Brief facts of the case
Mr. Liu ordered a high-end community commercial house developed and constructed by Company A, and paid a deposit of 50,000 yuan on March 9, 2018, and Company A issued a "receipt" to Mr. Liu. Because Company C, which holds 100% of the shares of Liu, has contractual dealings with Company A, Company B, and Chen, after reconciliation and negotiation, the purchase price that Liu needs to pay for the purchase of the property developed by Company A is offset by Liu and Company A within the range of 612665 yuan, and Company A issued receipts of 512665 yuan and 100,000 yuan to Liu on February 14 and May 28, 2019, respectively.
On July 28, 2019, Mr. Liu signed the Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Commercial Housing (Pre-sale) with Company A. On December 6, 2020, Company A issued receipts to Liu for the thermal account opening fee, natural gas account opening fee, special maintenance** and other expenses. Mr. Liu paid the property management fee and garbage disposal fee from December 6, 2020 to December 6, 2021.
After Liu settled with Company A, Liu still owed Company A a total of 99,945 yuan for the purchase price and a total of 113565 yuan for the real estate ** deposit, decoration deposit, garbage removal fee, etc., and Liu remitted 113565 yuan to the account of Lai, a staff member of Company A, on November 4, 2021, and the commercial house involved in the case has not yet been initially registered.
In the case of a dispute over the enforcement of a construction contract between Company B and Company A, the court seized the commercial housing involved in the case. Liu raised an objection, and the court rejected Liu's objection. Liu was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to stop the execution of the real estate involved in the case and lift the seizure.
Heard by the courts
The house involved in the case in which Company B applied for seizure and enforcement was the property developed and constructed by Company A, the person subject to enforcement. Based on the ascertained facts in this case, on July 28, 2019, Company A signed the "Commercial Housing Sales Contract" with Liu, and gave the house to Liu for 762,610 yuan**, and Liu paid 50,000 yuan, 512665 yuan, and 100,000 yuan to Company A on March 9, 2018, February 24, May 28, 2021, and November 4, 2021, respectively, and delivered the remaining purchase price of 99,945 yuan to the special account for court enforcement of the case. Company A also actually delivered the house to Liu, and Liu also actually paid the cable TV fees, property management fees, infrastructure construction fees, water and electricity bills and other related expenses of the house. In this case, the "Commercial Housing Sales Contract" signed by Liu and Company A has been basically performed. As the seller, Company A no longer has any legal substantive rights to the house, and only has the obligation to assist Liu in handling the transfer registration.
Accordingly, the house involved in the case has been out of the scope of Company A's property, and since Company A has received the full amount of the purchase price paid by Liu, its property has not been impaired, and Company A no longer has the right to use the house to pay off its debts, otherwise it would violate the legal principles of fairness and good faith. In principle, Company B, as a creditor of Company A, cannot request the house to be used to settle the debts owed by Company A, unless Company B has evidence to prove that Mr. Liu maliciously colluded with Company A or had other interests, which affected the determination of the scope of liability property of Company A. As for the house involved in the case, because the second phase has not yet been accepted, it cannot be accepted, resulting in Liu not going through the transfer registration procedures, which does not affect the determination of Liu's right to expect property rights.
The court ruled that the high-end community commercial housing involved in the case shall not be enforced in the enforcement case.
Explain the law with cases
The compulsory enforcement measures taken by the court against the person subject to enforcement in the enforcement procedure shall be limited to his property. If there is evidence to prove that the subject matter to be enforced does not belong to the property of the person subject to enforcement, the enforcement of the subject matter shall be stopped. Civil entities bear legal liability externally to the extent of their property.
Links to legal provisions
Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts:In the enforcement of monetary claims, if the buyer raises an objection to the immovable property registered in the name of the person subject to enforcement, and the following circumstances are met and its rights can be excluded from enforcement, the people's court shall support it:
1) A legal and effective written sales contract has been signed before the people's court seals it up;
2) The immovable property has been lawfully taken possession of before it is sealed by the people's court;
3) The full price has been paid, or part of the price has been paid in accordance with the contract and the remaining price is delivered for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court;
4) The buyer has not completed the registration of the transfer of ownership for reasons not attributable to the buyer.
Article 310 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of ChinaThe people's court shall, after trial, handle a lawsuit against enforcement raised by a person not involved in the case in accordance with the following circumstances:
1) Where a person not involved in the case enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude compulsory enforcement in respect of the subject matter of enforcement, the judgment must not enforce the subject matter of enforcement;
2) Where a person not involved in the case does not enjoy civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude compulsory enforcement with respect to the subject matter of enforcement, a judgment is made to reject the litigation claim. Where persons not involved in the case simultaneously submit a litigation request for confirmation of their rights, the people's court may make a judgment in conjunction with the judgment.
*: Juno Court.