[introduction to the lawyer of this case] Wang Tao, partner of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Many years of theoretical study and judicial practice have also developed a deep foundation of legal theory, calm adaptability, clear logical thinking, rigorous debating eloquence, accurate case analysis and good coordination skills. The working attitude of thinking highly of the parties and resolving contradictions for them is not only trusted by the parties, but also has become a team style of handling cases. In the criminal field, handle all kinds of major criminal cases and ordinary criminal cases; In the civil field, he is good at various civil and commercial cases, involving insurance, finance, engineering construction contract disputes, family disputes and other types.
[key points of judgment] regarding the validity of the two agreements signed by and between he, the plaintiff who is not the property owner, and Liaoning Tianfu Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianfu company) on August 16, 2014 and November 5, 2015. According to Article 52 of the contract law of the people's Republic of China, Tianfu company claims to confirm that the two agreements signed by it and the plaintiff are invalid, and shall provide evidence to prove that the signing of the two agreements is invalid according to the law. If there is no evidence to prove that the two agreements are invalid according to the law, The people's court does not support this claim of Tianfu company because it does not comply with the legal provisions.
Regarding Tianfu company's opinion that the house and land involved in the case are registered in the name of Shenyang fuqianyuan Grain Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as fuqianyuan company), the plaintiff has no right to claim the occupancy fee from it. Tianfu company performed the agreement signed with the plaintiff and also the rent paid to the plaintiff. Tianfu company did not know that the house and land involved in the case were registered in the name of the person outside the case, but the agreement signed with the plaintiff and the payment of rent did not conform to common sense and daily trading habits. The people's court did not accept the defense.
On the question of whether Tianfu company should pay the plaintiff the occupancy and use fee of the house and land involved in the case, although the two parties did not sign a separate agreement after the expiration of the performance period agreed in the agreement, Tianfu company still occupied and used the house and land involved in the case. During the lease and occupation of the house and land involved in the case, Tianfu company has not changed the owner of the house and land involved in the case, Therefore, the plaintiff has legal basis to require Tianfu company to pay the occupancy fee according to the standard agreed in the original agreement.
[basic case] on August 16, 2014, the plaintiff He Mou (Party A) and the defendant Tianfu company (Party B) signed the agreement. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff leased the land and above ground objects to Tianfu company for a term of one year. From August 16, 2014 to August 15, 2015, the annual rent is 80000 yuan. The water, telephone, electricity and equipment maintenance expenses incurred during the lease period shall be borne by Tianfu company. Tianfu company has paid the plaintiff one year's rent of 80000 yuan after signing the agreement. On November 5, 2015, the plaintiff and the defendant Tianfu company signed the agreement again. Except that the second lease term was changed from August 16, 2015 to August 15, 2016, the rest of the agreement was consistent with the agreement signed by both parties on August 16, 2014. On the date of signing the contract, Tianfu company paid the plaintiff a rent of 80000 yuan. Since then, the two parties have not signed a new lease agreement, but Tianfu company has occupied the house and land agreed in the agreement and has refused to vacate and return. Therefore, the plaintiff told the court that the defendant was required to immediately vacate and return the plaintiff's house and land in Xinmin City, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the house and land occupation and use fees from August 16, 2016 to the date of actual return (the occupancy and use fees shall be calculated according to the unit price of the lease agreement). The litigation costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant. During the trial of this case, Tianfu company filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff's lawsuit, claiming that since the owner of the land and the house involved in the case were both the non plaintiff fuqianyuan company, and not the plaintiff, the court was required to confirm that the two agreements signed by both parties on August 16, 2014 and November 5, 2015 were invalid, and required the plaintiff to return the rent of 160000 yuan to Tianfu company. The litigation costs and counterclaim costs were borne by the plaintiff.
[judgment result] Tianfu company shall pay the plaintiff's house and land use fee of 210000 yuan within 10 days after the judgment becomes legally effective; Reject the counterclaim request of Tianfu company. The case acceptance fee and counterclaim fee shall be borne by Tianfu company.
[reason for judgment] on the validity of the two agreements signed by the plaintiff and the defendant Tianfu company. Tianfu company shall be aware of the registration of the ownership and use right of the house and land involved in the case. According to the contents of the two agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant Tianfu company, the defendant Tianfu company, knowing that the house and land involved in the case are fuqianyuan company, agreed to pay the plaintiff an additional rent of 80000 yuan per year for the part of the house and land. The contract agreement between the two parties shall be the true expression of intention of both parties and shall not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, and shall be legal and effective, Therefore, the counterclaim request of the defendant Tianfu company has no factual and legal basis, and the people's court will not support it.
With regard to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant Tianfu company should pay the plaintiff's house and land occupation and use fee at the rate of RMB 6666.67 per month from August 16, 2016, since the plaintiff provided the information statement issued by Shao Jun, the legal representative of fuqianyuan company, fuqianyuan company agreed that the plaintiff has the right to collect house rent or occupation and use fee for the part of the house and land it invested in, However, the area of the house and land involved in the case actually leased and used by the defendant Tianfu company has not changed since September 28, 2014. Therefore, although the defendant Tianfu company has not signed a lease contract with the plaintiff since August 16, 2016, it actually occupies and uses the house and land agreed in the original contract of both parties, and the defendant Tianfu company must still pay the actual occupancy and use fees of the plaintiff's house and land according to the rent standard agreed in the original agreement of both parties, The term of payment shall end on the date of judgment.
Thereafter, if Tianfu company continues to occupy and use the house and land involved in the case, the plaintiff may claim rights from Tianfu company.
[relevant laws] Article 61 of the general provisions of the civil law of the people's Republic of China states that "in accordance with the provisions of laws or the articles of association of legal persons, the person in charge of civil activities on behalf of the legal person shall be the legal representative of the legal person. The legal consequences of civil activities undertaken by the legal representative in the name of the legal person shall be borne by the legal person." Article 39 of the property law of the people's Republic of China states that "the owner has the right to possess, use, benefit from and dispose of his immovable or movable property according to law". Article 60 of the contract law of the people's Republic of China states that "the parties shall fully perform their obligations as agreed. The parties shall abide by the principle of good faith and perform the obligations of notification, assistance and confidentiality according to the nature, purpose and trading habits of the contract."
[lawyer's opinion] is it of course invalid for non property owners to rent other people's houses? Article 51 of the contract law stipulates that "if a person without the right to dispose of another person's property is ratified by the obligee or the person without the right to dispose obtains the right to dispose after signing a contract, the contract shall be effective.". Article 3 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the application of law to the trial of cases involving disputes over sales contracts stipulates that:, "If one of the parties claims that the contract is invalid on the ground that the seller did not have the ownership or the right to dispose of the subject matter at the time of signing the contract, the people's court shall not support it. If the seller fails to obtain the ownership or the right to dispose of the subject matter so that the ownership of the subject matter cannot be transferred, and the buyer requires the seller to bear the liability for breach of contract or to terminate the contract and claim damages, the people's court shall support it." It can be seen that leasing and selling other people's property may only affect the performance of the creditor's rights contract, and may cause the change of property rights to be impossible, but it does not necessarily lead to the invalidation of the creditor's rights contract. If the legal representative of the owner of this case does not ratify, the validity of the lease contract between the plaintiff and Tianfu company does not extend to the owner of the house, but it is effective between the parties to the contract. In combination with the provisions of Article 3 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the application of law to the trial of disputes over sales contracts and Article 15 of the property law, it should be considered that the contract without right to dispose is still valid, and the result of the change of rights naturally occurs when the obligee ratifies or the person without right to dispose obtains the right to dispose; In the event that the obligee does not ratify or the person without the right to dispose cannot obtain the right to dispose, the person without the right to dispose shall bear the liability for breach of contract if there is no change in the right; Before the disposition act is ratified or corrected, whether the result of the right change occurs is in an uncertain state, but the contract effect is not to be determined but determined to be effective. In modern society, countries with developed market economy no longer simply follow the law of "ownership is above everything", but pursue the protection of transaction security as a very important legal value.