How will the court rule if the rent reduced due to the epidemic has been occupied by the second landlord? In April 2020, Ms. Li signed the "Yunnan Provincial Provincial Administrative Institutions State-owned Assets Leasing Contract" with the Yunnan Provincial Market Supervision

Recently,

Kunming City Wuhua District People’s Court

heard a contract dispute case caused by rent reduction or exemption

due to the epidemic.

The rent reduced or reduced due to the epidemic has been occupied by the second landlord.

How will the court rule?

Event review

In April 2020, Ms. Li signed the "Yunnan Provincial Provincial Administrative Institutions State-owned Assets Leasing Contract" with the Yunnan Provincial Market Supervision Administration Agency Service Center, renting a state-owned asset house, and the lease period is from January 2020 to December 2020. Later, Ms. Li signed a "Joint Venture Agreement" with Mr. Ling, stipulating that Ms. Li would jointly operate the house involved in the case with Mr. Ling. The joint venture period is from April 2020 to April 2021, and the annual fee is 60,000 yuan. After the agreement was signed, Ms. Li delivered the shop involved in the case, and Mr. Ling paid the joint venture fee as of April 2021.

At the beginning of 2020, due to the impact of the new crown epidemic, the Service Center of the Yunnan Provincial Administration for Market Regulation reduced Ms. Li’s rent from February 11, 2020 to December 31, 2020. As the "second landlord", Ms. Li is unwilling to reduce or reduce Mr. Ling's rent. Mr. Ling negotiated with Ms. Li many times and asked for rent reduction and exemption, but was rejected. Mr. Ling sued the court and asked Ms. Li to refund the rent during the epidemic and pay the capital occupation fee. During the court hearing, Ms. Li believed that the contract she signed with Mr. Ling was a joint venture relationship, not a leasing relationship, and she did not agree to refund the joint venture fees during the epidemic.

Defendant Ms. Li : " The defendant believes that the relationship between the original defendant and the defendant is a joint venture, not a rental contract relationship. According to the joint venture agreement signed by both parties and the receipt issued by the three plaintiffs and the defendant to collect the payment, , all admitted that the refunds received were joint venture fees, and the joint venture fees paid were also joint venture fees. ”

However, the court held that the “Joint Venture Agreement” signed between Ms. Li and Mr. Ling did not have the right to joint venture or partnership. The content of the obligations, such as risk sharing, profit sharing, etc., combined with the contract stipulation to pay a fixed amount of "joint venture fee" on a regular basis and the utilization content of the store involved in the case, After comprehensive judgment, it was confirmed that the joint venture was a false expression of intention and a hidden civil legal act , it is a sub-lease contract relationship established by the parties to the contract in order to avoid the restrictions on the lessee's "sublease rights" in the lease contract .

Judge Li Genqiong of the People’s Court of Wuhua District, Kunming City: “ Because the contract signed by Ms. Li with the Service Center of the Yunnan Provincial Administration for Market Regulation at the time required that Ms. Li could not sublet, so she did this in order to avoid subletting. According to the regulations, in the form of joint venture, the plaintiff Mr. Ling paid a fixed amount to Ms. Li in the name of joint venture fee, which was actually rent. Therefore, the court determined that this was not a joint venture agreement, but a house rental contract ."

The court held that according to the spirit of the national policy on rent reduction and exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises during the COVID-19 epidemic, the rent reduction policy requires that the policy be implemented on the actual lessee. Ms. Li actually enjoyed the benefits from February 11, 2020 to December 31, 2020. The fact that the rent reduction and exemption policy was implemented during the period, and the fact that Mr. Ling was the sub-lessee (individual industrial and commercial household) who actually used the leased property and performed the sub-lease contract. Wuhua Court made the first-instance judgment: Ms. Li should return the house rent of 55,000 yuan and the water and electricity deposit of 1,000 yuan to Mr. Ling. After the verdict was announced, neither Ms. Li nor Mr. Ling appealed.

Didn’t both parties sign a contract?

Why did the second landlord lose the lawsuit?

Tonight

Guest of "Explaining the Law through Cases"

Full-time lawyer of Guoco Law Firm (Kunming)

Jin Nan

Main business direction: Member of the Banking and Finance Professional Committee of Kunming Lawyers Association, Member of the Mediation Professional Committee of Kunming Lawyers Association . The main business areas are civil and commercial affairs, construction project construction contract disputes, and bank financial non-performing asset disposal matters.

Lawyer’s point of view: The nature of the contract cannot be determined solely by the name of the contract, but should be fully understood and accurately determined based on the content of the contract, that is, the legal relationships involved in the main terms of the contract.

interprets it for you!

is a legal program jointly produced by Yunnan Provincial Department of Justice ,

Yunnan Provincial Legal Knowledge Popularization Office,

Yunnan Radio and Television Station .

This legal column of the public channel,

makes the popularization of the law closer to people's livelihood,

makes the law truly serve the people.

Every Wednesday and Saturday night

Yunnan Radio and Television Public Channel (YNTV-6)

1:30 broadcast

Welcome to watch!

Director: Duan Wei

Poster production: Landiandian

Editor: Wen Yaojie (trainee)