Shanghai Li Xiaohua Law Firm successfully represented civil cases

The village committee has filed a lawsuit with the court Request for judgment：

1、The total land compensation fee is 17 million yuan And interest；

2、The defendant shall bear the litigation costs of this case。

Lawyer Wang Lin serves as the aent of Defendant Company A。

The court forms a collegial panel to hold a hearing and summarize the focus of the dispute：

Does the plaintiff have a claim? What is the basis of the plaintiff's claim?

Lawyer Wang Lin proposes the following representation opinion:

1、 The plaintiff's subordinate collective land has been lawfully requisitioned and has obtained income and compensation in accordance with legal procedures and standards. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant should return the land compensation payment has no factual or legal basis and should be rejected by judgment.

2、 The "development benefit fee" under the "Joint Development Agreement" signed between Company A and a third party is the corresponding legal consideration for Company A to fulfill its contractual obligations. The plaintiff's claim lacks factual and legal basis.

3、 The third party confirmed the Joint Development Agreement during the trial and confirmed that the defendant company A has fulfilled all obligations under the agreement, proving that the basis for the plaintiff's lawsuit is fundamentally unfounded.

4、The evidence submitted by the plaintiff Baima Village Committee during the trial cannot prove their litigation claims, and does not meet the requirements of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" for the form and content of evidence, and therefore lacks probative value. The evidence submitted by the defendant's lawyer is documentary evidence, and its probative value is superior to other evidence. Suggest rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit request.
The village committee's claim lacks corresponding evidence to prove it and should not be supported by the court. It is recommended to reject the plaintiff's lawsuit request.

The court holds that：From the perspective of contractual relativity, the plaintiff's claim for the defendant to return the land compensation fee of 17 million yuan and its corresponding interest lacks factual and legal basis, and this court does not support it.

After deliberation, the court panel adopted all the opinions of lawyer Wang Lin.

Court ruling: Reject the plaintiff's lawsuit request.

(The units and individuals mentioned in the article are all pseudonyms)