[Judgement Essay]
"Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes" Article 2 stipulates that "the lessor has not obtained the construction project planning license or has not been built in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning license, and the lease contract signed with the lessee is invalid. However, if the construction project planning license is obtained before the end of the first instance court debate or is approved by the competent department, the people's court shall determine it to be valid." At the same time, according to the provisions of Article 40, paragraph 1 of the "Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China" "If buildings, structures, roads, pipelines and other projects are carried out in urban and town planning areas, the construction unit or individual shall apply for a construction project planning permit from the urban and rural planning department of the city or county people's government or the town people's government determined by the people's government of provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the central government" and Article 64 "If construction has not been obtained or construction has not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning permit, the urban and rural planning department of the local people's government at or above the county level shall order the construction to stop;...", obtaining a construction project planning permit is a prerequisite for legal construction and is also a standard for judging whether it is a legal building. If the construction project planning license is not obtained, the lease contract shall be deemed invalid. After the contract is determined to be invalid, it will no longer involve the issue of breach of contract and termination, and the relevant provisions in the contract regarding liquidated damages and termination compensation will no longer apply.
[Judgement Document]
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
Civil Affairs Judgment
(2017) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 171
Appellant (original plaintiff): Zhejiang Yintai Investment Co., Ltd., Xiacheng District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province.
Legal representative: Chen Xiaodong , executive director of the company.
Appellant (original defendant): Baotou MCC Real Estate Co., Ltd., domicile of Kun District, Baotou City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
Legal representative: Ding Junhua, chairman of the company.
Appellant Zhejiang Yintai Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yintai Company) appealed to this court for a dispute with the house lease contract with the appellant Baotou MCC Real Estate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as MCC Company). After the case was filed on March 16, 2017, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a trial. Intime's entrusted litigation agents Chen Jun and Jiang Yuhang, and MCC's entrusted litigation agents Zhou Sheng and Duan Junru appeared in court to participate in the litigation. The trial of this case has now ended.
Intime Company appealed: the original judgment was revoked, and all litigation requests were changed to support Intime Company, and the MCC was ordered to bear the acceptance fees for the first and second instance cases in this case. Facts and reasons: 1. The original judgment found that the house rental contract in question was invalid on the grounds that MCC Company failed to obtain a construction project planning license before the end of the first instance debate, which is an error in the application of the law and fact determination. (1) Article 2 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes" stipulates that "the house rental contract that has not obtained a construction project planning license is invalid" is to prohibit illegal construction behavior, deny the property rights and interests of illegal buildings, and regulate the rental issues of illegal buildings. However, the transaction object under the house rental contract involved is not an illegal building, but a house that MCC will complete the development and construction in accordance with the law and legally enjoy ownership, and should not belong to the regulatory object of this article. In Articles 2.2, 2.3, 9.2.9 and 11.11 of the house rental contract involved, MCC has repeatedly promised and guaranteed to Intime Company that the house to be delivered is a legal building, and MCC has legal, independent and complete ownership of the house. Therefore, the house rental contract in question is not about the lease of illegal buildings, and the content of the agreement does not violate any laws and regulations. (2) The house stipulated in Article 2 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes" shall only refer to houses that have been built.However, the house rental contract involved is a contract to book a leased property. When the contract is signed, the rental house does not actually exist and will be subject to subsequent development and construction by MCC Company in accordance with the law. Therefore, this provision does not apply to this case. (3) Obtaining a construction project planning license is an important contractual obligation of MCC. Failure to obtain a construction project planning license is a major breach of contract by MCC. Therefore, the built house is an illegal building and is not a house stipulated in the house rental contract involved. The original judgment should not deny the validity of the house rental contract involved by MCC. (4) The original judgment on the invalidity of the contract does not comply with the guiding ideology of "maintaining the transaction order of the housing rental market" and the basic principle of "to maintain the validity of the contract as much as possible on the basis of following the spirit of the law." The house rental contract involved reflects the true meaning of both Intime and MCC. In more than four years after the contract was signed, both parties were actively promoting the implementation. MCC not only never mentioned to Intime that the project did not have a construction project planning license, but also repeatedly promised to deliver the legal rental house agreed in the contract as soon as possible. When a dispute arose in the case, MCC Company claimed that the contract was invalid on the grounds that it had not obtained a construction project planning license, which was an abuse of the law. The original judgment on the invalidity of the contract will seriously disrupt the transaction order of the custom-made pre-leasing market in the commercial industry, which is currently common in the commercial industry, and increase the cost of commercial transactions. (5) The original judgment was based on the "Instructions" issued by the Rare Earth High-tech Zone Planning Branch of the Baotou Municipal Planning Bureau that MCC Company had not obtained a construction project planning license for the project involved in the case. Based on the evidence submitted by MCC, it can be at least determined that the construction of the project involved has been approved by the government authorities. Based on this, the house rental contract in question should be determined to be valid. 2. The original judgment did not recognize the loss assessment report submitted by Intime on the grounds that commercial operations have their own risks and profit and loss have many uncertainties, which is an incorrect fact determination. Since MCC failed to provide legally built houses as agreed, Intime Company suffered mainly the operating losses of its failure to operate the rental houses as scheduled. The loss calculation period is 6.3 years, including 4.3 years from the signing of the contract from June 2011 to the termination of the contract in October 2015 and the reasonable time required to find a new project. In this case, based on the evidence provided by Intime Company, the evaluation agency finally determined that Intime Company had operating losses and the amount of losses was an average of RMB 17 million per year. 3. The original judgment found that Yintai Company’s litigation request for attorney fees and appraisal fees was not valid on the grounds that the house rental contract in question was determined to be invalid, which is an error in the application of the law. Even if the contract involved is invalid, according to Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, MCC, as the all attributable party to the invalid contract, should still bear the liability for compensation for the fault of Intime Company and compensate Intime Company for all economic losses suffered by the invalid contract involved, including but not limited to the attorney fees and appraisal fees spent by Intime Company. 4. The original judgment found that MCC had all the fault for the invalidity of the house rental contract involved, but required Intime to bear 98% of the first instance case acceptance fee, which is a mistake in the application of the law and is unfair to Intime. Even if the contract involved is ultimately determined to be invalid, the first-instance case acceptance fee spent by Intime Company should belong to the economic losses suffered by Intime Company and should be fully compensated by MCC.
MCC argued that the original judgment determined the facts clearly and the law was applied correctly. The reason why the house rental contract in question did not take effect was that the government's plan changed, which changed the overall plan of the area involved, was not MCC's fault. There is no legal basis for the losses claimed by Intime Company. The lease contract involved in the case is invalid, and Intime Company has no right to claim losses based on the invalid contract.
MCC appeal request: Revoke the first item of the original judgment, reject all the lawsuits of Intime Company, and order Intime Company to bear all the litigation costs in this case. Facts and reasons: 1. The original judgment determined that MCC Company had all the fault for the invalidity of the house rental contract in question, which was a mistake in the determination.MCC has been actively handling all procedures for the project involved in the case, but due to government reasons, policy changes, planning adjustments and other force majeure reasons, it has not been able to obtain a construction project planning license. MCC has no fault in this result. 2. The original judgment shall be subject to Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China and determine that MCC Company shall bear responsibility without any basis. Since the house rental contract in question is determined to be invalid, the legal determination of breach of contract liability for valid contract cannot be applied. 3. The original judgment found that Intime Company had no fault in this case was inconsistent with the facts. When Yintai signed the house rental contract in question, he knew that the project involved in the case had not obtained the planning procedures, and had been aware of the progress and results of the certificate application process during MCC's application process, and had assigned representatives to work at the construction site. According to the contract, the design plan of the house involved in the case was designed by Intime Company itself, and as the design entity, it should also bear certain fault liability for the design plan so far. 4. On the one hand, the original judgment found that Intime Company did not provide evidence to prove its loss amount, and on the other hand, it found that MCC should give Intime Company appropriate compensation was obviously contradictory. 5. The original judgment calculated the amount of compensation at an annual interest rate of 24% lacks factual and legal basis. This case is not a private lending dispute, and Intime Company has no actual losses at all. Even if there is a loss, it is only an interest loss of RMB 5 million in margin. MCC suffered far more than Intime, and both parties should bear their own losses.
Intime Company argued that the original judgment quoted Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China with clear legal basis; failure to obtain a construction project planning license does not constitute force majeure, and Intime Company did not receive a notice of force majeure; the original judgment applied the provisions of Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China that it believed that even if it was a third party, it would not affect MCC's performance of its obligations. MCC's understanding of this was wrong; MCC's claim that Intime Company was also at fault had no legal basis, and even if the contract was invalid, responsibility should be determined according to the fault of both parties.
Intime Company filed a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (hereinafter referred to as the first instance court): 1. Order MCC Company to pay Yintai Company a penalty of 33.65 million yuan in delayed house delivery; 2. Order MCC Company to pay Yintai Company a penalty of 130 million yuan in termination compensation to Yintai Company; 3. Order MCC Company to bear all the litigation fees in this case and compensate Yintai Company for reasonable expenses such as attorneys' fees and appraisal fees incurred in handling the dispute in this case 554,000 yuan.
The first instance court determined the facts: On June 22, 2011, MCC, as the lessor, and Yintai Company signed a "House Lease Contract", stipulating that MCC will rent the first floor to the fourth floor of the commercial building on the E2 plot of Baotou Times Square in the southeast corner of Alding Street and Yellow River Street and Yellow River Street and 5000 square meters above ground, and 4000 square meters of the first to second floor of the hotel on the south side to the 4th floor of the hotel on the ground; MCC, Public The company shall transfer the rental house to Intime Company before December 31, 2013. After the acceptance is passed, the two parties shall sign the "Leased House Transfer Letter"; Intime Company enjoys a 24-month decoration adjustment period (including the trial business period) (Note: 8,000 square meters of international first-line brands are operated, and the decoration adjustment period is 48 months). From the date when the two parties sign the "Leased House Transfer Letter" the decoration adjustment period is a lease-free period. Intime Company does not need to pay the rental fee to MCC Company; the lease period is from 20 years from the day after the renovation adjustment period expires, and can be renewed for 10 years after the expiration of the period; Intime Company shall pay a lease deposit of RMB 5 million to MCC; if MCC delays delivery of the leased house, it shall pay a liquidated damages to Intime Company at RMB 50,000 per day; if the delayed delivery of the house exceeds 12 months, Intime Company has the right to terminate the "Lease Contract", MCC shall pay 130 million yuan in one lump sum to Intime Company, and shall compensate Intime Company for attorney fees and litigation fees incurred in claiming rights. , and other reasonable expenses; due to earthquakes, wars and other force majeure, either party cannot fulfill its obligations under this agreement and shall not bear the losses caused to the other party; this contract shall be signed by the representative of the two-person or authorized representative and stamped with the official seal, and MCC will only take effect after providing Annex I and Annex I to Intime Company; Annex I: 1. Land use red line diagram, 2. General floor plan, 3. Plan of each floor, 4. Location and floor plan of supporting rooms, 5. Plan of auxiliary facilities within the red line. Attachment 4: 1. Copy of business license and property owner’s ID card, 2. Power of attorney for signing representatives, 3. Resolution of the shareholders’ meeting of MCC agreed to lease it to Intime.
On August 18, 2011, Intime Company delivered a lease deposit of RMB 5 million to MCC. On June 14, 2013, MCC sent a "Letter on Inquiry on Insider's Delivery Period" to Insider, indicating that the Baotou Times Square project had an overall delay due to the change of the development entity, but promised to complete the relevant change procedures as soon as possible and deliver the rental house to Insider before December 31, 2014. On June 27, 2013, Intime Company sent a "Reply to Intime on Inquiry on the Delivery Period" to MCC, stating that the delivery time of the rental house stipulated in the "Lease Contract" is December 31, 2013, rather than December 31, 2014. If MCC fails to deliver the rental house on time, it shall bear the liability for breach of contract for delaying the delivery of the house. On December 10, 2013, as the delivery deadline was approaching, Intime Company sent a "Letter on Delivering Buildings on the Contract as Departure" to MCC, urging MCC to deliver the house as agreed. On August 13, 2014, MCC returned RMB 5 million to Intime Company. On November 17 and December 31, 2014, Intime Company successively sent a "Contact Letter on Requirement to Hand over the Building as soon as possible and assume breach of contract liability in accordance with the contract" and a "Contact Letter on Requirement to Hand over the Building as soon as possible" to MCC Company, indicating that MCC Company's failure to hand over the house constitutes a breach of contract, requiring it to pay a penalty of RMB 50,000 per day, and urged MCC Company to speed up the construction progress and deliver the house before December 31, 2014. On October 30, 2015, Intime Company sent a "Termination Notice" to MCC, announcing the termination of the "House Lease Contract", and required MCC to pay a penalty of 33.65 million yuan in delayed house delivery and a compensation of 130 million yuan in termination.
It was also found that Baotou Rongtai Real Estate Co., Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary established by MCC. On October 22, 2012, the main body of the construction project involved was changed from MCC to Baotou Rongtai Real Estate Co., Ltd. In the "Lease Contract" involved, the E2 plot in Baotou Times Square, located in the southeast corner of Alding Street and Yellow River Street in Baotou City, did not obtain a construction project planning license before the debate ended.
The first instance court held that based on Intime's litigation request, facts and reasons and MCC's defense opinion, the following key issues are summarized in this case: 1. The validity of Intime and MCC signing of the "House Lease Contract" on June 22, 2011; 2. Whether the litigation request for Intime to pay a delayed house delivery of 33.65 million yuan and a compensation for 130 million yuan in termination of the contract, and a lawyer's fee and appraisal fee of 554,000 yuan is valid.
1. Regarding the validity of Intime Company and MCC signing the "House Lease Contract" on June 22, 2011.
Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes" stipulates that "the lessor has a lease contract with the lessee for a house that has not obtained a construction project planning permit or has not been built in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning permit. However, if the people's court obtains a construction project planning permit or is approved by the competent department before the end of the first instance court debate, the people's court shall determine it to be valid." In this case, MCC, as the lessor, did not obtain a construction project planning license when signing the "House Lease Contract" with the lessee Yintai Company on June 22, 2011, and did not obtain it until the end of the court debate in this case. Therefore, the signing of the "House Lease Contract" between Yintai Company and MCC on June 22, 2011 was invalid.
2. Regarding whether the lawsuit request for Intime to pay MCC to pay a penalty of 33.65 million yuan for delayed delivery of the house and a compensation of 130 million yuan for termination of the contract, and a lawyer's fee and an appraisal fee of 554,000 yuan for 554,000 yuan for litigation.
Yintai Company claims a penalty of RMB 33.65 million in delayed delivery of the house and a compensation of RMB 130 million in termination of the contract, and a lawyer's fee and appraisal fee of RMB 554,000, both of which were proposed in accordance with the agreement signed by the "House Lease Contract" on June 22, 2011. Because the contract is invalid, the two parties agreed that the above-mentioned penalty for delayed delivery of the house and compensation for termination of the contract will be invalid. Yintai Company's claim to delay the delivery of the house with a liquidated damages of 33.65 million yuan and the compensation for 130 million yuan in termination of the contract, and the litigation request of 554,000 yuan in attorney's fees and appraisal fees cannot be established. Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "after a contract is invalid or revoked, the property obtained due to the contract shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or there is no need to return it, compensation shall be made at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered by the other party. If both parties are at fault, they shall bear corresponding responsibilities." In this case, MCC, as the builder of the rental house involved in the case, has the obligation to apply for a construction project planning license. He signed a "House Lease Contract" with Intime Company without processing, and has not been processed so far. MCC, which is fully at fault for the invalid consequences of the "House Lease Contract" involved in the case. MCC believes that it is because of government reasons that it has not applied for a construction project planning license and it is not at fault. Article 121 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If one party breaches the contract due to a third party's reasons, it shall bear the liability for breach of contract to the other party. Disputes between one party and the third party shall be resolved in accordance with the law or in accordance with the agreement." In this case, even if MCC’s claim is established, it has nothing to do with Intime. During the trial, after inquiry, Intime Company stated that even if the contract is invalid, the responsibility lies entirely with MCC, and it should bear the liability for compensation for losses. From the signing of the contract in June 2011 to the termination of the contract in October 2015, plus the reasonable period of two years of searching for new projects, according to the assessment report, if the annual operating profit of the contract is 17264465 yuan, and although it is more than 100 million yuan in six years, it still claims that MCC will compensate for losses of 130 million yuan. After review, the evaluation report provided by Intime Company is an estimate of the expected profits during the next 20 years after the delivery of the rental houses involved in the case. Since commercial operations have their own risks and profits and losses have many uncertain factors, it cannot be determined based on this that Intime Company's operations will definitely make profits, and the annual profit amount can be as high as more than 17 million yuan. Therefore, Yintai Company's claim to compensate for the amount of losses based on the assessment report is insufficient and will not support it. Intime Company also did not provide other evidence to prove its loss.Considering that Intime Company has fulfilled the obligation to pay a deposit of RMB 5 million in the contract, it was not at fault in this case. From the signing of the contract to the termination of the contract, Intime Company has suffered certain losses. Although Intime Company cannot provide evidence to prove its losses, MCC should give Intime Company appropriate compensation. MCC holds 5 million yuan of Intime Company for a total of two years and 361 days from August 18, 2011 to August 13, 2014. Based on the interest rate of the highest annual private lending rate of 24%, MCC should pay interest of 3586,849 yuan to Intime Company as compensation from MCC to Intime Company.
In summary, Intime Company's litigation reasons are partially established, and the first instance court partially supports its litigation request. In accordance with Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes", Article 134, Paragraph 1, Article 138, Article 141, Article 148, Article 1, and Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the first instance court ruled as follows: 1. MCC Company compensates Intime Company for losses of 3586,849 yuan within 30 days from the date of the effectiveness of the judgment. 2. Dismiss Intime Company's other litigation requests. If the debtor fails to perform the obligation to pay money within the period specified in the judgment, he shall pay double the interest on the debt during the delayed performance in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The case acceptance fee is 862,820 yuan, 843,973 yuan will be borne by Intime Company and 18,847 yuan will be borne by MCC.
In the second instance, the parties did not submit new evidence. This court confirms the facts found in the first instance.
This court believes that based on the litigation and defense of both parties, the focus of disputes during the second instance of this case is: 1. How to determine the validity of the "House Lease Contract"; 2. Should MCC pay Yintai Company a penalty for delayed house delivery and termination compensation to termination; 3. If the "House Lease Contract" is determined to be invalid, how to determine whether MCC should compensate Yintai Company for losses and amount of losses.
Regarding focus 1, the question of how to determine the effectiveness of the "House Lease Contract". According to the provisions of the "House Lease Contract", MCC's main contractual obligation is to deliver leased properties that meet the requirements of the contract on time. Intime's main contractual obligation is to pay performance deposits and rents. The main rights and obligations of both parties are in line with the characteristics of the house rental contract. However, when the "House Lease Contract" was signed, the house as the leased property had not been built yet, so it is a pre-lease for future built houses. Regarding pre-leasing of houses, if there are no provisions in current laws and administrative regulations, the provisions on house rental can be referred to and applied. Article 2 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Urban Housing Lease Contract Disputes" stipulates that "the lessor has a lease contract with the lessee for a house that has not obtained a construction project planning permit or has not been built in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning permit. However, if the people's court obtains a construction project planning permit or is approved by the competent department before the end of the first instance court debate, the people's court shall determine it to be valid." At the same time, according to the provisions of Article 40, paragraph 1 of the "Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People's Republic of China" (2007) "If buildings, structures, roads, pipelines and other projects are carried out in urban and town planning areas, the construction unit or individual shall apply for a construction project planning permit from the urban and rural planning department of the city or county people's government or the town people's government determined by the people's government of provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the central government" and Article 64 "If construction has not been obtained or construction has not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the construction project planning permit, the urban and rural planning department of the local people's government at or above the county level shall order the construction to stop the construction;...", obtaining a construction project planning permit is a prerequisite for legal construction and is also a standard for judging whether it is a legal building.In this case, based on the evidence submitted by both parties and the verification by the first instance court with the Planning Branch of the Rare Earth High-tech Zone of Baotou Planning Bureau, it can be determined that there is no evidence to prove that before the first instance debate ended, the construction project in the case had obtained a construction project planning license, that is, the leased property stipulated in the "House Lease Contract" has neither been built nor legal construction procedures were obtained. In this case, the "House Lease Contract" should be determined to be invalid, and the first instance judgment is not improper in determining this, and Intime Company's appeal on this point is not valid.
Regarding focus 2, the question of whether the liquidated damages and termination compensation should be paid for delayed house delivery. After the "House Lease Contract" is determined to be invalid, it will no longer involve the issue of breach of contract and termination. The relevant clauses regarding the liquidated damages and termination compensation for delayed delivery of the house are no longer applicable. Therefore, the lawsuit request of Intime Company for MCC should pay the liquidated damages and termination compensation for delayed delivery of the house cannot be established. The first-instance judgment is not improper in this determination, and Intime Company's reasons for appeal on this point are not valid.
Regarding focus 3, if the "House Lease Contract" is determined to be invalid, whether MCC should compensate Intime Company for losses and how to determine the amount of losses. Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "after a contract is invalid or revoked, the property obtained from the contract shall be returned; if it cannot be returned or there is no need to return it, compensation shall be made at a discount. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered by the other party. If both parties are at fault, they shall bear corresponding responsibilities." In this case, according to Article 2.3 and Article 11.11 of the "House Lease Contract", MCC guarantees and promises to "leas a house" For legal construction, it has the approval procedures stipulated by Chinese laws, "has the legal development rights within the scope of the rental house". The "House Lease Contract" is now deemed invalid due to the failure to obtain a construction project planning license. This is because MCC has not fulfilled the above guarantees and commitments. Therefore, MCC is responsible for all the faults in the contract and should compensate Intime for the losses suffered by it. MCC's claim that it is not at fault and Intime is at fault cannot be established. MCC said that the failure to obtain a construction project planning license was due to government actions and was a force majeure. However, according to Article 18.1 of the Housing Lease Contract, the two parties did not agree to the government actions as force majeure, and according to Article 18.2, after force majeure occurs, MCC must immediately issue a notice to Intime and provide relevant proof, but MCC did not submit relevant evidence that it had issued a notice and proof to Intime for the government actions. Therefore, MCC’s claim on force majeure is not valid.
Regarding the amount of compensation, the "loss suffered by the other party" referred to in Article 58 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China should be limited to trust interests and do not include the benefits that can be obtained through performance under the validity of the contract. The evaluation report submitted by Intime Company is an evaluation of the benefits it can obtain through performance under the validity of the contract and cannot be used as the basis for determining the amount of compensation for losses after the contract is invalid. Therefore, Intime Company's claim that the amount of compensation should be determined based on the evaluation report is not valid. On the other hand, because Intime Company has paid MCC a performance deposit of RMB 5 million, during the period when MCC possessed this RMB 5 million, Intime Company suffered financial losses, so MCC should compensate for the losses of this part of the funds. The first-instance judgment refers to the relevant provisions of private lending, and the base is calculated based on RMB 5 million, and the period in which MCC owns the RMB 5 million is calculated as the calculation period, and the amount of loss compensation is calculated based on the 24% annual interest rate. MCC’s appeal on this point cannot be established. Regarding attorney fees and appraisal fees, although Article 11.8 of the "House Lease Contract" has an agreement on its burden, the clause no longer applies if the "House Lease Contract" is determined to be invalid, so it is not improper for the first instance judgment to fail to support the two expenses. Regarding litigation costs, according to Article 29 of the "Measures for Payment of Litigation Costs", "the litigation costs shall be borne by the loser, except when the winning party voluntarily bears them.If some wins the case or partially loses the case, the people's court shall decide the amount of litigation expenses borne by the parties according to the specific circumstances of the case..." In the case where Intime Company's litigation request has not been fully supported, its claim that all litigation expenses are borne by MCC is not established.
To sum up, both Intime Company and MCC appeal requests cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment determines the facts clearly and the application of the law is correct, and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
Dismiss the appeal and upholds the original judgment.
The second-instance case acceptance fee is 880,380.55 yuan, which will be borne by Baotou MCC Real Estate Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Yintai Investment Co., Ltd. will be borne by 844,885.76 yuan.
This judgment is the final judgment.
Editor: Guobin Photo provided by: Diao Diao Review: Sun Pengjun
