Great Wall Company v. Ocean Plaza Company
(Dispute over Commodity Premise Sales Contract)
BASIC FACTS
Plaintiff: Great Wall International Communications Limited Liability Company, situated at Haidian District, Beijing City.
Legal Representative: Huang Yuguang, board chairman of the company.
Defendant: Beijing Ocean Plaza Limited Company, situated at Xicheng District, Beijing City.
Legal Representative: Li Ming, board chairman of the company.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Great Wall International Communications Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as Great Wall Company), the Plaintiff, brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing City (hereinafter referred to as Xicheng District Court) against Beijing Ocean Plaza Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Ocean Plaza Company) due to the dispute over a commodity premise sales contract.
Great Wall Company alleged that, it concluded a “Contract for the Advance Sale of Foreign-Oriented Commodity Premises” with Ocean Plaza Company on March 1, 1999, according to which Great Wall Company purchases Suite G01 of Ocean Plaza, with a floor area of 105.62 square meters, and the unit price of 2,800 USD per square meter, totaling 295,736 USD; Ocean Plaza Company should deliver the premise by September 30, 1999, and go through the procedures of changing the name of the premise owner within 30 days after the delivery. After the contract was signed, Great Wall Company paid all the purchasing price, but Ocean Plaza Company did not deliver the premise until November 30, 1999, and failed to go through the procedures of changing the name of the premise owner by the time when the lawsuit was brought. On April 22, 2003, Great Wall Company came to know that the actually measured area of the purchased premise was 28.12 square meters smaller than that stipulated in the contract. The ratio of error in respect of area was 26.6% of the contractual area. That is to say, Great Wall Company actually paid a total sum of RMB 653,508.8 Yuan of excessive purchasing price. In accordance with a relevant provision in the Supreme People's Court's “Interpretation on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Law for Hearing Cases of Dispute over Commodity Premise Sale Contracts” (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation”), i.e., “the portion of purchasing price in excess of 3% of the error ratio in respect of area should be refunded by the seller to the buyer at double the sum”, therefore, Ocean Plaza Company should refund a total sum of RMB 1,233,314.26 Yuan to Great Wall Company. In addition, Ocean Plaza Company did not apply for the certificate of premise title on behalf of Great Wall Company by the time when the lawsuit was brought, which severely damaged Great Wall Company's benefits, so it should bear the liabilities for compensation.
Great Wall Company submitted the following evidence:
| | 長城公司訴遠洋大廈公司商品房買賣合同糾紛案
【裁判摘要】
房屋出賣人交付使用的房屋建築面積超出商品房買賣合同約定面積的，應按照最高人民法院《關于審理商品房買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律若幹問題的解釋》第十四條的規定處理。
原告：長城國際傳播有限責任公司。
法定代表人：黃宇光，該公司董事長。
被告：北京遠洋大廈有限公司。
法定代表人：李明，該公司董事長。
原告長城國際傳播有限責任公司(以下簡稱長城公司)因與被告北京遠洋大廈有限公司(以下簡稱遠洋大廈公司)發生商品房買賣合同糾紛，向北京市西城區人民法院提起訴訟。
原告訴稱：1999年3月1日，我公司與遠洋大廈公司在《外銷商品房預售契約》中約定：我公司購買遠洋大廈的G01單位，建築面積為105．62平方米，每平方米2800美元，合計295736美元；遠洋大廈公司應在1999年9月30日前交付房屋，並在房屋交付後30日內辦理房屋買賣過戶手續。合同簽訂後，我公司交付了全部購房款，遠洋大廈公司延期至1999年11月30日交付了房屋，但至今未辦理房屋買賣過戶手續。2003年4月22日，我公司得知所購房屋實測面積比合同減少了28．12平方米，面積誤差比為購房合同的26．6％，實際多付房款共計人民幣653508．8元。根據最高人民法院《關于審理商品房買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律若幹問題的解釋》(以下簡稱《解釋》)中的“面積誤差比超過3％部分的房價款由出賣人雙倍返還”規定，被告應返還我公司房價款共計人民幣1233314．26元。此外，遠洋大廈公司至今未替我公司辦理房產證，嚴重損害了我公司利益，應承擔賠償責任。
原告提交的證據有：
|
1. A copy of the “Contract for the Advance Sale of Foreign-Oriented Commodity Premises”, which proves that there existed a contractual relationship of premise sale between both parties.
| | 1．《外銷商品房預售契約》一份，用以證明雙方的房屋買賣合同關系。
|
2. A copy of the “Supplementary Agreement to the Contract for the Advance Sale of Beijing Ocean Plaza”, which proves the relationship between the supplementary agreement and the aforesaid agreement, and the legal effectiveness, as well.
| | 2．《北京“遠洋大廈”預售契約補充協議》一份，用以證明該補充協議與原協議的關系和法律效力。
|
3. Two letters of Great Wall Company, which prove that Great Wall Company urged Ocean Plaza Company in September 2001 to go through the procedures for changing the name of the premise owner.
| | 3．長城公司的函件二份，用以證明2001年9月該公司催促遠洋大廈公司辦理房屋產權過戶手續的情況。
|
4. A copy of Great Wall Company's “Notice on Relevant Issues Concerning the Contract for the Advance Sale of Foreign-Oriented Commodity Premises”, which proves that Great Wall Company urged Ocean Plaza Company to go through the procedures for changing the name of the premise owner, and demanded it to bear corresponding losses.
| | 4．長城公司《關于＜外銷商品房預售契約＞相關問題的通知》一份，用以證明該公司催促辦理房屋產權過戶手續並要求被告承擔損失的情況。
|
5. A copy of Great Wall Company's “Special Letter”, which proves that Great Wall Company urged Ocean Plaza Company to go through the procedures for changing the name of the premise owner.
| | 5．長城公司《專函》一份，用以證明該公司催促辦理房屋產權過戶手續的情況。
|
6. A copy of Ocean Plaza Company's “Letter on the Certificate of Premise Title for Suite G01 of Ocean Plaza Purchased by Great Wall Company”, which proves the shortage in the area of the premise sold by Ocean Plaza Company, and Ocean Plaza Company's promise to refund the overpayment after obtaining the certificate of premise title.
| | 6．遠洋大廈公司《關于貴司購買的遠洋大廈G01單位的房產證事宜》函件一份，用以證明該公司出售的房屋面積縮水及承諾在辦理產權證後退還房款的情況。
|
7. An “invoice” issued by Ocean Plaza Company on the purchase of the premise, which proves that Great Wall Company paid off the purchasing price on February 13, 1999.
| | 7．遠洋大廈公司出具的購房《發票》一張，用以證明已于1999年2月13日全額交納購房款。
|
8. The “Certificate of Entire Premise Title”, which proves that Ocean Plaza Company did not obtain the entire title for Ocean Plaza until September 12, 2002, and it was impossible for it to go through the procedures for changing the name of the premise owner within the time limit as stipulated in the contract.
| | 8．《房屋產權證》一冊，用以證明遠洋大廈公司在2002年9月12日才取得遠洋大廈的大產權，合同約定的辦理產權過戶手續的期限根本不能實現。
|
9. An “invoice” issued by Zhongtian Zhongrui Law Firm, which proves that Great Wall Company paid retainers pursuant to the contract to the law firm designated by Ocean Plaza Company for obtaining the certificate of premise title.
| | 9．眾天中瑞律師事務所出具的《發票》一張，用以證明長城公司依約向遠洋大廈公司指定的律師事務所交納律師費，以辦理房產證的情況。
|
10. A copy of “Working Rules of Zhongtian Zhongrui Law Firm”, which proves that Great Wall Company followed the lawyer's requirements to have completed the relevant procedures for obtaining the certificate of premise title.
Ocean Plaza Company argued that, it sent a letter to Great Wall Company on April 22, 2003, notifying Great Wall Company to go through the procedures for changing the name of the premise owner, but Great Wall Company did not reply, thus the failure in changing the name of the premise owner was caused by Great Wall Company. As for the shortage in area, Ocean Plaza Company notified Great Wall Company in writing by letter that it had modified the original contract on the sale of the premise, but Great Wall Company did not present any objection within a reasonable time limit. Therefore, since Great Wall Company demanded continuing performance of the contract, both parties actually reached a supplementary agreement on settling the purchasing money in excess of the reasonable range of error at the contractual unit price. Consequently, the “Interpretation” shall not apply to this case.
Ocean Plaza Company submitted the following evidence:
| | 10．《眾天中瑞律師事務所工作流程》一份，用以證明長城公司按照律師要求履行了辦理產權證的相關手續。
被告辯稱：2003年4月22日，我公司向長城公司發函通知其辦理房屋產權過戶手續，但對方未予答複，故房屋產權未過戶是其自己造成的。關于售房面積縮水的情況，我公司已通過函件書面通知長城公司，對原購房契約進行了變更，長城公司沒有在合理的期限內提出異議。因此，雙方實際已在原告要求繼續履行合同的情況下，就超過合理誤差範圍外面積的房款按契約的單價進行結算達成了補充協議，故不應將《解釋》適用于本案。
被告提交的證據有：
|
1. The “Certificate of Entire Premise Title”, which proves Ocean Plaza Company has obtained the entire title for Ocean Plaza.
| | 1．《房屋產權證》一冊，用以證明該公司已取得遠洋大廈的完整房屋產權。
|
2. A copy of the “Contract for the Advance of Foreign-Oriented Commodity Premises”, which proves that both parties stipulated in the contract their rights and obligations on the sale of the premise.
| | 2．《外銷商品房預售契約》一份，用以證明雙方在合同中約定的房屋買賣權利和義務。
|
3. A copy of Ocean Plaza's opinions of accepting the premise delivered by Ocean Plaza, which proves the time of delivery of Ocean Plaza.
| | 3．遠洋大廈的驗收意見一份，用以證明遠洋大廈的交樓時間。
|
4. A copy of the “Contract for the Advance Sale of Foreign-Oriented Commodity Premises”, which proves that both parties to the contract agreed to amend the conditions on applying for the certificate of premise title.
| | 4．《外銷商品房預售契約》一份，用以證明合同雙方已同意修改了關于申領房地產權屬證件的條件。
|
5. A copy of “Agreement on Entry into Beijing Ocean Plaza for Decoration for the Second Time”, which proves that Great Wall Company exempted Ocean Plaza Company from the liabilities for postponing the delivery of the premise.
| | 5．《北京遠洋大廈二次裝修進場協議書》一份，用以證明長城公司已免除遠洋大廈公司延期交房的責任。
|
6. A copy of “Letter of Assistance”, which proves that, although Great Wall Company did not obtain the certificate of premise title, it had mortgaged the purchased premise to Beijing Zhongguancun Technology Guaranty Limited Company.
| | 6．《協助函》一份，用以證明長城公司雖未取得房屋產權證，但已將所購房屋抵押給北京中關村科技擔保有限公司。
|
7. A copy of “Civil Ruling of the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing City” and a copy of “Notification of Assistance in Enforcement”, which prove that the court had frozen the documents for Great Wall Company to change the name of the premise owner.
| | 7．《北京市海澱區人民法院民事裁定書》及《協助執行通知書》各一份，用以證明法院凍結了長城公司房屋過戶手續。
|
8. Ocean Plaza Company's “Letter on the Certificate of Premise Title for Suite G01 of Ocean Plaza Purchased by Great Wall Company” and the “Letter on the Certificate of Premise Title for Suites G01, G02, G02B, F401A, F401B and F402A of Ocean Plaza Purchased by Great Wall Company”, which prove that Ocean Plaza Company notified Great Wall Company to apply for the certificate of premise title.
| | 8．遠洋大廈公司《關于貴司購買的遠洋大廈G01單位的房產證事宜》函件及《關于貴司購買遠洋大廈G01、G02、G02B、F401A、F401B、F402A單位的房產證事宜》函件，用以證明該公司已通知長城公司辦理產權證。
|
9. A copy of the “Working Rules of Zhongtian Zhongrui Law Firm”, which proves that what the law firm handled was the procedures for the mortgage for real estate loans, instead of applying for the certificate of premise title.
| | 9．《眾天中瑞律師事務所工作流程》一份，用以證明該律師事務所辦理的是按揭，而不是產權證。
|
10. An “Invoice” issued by Zhongtian Zhongrui Law Firm, which proves that the fee charged by this law firm was for the mortgage for real estate loans.
| | 10．眾天中瑞律師事務所出具的《發票》一張，用以證明該律師事務所的收費是辦理按揭。
|
11. A letter by Great Wall Company to Zhongtian Zhongrui Law Firm, which proves that both Great Wall Company and Ocean Plaza Company were making efforts for Great Wall Company to pay the outstanding portion of the purchasing price to Ocean Plaza Company by way of mortgage for real estate loans.
| | 11．長城公司致眾天中瑞律師事務所的函件，用以證明原、被告雙方正在進行通過申請按揭付款方式支付原告應付被告的剩余房款。
|
12. A copy of the “Mortgage Agreement”, which proves that Great Wall Company had mortgaged its premise to Beijing Zhongguancun Technology Guaranty Limited Company.
During the court investigation, Ocean Plaza Company had no objection to the authenticity of the evidence provided by Great Wall Company, but held that Great Wall Company's Evidence 9 proved the retainers were only the charges for going through the procedures for mortgage for real estate loans. Great Wall Company had no objection to the authenticity of Evidences 1 through 10 submitted by Ocean Plaza Company, but held that Evidence 9 should include the content of applying for the certificate of premise title; Evidence 10 cannot prove there existed any mortgage for real estate loans, but proves the purpose of applying for the certificate of premise title, because the purchasing price for Suite G01 had been fully paid; neither Evidence 11 nor Evidence 12 was affixed with the company stamp, thus neither of them is legally effective.
．．．．．． | | 12．《抵押協議》一份，用以證明長城公司已將全部購房抵押給北京中關村科技擔保有限公司。
法庭調查中，被告對原告提供證據的真實性無異議，但認為原告證據9證明的律師費應是辦理房屋按揭的費用。原告對被告提交的證據1至證據10的真實性無異議，但是認為證據9應包括辦理產權證；證據10不能證明存在按揭購房的問題，而是為了辦理房屋產權證，因為G01號房產已全部交納了購房款；作為證據11、證據12的兩文件均未蓋單位公章，不具有法律效力。
經法庭調查，北京市西城區人民法院認定如下事實：
原告長城公司和被告遠洋大廈公司于1999年3月1日簽訂《外銷商品房預售契約》，該契約約定：長城公司自願購買由遠洋大廈公司預售的北京遠洋大廈G層01(暫定號)房屋，房屋用途為寫字樓，遠洋大廈公司已收到原告定金人民幣36800元；還約定：G層01(暫定號)的建築面積為105．62平方米，國有土地使用面積16．84平方米，上述各項面積為暫測面積，該商品房交付時，房屋的實際面積與暫測面積的差別不超過暫測面積的±5％(不含)時，按照本契約約定的所售房屋售價進行結算；實測面積與暫測面積之差超過暫測面積的±5％(含)時，自遠洋大廈公司向長城公司出示北京市房屋土地管理局實測面積文件之日起15日內，長城公司有權解除契約。契約解除自長城公司書面通知送達遠洋大廈公司之日起生效。遠洋大廈公司除在契約解除後30日內向長城公司雙倍返還定金外，並需將長城公司已付的房價款及利息全部退還，利息按照中國人民銀行固定資產貸款利率或按照中國人民銀行外彙貸款利率計算。同時約定：雙方同意上述預售房屋售價為每建築平方米2800美元，價款合計為295736美元。長城公司同意在雙方簽訂預售契約後即付清全部購房價款。長城公司已支付的定金在原告最後一次付款時轉為購房價款。還約定：被告須于1999年9月30日前，將房屋交付給原告。雙方同意房屋交付後30日內共同到北京市房屋土地管理局房地產市場管理處辦理房屋買賣過戶審批手續。辦理上述手續時發生的稅費，由雙方依照有關規定交納。
．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您現在要進入的是北大法律英文網會員專區，如您是我們英文用戶可直接 登錄，進入會員專區查詢您所需要的信息；如您還不是我們 的英文用戶，請注冊並交納相應費用成為我們的英文會員 。如有問題請來電咨詢；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |