distributed by the investor. As a result, the groups of people entitled to a share of the expropriation compensation are: tenants, co-occupants and funders. Therefore, when encountering such cases, the focus of the dispute is the identification of the investor, tenant and co-occupant, and the distribution of expropriation compensation benefits. (1) Identification of investors. It often becomes a point of contention between the parties. For example, in this case, both Ma and Liu claimed that they were the investors, and the court finally made a determination. (2) Identification of the lessee. This is usually easier to identify, but it does not exclude special circumstances. For example, in this case, the funder of the house at issue is Mr. Ma, but the lessee is Mr. Liu1, and Mr. Ma and Mr. Liu1 are not related, so it is necessary to determine the reasons for which Mr. Liu1 became the lessee of the house at issue, and the reasons for this are also related to the final distribution of the expropriation compensation benefits. (3) Identification of co-residents. It has always been the focus of public housing expropriation cases. According to the third paragraph of Article 51 of the 2011 Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land in Shanghai, "co-occupants refer to persons who have permanent residence in the expropriated housing at the time of making the decision on housing expropriation, and have actually lived in the house for more than one year (except in special circumstances), and who have no other housing in the city or who have other housing but have difficulty in living." "To sum up, after the separate identification of the investor, tenant and co-occupants, combined with factors such as the ** of the property at issue, the contribution to the house, and the living status, the distribution method of the expropriation compensation benefits was finally determined. Basic facts of the case: Liu X 2, Liu X 1, and Liu X 3 are brothers and sisters, and they are all children of Wang X and Liu X and their spouses;Liu 1 and Yu 1 are husband and wife, and Yu 2 is the son of the two;Ma is Liu's boyfriend. The housing at issue was public housing, and in 2005, Ma purchased the right to use the public housing, and the tenant was registered as Liu XX1, and the registered household registration was Wang XX, Liu XX2, Liu XX1, Yu XX1, and Yu XX2. The house at issue was actually inhabited and used by Wang, Liu2, Ma, and Liu3, and then Ma, Liu3, and Wang moved out in 2014 due to family conflicts. In the lawsuit, Ma and Liu3 stated that the expropriation benefits they could obtain were obtained by Wang and Liu2. Case study: Liu 2, Liu 1, and Liu 3 are brothers and sisters, and they are all children of Wang and LiuLiu 1 and Yu 1 are husband and wife, and Yu 2 is the son of the two;Ma is Liu's boyfriend. The housing at issue was a public house, and in 2005, Ma went through the relevant formalities and purchased the right to use the public housing from the original tenant, and the lessee was registered as Liu1. Bank transaction records show that Ma withdrew 150,000 yuan from his bank account in April 2005, and the original lessee opened an account in the same branch and deposited 150,000 yuan on the same day. 
After the house was purchased, they successively moved into the household registration of Wang, Liu2, Liu1, Yu1, and Yu2, which were actually used by Wang, Liu2, Ma, and Liu3, and then Ma, Liu3, and Wang moved out in 2014 due to family conflicts. Liu's 1 family had obtained public housing from the unit allocation, and after buying it as an after-sales public house, they bought a commercial house in the city to live in. In 2001, Liu X 1, Yu X 1, and Yu X 2 received monetary resettlement as resettlement targets in the city's private house relocation. In June 2018, Liu1 signed an Expropriation Agreement with the Collector, determining that the entire expropriation amount of the Housing at Issue was RMB 3,391,648. In addition, the house on Liangcheng Road was originally an after-sales public house under Liu's name. Liu reported his death in April 2003, and the house on Liangcheng Road was ** in the name of Liu in August 2003, and the sale price was 250,000 yuan. In the lawsuit, Ma and Liu3 stated that the expropriation benefits they could obtain were obtained by Wang and Liu2. Wang XX and Liu XX2 filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that Wang XX and Liu XX2 receive all the levies of RMB 3,391,648. Liu1, Yu1 and Yu2 appealed: The three appellants were entitled to three-fifths of the compensation for the demolition of the house at issue of RMB 3,391,648. Facts and reasons: 1. The purchase price of the house at issue came from the sale price of the house on Liangcheng Road, not Ma, as evidenced by the tenant's signature Liu X 1;2. Yu X 1 and Yu X 2 are co-occupants of the house at issue;3. After the house at issue was purchased and registered by Liu X 1, Liu X 1 and his family moved their household registration into the house, and because the appellees Wang X and Liu X 2 had no other residence, Liu X 1 moved their household registration into the house out of the psychology of taking care of their mother and brother, and considering that the size of the house at issue was not enough for the five people to live together, they handed over the house to Wang X and Liu X 2 to live in. The appellee argued that it agreed with the first-instance judgment on the following grounds: 1. The house was purchased by Ma2. The house at issue has always been inhabited by Wang, Liu2, Liu3, and Ma, and the three appellants have never lived there;3. The house on Liangcheng Road is Liu X 2**, and the money was used up by him, and Liu X 1 knew about it and did not infringe on Liu X 1's rights. The court ruled the first-instance judgment as follows: 1. Wang XX and Liu XX2 should share the expropriation compensation of RMB 2,991,648 for the housing at issue;2. Liu X 1 should receive a share of the compensation for the expropriation of the house at issue of RMB 400,000. The result of the second-instance judgment: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. The court of first instance held that, 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 property rights for the exchange of the houseThe monetary compensation received by the tenant of public housing and the exchange of property rights shall be shared by the tenant of public housing and its co-occupants. Although the housing at issue is public housing in nature, it is not distributed by the state or the unit, but is purchased by the parties from the market, so the relevant expropriation benefits are not only enjoyed by the tenants and co-residents, but should also be distributed by the investors. The evidence shows that Ma's withdrawal of 150,000 yuan in bank deposits and the deposit of 150,000 yuan by party ** are completely consistent in time and place, and it can be determined that the purchase price was contributed by Ma. Party Liu argued that the purchase price was the sale price of the house on Liangcheng Road, but there was no evidence. Ma and Liu1 are not related, and there is obviously no reason to donate the purchased house rights and interests to Liu1;Combined with the actual living situation after the purchase of the house, it can be considered that Ma's purchase of the right to use the house was mainly used to help solve the residential problems of his girlfriend Liu X 3 and his relatives Wang X and Liu X 2. However, the lessee was registered as Liu1, for which the parties could not give a convincing reason. The court weighed the defenses of both parties and found that the true intention of the parties was to share the rights and interests of the house at issue with Wang Moumou and his children, i.e., the entire family, and that the expropriation benefits should also be obtained and distributed by the relevant parties. Both Wang and Liu2 are registered in the house at issue and have actually lived in the house for a long time, and they are co-residents of the house, so they should receive relevant resettlement benefits and incentives related to residence relocation. As the lessee of the property at issue, Liu1 cooperated in participating in the expropriation and could also share the corresponding benefits. Although Yu X 1 and Yu X 2 moved their household registrations into the Housing at Issue, they did not actually live in them, and they had already received housing benefits such as public housing and relocation elsewhere, so they did not meet the requirements for co-residents. Liu3 and Ma indicated that the expropriation benefits they could obtain were obtained by Wang and Liu2. To sum up, taking into account the factors of the housing at issue, the contribution to the house, the living situation, and the enjoyment of welfare housing, the court determined that Liu X 1 could receive a share of RMB 400,000 in monetary compensation, and other expropriation benefits were obtained by Wang X and Liu X 2. The court of second instance held that although Liu X 1 believed that the purchase price of the house at issue came from the sale price of the house on Liangcheng Road, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that even if the purchase price of the house at issue was related to the sale price of the house on Liangcheng Road, Liu X 1, as the heir of Liu X , could only inherit a certain percentage of the house sale price, and the court of first instance ruled that Liu X 1, as the nominal lessee, could receive 400,000 yuan in compensation for expropriation as appropriate. Article 44 of the Laws and Regulations "Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land in Shanghai" shall be responsible for the resettlement of the housing users after obtaining monetary compensation and property rights for the exchange of housesThe monetary compensation received by the tenant of public housing and the exchange of property rights shall be shared by the tenant of public housing and its co-occupants. Case** is adapted from the civil judgment of the second instance of the dispute between Liu Moumou 1 and Yu Mou1 et al. and Wang Moumou and Liu Moumou 2 (2019) Hu 02 Min Zhong No. 4878.