【Essence of the Supreme People's Court Judgment】

1. In the housing transaction carried out by way of offset, it can be determined that the buyer has paid the seller the entire purchase price of the house.

2. Article <> of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts stipulates: "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, the people's court shall support it if the following circumstances are met and its rights can be excluded from enforcement: (<>) A legally valid written sales contract has been signed before the people's court seals it; (<>) having lawfully taken possession of the immovable property before the people's court sealed it; (<>) The entire price has been paid, or part of the price has been paid in accordance with the contract and the remaining price has been delivered for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court; (<>) The buyer has not registered the transfer due to reasons other than his/her own. ”

Since articles 28 and 29 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts overlap in terms of application, that is, as long as the provisions of one of the provisions of one of them are met, the buyer enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude enforcement.

Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

Civil ruling

(2019) Supreme Law Min Shen No. 1560

Applicant for retrial (plaintiff of first instance, appellee of second instance): Wang Lihua, female, Han nationality

Respondent: Yang Xueqin, female, Han nationality, living in Xiangcheng, Henan Province

Respondent (defendant of first instance, appellee of second instance): Jixi Solid Real Estate Development Co., Ltd

Respondent (defendant of first instance, appellee of second instance): Fang Jing, female, Han nationality

The retrial applicant Wang Lihua applied to this court for a retrial against the Heilongjiang Provincial Higher People's Court's (2018) Hei Min Zhong No. 95 Civil Judgment against the defendant Yang Xueqin, the respondent Jixi Solid Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Solid Company), and the respondent Fang Jing's application for enforcement. After the judgment of the second instance of this case was rendered, Yan Weiwei, the defendant of the first instance and appellant of the second instance, died on September 2018, 9, and his other two legal heirs renounced their inheritance rights in writing, and Yang Xueqin, Yan Weiwei's former spouse, was the only legal heir in line to the throne. This court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law to review the case, and the review has now been completed.

Wang Lihua applied for a retrial, arguing: First, the basic facts determined by the second-instance judgment in this case lack evidence to prove it. 1. The court of second instance found that Yan Weiwei's pre-sale contract was valid and lacked evidence support. The "Housing Pre-sale Contract" signed by Yan Weiwen was not filed online by the real estate department, and according to the regulations, the "Housing Pre-sale Contract" could only be signed through the online filing of the real estate department, and the case involved in the case involved Building 9 of Xingxingli Community obtained a housing pre-sale license on November 2013, 11, but the contract provided by Yan Weiwei on June 28, 2013 recorded the pre-sale license number, so the contract was false. 6. The court of second instance found that there was insufficient evidence for Yan Weiwei to pay the purchase price in cash. The court of second instance received the top account agreement submitted by Yan Weiwen, Yan Weiwen said that he bought the house in cash in the first instance, and submitted the top account agreement in the second instance, since it was already a top account house, Yan Weiwei delivered another 14,2.404991 yuan in cash, which is inconsistent with common sense. 6. Wang Lihua asked Yan Weiwen to submit evidence of the only house, but Yan Weiwei did not submit relevant evidence, nor did it explain in the second-instance judgment, and it cannot be determined that the house involved in the case is Yan Weiwei's only house. 3. The judgment of the second instance in this case was wrongly applied. If the house involved in the case has not been completed and accepted and is registered in the name of a solid company, Article <> of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts shall be applied in this case, and the provisions of Article <> of the Interpretation shall not be applied. The expression cited in the judgment of the court of second instance in the legal provisions is the situation in Article <> of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation that "the commercial housing registered in the name of the real estate enterprise subject to enforcement raises an objection", but the content is the provision in Article <>. In summary, Wang Lihua requested a retrial of the case in accordance with the provisions of Items <> and <> of Article <> of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

After review, this court held that article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts stipulates: "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, the people's court shall support it if the following circumstances are met and its rights can be excluded from enforcement: (1) A legally valid written sales contract has been signed before the people's court seals it; (2) having lawfully taken possession of the immovable property before the people's court sealed it; (3) The entire price has been paid, or part of the price has been paid in accordance with the contract and the remaining price has been delivered for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court; (4) The buyer has not registered the transfer due to reasons other than his/her own. ”

In this case, Yan Weiwen signed the "Housing Pre-sale Contract" with Solid Company, although it was impossible to confirm the specific time of signing the contract because the housing pre-sale license number obtained on November 2013, 11 was recorded in the contract, and the contract was not filed with the housing management department, but according to the receipt of the purchase price issued by Solid Company on November 28, 2013, and the fact that Yan Weiwei moved in September 11 before the seizure of the house involved in the case, The court of first instance found that Yan Weiwei and Jian Jian had formed a commercial housing pre-sale contract relationship before the people's court seized the house involved in the case on April 14, 2014, and had actually occupied and used the house involved in the case, which was not improper. On the question of whether the court of second instance found that Yan Weiwei's payment of the housing purchase money involved in the case had a factual basis. According to the facts established by the second examination, on October 9, 2017, Solid Company, Heilongjiang Liye Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (Su Moumou) and Yan Weiwei signed a tripartite debt erasure agreement, which stipulated that Solid Company would pay the house involved in the case to Heilongjiang Liye Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (Su Moumou) to repay the outstanding project payment, and Heilongjiang Liye Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (Su Moumou) negotiated with Solid Company and agreed to transfer it directly to Yan Defense in the form of a room ticket. On the same day, Solid Company issued a receipt for Yan Weiwei to receive 4,24 yuan, and the payment method was wiped (waterproof). Su issued a receipt of 2013,10 yuan "the above paragraph is the payment of Su's construction site to Yan National Defense Housing".

On November 2013, 11, Solid Company issued a receipt for Yan Weiwei for the house involved in the case, which stated: cash for the payment method, RMB 14.404991. The company's 6 accounting accounts reflect that on November 2013, 2013, Su received the subscription money for the purchase of a house (Yan Weiwei). The above evidence can corroborate each other, and the court of second instance found that Yan Weiwei's payment of all the purchase price of the house involved in the solid company case was not improper. In addition, the house involved in the case did not go through the transfer procedures because the project was not completed and accepted, which was not Yan Weiwen's fault.

In summary, this case meets the circumstances stipulated in Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts, and Yan Weiwei enjoys civil rights and interests in the housing involved in the case that are sufficient to preclude enforcement. Since articles 28 and 29 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by People's Courts overlap in terms of application circumstances, that is, as long as the provisions of one of the provisions of one of them are met, the buyer enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude enforcementIt was not improper for the court of second instance to apply the provisions of Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objection and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts. Although there was a clerical error in the second-instance judgment quoting the judicial interpretation provisions in the discussion, it did not affect the verdict.

In summary, Wang Lihua's application for retrial does not meet the circumstances stipulated in Items 2 and 6 of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the second paragraph of Article 395 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it is ruled as follows:

Wang Lihua's application for retrial was rejected.

Chief Judge Wang Fubo

Judge Song Chunyu

Judge Ji Weiming

28 March 2019