Case introduction
The plaintiff Shanghai Weida Technology Development Co., Ltd. and the defendant Henan Pushan Real Estate Co., Ltd. signed the "Confirmation Form for Real Estate Project Engineering Company's Loan Deduction and House Selection in October", confirming the subscription (loan deduction) of house A11 with a total price of over 1.68 million yuan. The plaintiff Weida Company paid a total of more than 1.68 million yuan to the defendant Pusan Real Estate Company for the purchase of the house, and the defendant issued a receipt for the purchase of the house to the plaintiff. Weida Company has repeatedly urged Pusan Real Estate to deliver the property, but the defendant has not complied. The defendant Pusan Real Estate informed the plaintiff that Weida Company was unable to complete the housing transaction due to the housing purchase restrictions in Zhengzhou, and concealed from the plaintiff that the A11 house still has a mortgage situation. After mutual consultation, the plaintiff Weida Company submitted a "check-out application form" to the defendant Pusan Real Estate. However, the defendant Pusan Real Estate only refunded 500000 yuan to the plaintiff Weida Company. Despite multiple reminders from the plaintiff Weida Company, the defendant still refused to refund the remaining balance of more than 1.18 million yuan. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprise, Weida Company entrusted lawyers Wang Lin and Ma Dehui, appointed by Shanghai Li Xiaohua Law Firm, as its permanent legal advisors, to file a lawsuit with the grassroots people's court in Henan Province.
attorney's procuration
During the trial of the grassroots people's court in Henan Province, Lawyer Wang Lin and Lawyer Ma Dehui proposed:
1. The plaintiff and defendant have reached an agreement on the purchase and sale of a house, and both parties have determined the specific housing source and total price. The plaintiff shall pay the defendant the full purchase price, and the house purchase contract between the plaintiff and defendant shall be deemed to be legally established and effective;
2. Due to the defendant's failure to inform the plaintiff of the purchase restriction policy before the plaintiff made payment, and the defendant now informing the plaintiff that the property in question was mortgaged, the transaction could not proceed. The plaintiff applied to the defendant for a refund of the purchase price, and the defendant returned part of the purchase price. The plaintiff and defendant have mutually agreed to terminate the contract, and the defendant is legally responsible for returning the purchase price to the plaintiff and compensating for the plaintiff's losses. The defendant's delay in refunding and refusal to refund resulted in the loss of the plaintiff's funds being occupied. The plaintiff claims that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the loss from June 2020 based on the loan market quotation rate (LPR) plus a standard of 30% -50%.
During the trial, Weida Company applied to the court for property preservation, requesting the freezing of over 1.27 million yuan in bank deposits under the name of Henan Pusan Real Estate Company or the seizure of assets of equal value. Weida Company has provided a guarantee. After examination, the court found that Weida Company's application complies with legal provisions. According to Article 100, Article 102, and Article 103 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows: freeze more than 1.27 million yuan of bank deposits under the name of Henan Pusan Real Estate Company or seal assets of equal value, and the ruling shall be immediately enforced.
Court ruling
The court believes that the parties can terminate the contract by mutual agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the defendant to return the plaintiff's purchase price of over 1.18 million yuan, which is supported by the court. The judgment is as follows:
1、 The defendant Henan Pushan Real Estate Company shall return the purchase price of over 1.18 million yuan and pay the losses to the plaintiff Weida Company within ten days from the effective date of this judgment;
2、 The case acceptance fee and preservation fee shall be borne by the defendant Henan Pusan Real Estate Company.
Case Notes
The defendant Henan Pusan Real Estate Company refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents of the civil judgment of the Henan Provincial Grassroots People's Court. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff Weida Company, according to relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations, lawyer Wang Lin filed a compulsory enforcement application with the court, requesting protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant Weida Company. According to the Civil Procedure Law and the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Confiscation, and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by People's Courts, the court evaluated the house and, in preparation for auction, at the request of lawyer Wang Lin, the presiding judge lawfully deducted more than 1.26 million yuan from the bank deposit of Henan Pusan Construction Company, and the execution was completed. The legitimate rights and interests of the client have been fully protected.
Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the parties must comply with legally effective civil judgments and rulings. If one party refuses to perform, the other party may apply to the people's court for enforcement, or the judge may transfer the execution to the enforcement officer for enforcement.
(Units and individuals in the article are all pseudonyms)